The Adventures of QueerPenguin

:-)

OH. MY. GOD!!!

I've never been happpier in my life to be wrong about something as I am tonight.

John: See ya 'round mate. It hasn't been fun.

Kev: Please don't fuck it up.

:-) :-) :-)

Labels: 2007 federal election, Labor, Liberal Party

posted by Sam @ Sunday, November 25, 2007 8 comments

Oh crap

I have to shave my head. The Australian - The Australian - has given a Vote Rudd editorial.

In fact, Uncle Rupert seems to be having a bob each way - Vote Rudd in the Oz, Terror and Courier Mail (that one I understand, supporting the local lads); Vote Howard in the Herald-Scum and 'Tiser (can't find what he's saying down in Tassie).

Over at Fairfax, The Age's cock is surprisingly soft while the Smuh's pro-Rudd is probably the editorial with which I find myself in closest agreement. Apparently FIN is pro-Howard, which I guess is no huge surprise.

Hard to suss out Rup's agenda here other than covering all his bases. I honestly believed all his rags would sing from the same book as they did in 2004.

Almost as confusing are these bloody opinion polls - 14 point lead to Labor in Nielsen, but only a four point lead according to Galaxy. I guess both are within a 2.5% margin of error, i.e. the average of both would be 54.5/45.5 on 2PP, which has been roughly the overall median since Rudd took over. On the plus side, Nielsen's sample is twice as big as Galaxy's - but on the down side, Galaxy was the closest poll at the last election when it put the Coalition at 52/48.

Look, for certain career issues that I can't really go into on a public blog I can't shave my head just at this very moment. But I will. I'm a girl of my word.

Fingers and toes we're cracking out the Queen Adelaide and footy franks tomorrow night!

Labels: 2007 federal election, election editorials, opinion polls

posted by Sam @ Friday, November 23, 2007 6 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: The finale

Over my nearly three years of blogging, and several more years' involvement in all things teh gay, critics from both sides have questioned my 'preoccupation' with same-sex couple rights and empowerment of the queer (insert gender ambiguous noun here) generally. A couple of Trots I know reckon I'm too caught up with relationship rights/recognition on account of my middle-class upbringing, and that far too many single queers have greater issues at hand - isolation, drug addition, physical and psychological abuse etc - than worrying about who they can or cannot nominate as their private sector super beneficiary. Folk on the right try less successfully to use a similar argument as apology for John Howard having done next to fuck-all for queers in his 11+ years of power.


But all I really want is a government that recognises and acts on the hardships both queers and queer couples face every day. I genuinely believe the Howard government has failed, repeatedly, to do so. Such hardships are independent of class and wealth status, and should be redressed by a government in a secular nation that has long decriminalised homosexuality and claims not to support unjustified discrimination.


At a federal level, Labor have been disappointing on this issue. They are committed to action on HREOC's 'Same Sex: Same Entitlements' report but this was reactive rather than proactive. They caved too easily to the gay marriage wedge in 2004 and they're still too influenced by rabid homophobes from the catholic right union(s) like Joe de Bruyn or SA No 1 Senate candidate Don Farrell. Kevin Rudd has not spoken out often enough against the Howard government's many failures in this area for fear of frightening the horses and I really wish Penny Wong would lead by a more inspiring, empowering example.


The Howard government has failed on teh gay. Labor deserves a fighting chance.

Labels: 2007 federal election, climate change, GLBTI, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3 comments

In which QP diverts from the 10 reasons to offer an election prediction...

...And believe me, it makes me as sad to type it as it does (most of) you to read it:

The Coalition will just win this election.

This prediction flies in the face of very wise men who know far more about psephology than I ever will. It's possible I'm making this prediction as a subconscious defence mechanism, just to brace myself for the absolute worst conceivable outcome even in the face of such broad confidence that November 24 will be Howard's last day as PM. Just remember, we didn't brace ourselves for the worst in 2004 other than a resolving ourselves to a Howard victory - then the bastards got the Senate.

The consolation I offer is that I believe a Labor/Green Senate majority is conceivable (and no more Fundies First will sprout up), so at least some stoppers will be put on the extreme Howard agenda. But come November 25 I think at best it will still be too soon to know who's won, and at worst we'll know for sure that Kevin Rudd is still Opposition Leader.

I'm basing this on a state-by-state, seat-by-seat analysis, rather than assuming that the big swing Labor will no doubt achieve necessarily equates to winning a raft of marginals. I think quite a few very safe Liberal seats will become merely safe, a few safe Liberal seats will become marginal and some marginal Labor seats will become safe - but I keep crunching the numbers in my head based on an aggregate of all reports, and I just cannot come up with 16 seats for Labor to win.

New South Wales
1. Eden-Monaro
2. Dobell
3. Lindsday
4. Macquarie

The Libs will narrowly hold onto Bennelong, Wentworth, Page, Robertson and Paterson. Net gain of 4 to Labor.

Victoria
Status quo - neither Labor nor the Libs will gain or lose their existing seats.

Queensland
5. Bonner
6. Moreton
7. Blair

Libs to narrowly hold Herbert and Longman. Net gain of 3 to Labor.

South Australia
8. Wakefield
9. Kingston
10. Makin

God love my home state - this is the safest horse to bet on for a strong anti-Howard vote. Labor will come close but not quite nab Sturt and Boothby.

Tasmania
11. Bass
12. Braddon

Nice realignment of the uniform Labor state here.

Northern Territory
13. Solomon

Western Australia, the most Howard-loving state of all, is where things get tricky. The Libs have based their electoral strategy on holding on to their marginals and winning a Labor seat or two here, and I have no reason to believe this won't happen.

Western Australia
14. Hasluck, BUT:
- 13. Loss of Cowan. No net gain to Labor. (Come on - the Libs have to win at least one seat this election.)

Net gain to Labor: 13 seats. Final result: Lib/ALP/Independents 75/73/2. Objectively, still a very good performance from Labor, who will comfortably win the popular 2PP vote, but just not quite good enough.

Believe me - I've never wanted to be wrong about anything more than I want to be about this.

Labels: 2007 federal election, election prediction

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 4

4. Iraq + US/International relations From the beginning Labor consistently opposed Australia's automatic kowtowing to the US' disastrous invasion of Iraq based on fraudulent premises. They argued, correctly, that there were still further diplomatic options to consider and that UN directives should not be pissed aside simply because what they did not suit the US warmongering agenda.

Mark Latham was/is a lot of things, but he hit the nail on the head when he identified George W Bush as 'the most dangerous and incompetent US president in living memory'. History has since shown this to be more than true. Unfortunately, due to our PM's sycophantic urge to be besties with the idiot, the rest of us had to suffer along, falsely tarred with the same brush that we were all eager to be the No. 1 ally of a government whose corruption, arrogance and utter contempt for democracy puts even our own in the shade.

Whatever happens, this time next year the world will finally be rid of the cancerous Bush, and hopefully the US citizens will come to their senses and elect a government committed to gradual withdrawal from Iraq. It is much more credible for Australia to have a government and PM that can similarly commit to this goal without having to first perform a massive about-face on its established foreign policy.

Howard would only be an uncomfortable, shadowy reminder of the Bush legacy and I imagine reluctant to work professionally and effectively with the likely Clinton Democrat administration. The Australian and US conservatives have had nearly eight years of combined government, and look where they've got us; it's time to give a more progressive combined alliance the opportunity to undo at least some of the damage.

3. ABC Conservatives have longed argued that public broadcasting is an anachronistic waste of public expenditure. No doubt, many in the Howard government think as much even if they're unable to say so publicly. But this government's relentless attack on the institution over the last 11 years is fueled not just by this ideology, but by the hatred it harbours for any outlet that dare seriously question, examine and/or expose its operation and agenda.

In an era where commercial television grows increasingly stupider, more crass and more offensive - hello, The Farmer Wants a Wife - the role of a television station providing quality Australian programming is now crucial. Think what Aunty has given us over the years: Four Corners, 7.30 Report, Play School, Mother and Son, GP, The Chaser/CNNNN, D-Generation, The Late Show, Kath and Kim, Enough Rope, We Can Be Heroes, Summer Heights High, Frontline, Seachange, Rainshadow, Good News Week (the early years, obviously), Spicks 'n' Specks, The Librarians ... Not to mention all the various mini-series too. It's not in the commercial interests of Seven, Nine or Ten to churn out locally made news, current affairs, comedy and drama - buying overseas products is so much cheaper - so this vital role falls on the shoulders of the ABC, and even parched for funds as they are, it does so admirably.

Even some conservatives themselves recognise the vital role of the ABC, particularly with regard to regional radio services. Other conservatives have confused the ABC's scrutiny of any government of the day and trying to hold it to account with a specific, biased attack against the Howard government. Not so.

Of course the ABC has a good friend in the Labor Party - the former's ex-journos running as candidates for the latter is testament to this. But the ABC needs a friend in government now more than ever before. It will still hold the Rudd administration accountable and no doubt piss off Labor and its senior members, just as it did under Hawke and Keating, but that is only an indication that it's doing its job properly.

More importantly, its board won't be further stacked with right-wing culture warriors intent on its gradual decimation. It will be provided with a budget (or close to) that it genuinely deserves and needs, and the pressure of 'editorial balance' - a brilliant euphemism for 'Howard government propaganda' - will be lessened. The ABC will continue to lead innovation in digital technology - anybody else excited by the thought of an ABC 3, 4, etc? And the ABC will have greater liberty to produce programming that deserves international attention and kudos, so that as commercial stations sink further into the gutter, Aunty can once again hold her head high, as she did before she was so shamelessly violated.

Almost there! I'm pooped. Woine toime now.

Labels: 2007 federal election, ABC, George W Bush, Iraq, Labor, Liberal Party, US

posted by Sam @ Sunday, November 18, 2007 1 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 3

They just keep coming and coming ...

6. Reconciliation Like his alleged environmental road to Demascus (more on that later), I don't buy John Howard's claim to have discovered the value of symbolic politics as part of the reconciliation process. I strongly believe his pledge to stick around for a referendum on recognising indigenous people in the Constitution preamble is just that - an opportunity for him to stick around and delay for as long as possible the handover to Costello that party chieftains have forced him to publicly commit to.

Labor has always been consistent in committing to a formal apology for past wrong-doings. Of course, this won't solve all the many problems in one statement, but it will be a positive starting point. Whether it will be a genuine 'sorry' or a John Howard sorry remains to be seen but the expression of goodwill and desire to work together, which has been lacking for the last 11 years and especially in the last 12 months with cowboy Mal Brough and his over-inflated sense of deluded self-importance that he's single-handedly saving the poor darkies from themselves, is vital.

Labor dropped the ball playing me-too on Howard's intervention media stunt earlier this year, but hopefully when they're in a position to be dictating rather than reacting to indigenous policy they won't be placed in this situation again. At an international level Australia's record on indigenous rights and living conditions is appalling - both parties have failed. I don't know if a Rudd government will do things any better than a Howard government but I believe the time is right to try something different, something other than a government that only determines its policies according to what is expedient for the PM of the time after years of putting it in the too-hard basket.

5. Education The Howard government has shown itself time and time again to be an enemy of intellectual thought and discourse. Every Higher Ed minister from Vanstone to Nelson to Bishop has been so obsessed with finding the reds under the bed at our tertiary institutions that they've forgotten the value of proper investment in the thinking industry.

It's not necessarily wrong that the Libs have prioritised developing trade schools - the country is experiencing an unprecedented skills shortage after all. But it's bitterly disappointing that over the last 11 years the Libs have so effectively devalued the inherent value of thought and education, that rather than being a nation of ideas we're a nation of trade jobs and corresponding degree factories.

Students' higher ed debts - which, yes, were started by a Labor government - have risen ridiculously exponentially. On a personal level, I don't see myself free from uni debt until my mid-late 30s - and such a burden only encourages further personal debt. When you graduate with 20k looming over your head, it's not such a big leap to think, 'what the hell, I'm already debted up to my eyeballs anyway, what's another 5-10k in credit cards gonna hurt?' Fee increases all implemented, by the way, by ministers who had the luxury of free degrees themselves. Thanks for that.

VSU has irreparably damaged student life and culture on campus. A one-size-fits-all user pays system sounds nice in principle but by definition renders sensitive student services, such as on-campus GLBTI support groups of which I used to be an active participant, 'unnecessary' because 'users' may be too nervous to pay up-front.

Again, I don't imagine Labor will reintroduce compulsory student fees or significantly lower higher ed debts (at best they'll plateau). But getting past the 'Education Revolution' cliche, the guts of their education policy thus far is sound. In particular:

When it comes to our Universities, the Leader Kevin Rudd, in the course of his address to Conference, referred to the lack of investment which the Howard Government has made, not discharging its central obligation as the Commonwealth to our public Universities. We must make that educational investment. It’s absolutely essential for our future prosperity, our competitiveness and our capacity to be a thoughtful nation.

Contrary to the Libs' charge, it is in fact they who are the fiercest ideologues in their education policies. Consider for example what is airbrushed out of existence in John Howard's history curriculum. We need a government that genuinely values education for its own sake, not just as a tool of economic growth, encourages independent thought and is not obsessed with re-writing history to suit its own agenda.

If you get caught between number 4 and number 3, the best that you can do ... yes, the best that you can do ... is read my next post.

Labels: 2007 federal election, education, John Howard, Labor, Liberal Party, reconciliation

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election: Part 2

Previously, on QueerPenguin ...

8. WorkChoices/Work+life balance Even though this will probably be the issue that decides this election one way or another, the reason it's lower down on my list is that even though I was put onto an AWA after WorkChoices was rammed through, changes to my overall working and pay conditions were minimal - same shit, different contract to sign.

But I think at issue here is a fundamental difference in perspective between Labor and the Coalition regarding work generally. On the whole, Australians work very hard. We're renowned internationally for our hard work ethic and long hours. It's great that as a nation we're channelling so much productivity, but WorkChoices takes that enthusiasm too far, to the point of exploitation. Its overarching goals are firstly to lower the minimum wage in Australia so that we have an edge in the international labour force, and secondly to render unions completely redundant - John Howard's raison d'etre for his 33-year political career.

Of course, while we're cruising along the nice freeway of labour shortages and an upward wage-driving resources boom, plenty of individuals will be happy to negotiate themselves a cushy AWA - but I don't see this as sustainable in the long term, especially when the bough finally breaks. Service industries like nursing, teaching etc still rely on good collective bargaining for their basic work conditions and entitlements. Yes, union membership only accounts for around 20% of the overall work force, far less than under the Hawke glory days for the unions, but this doesn't mean they still don't have a place. Think of the key negotiating role both the ACTU and Unions NSW played in reaching a compensation agreement for victims in the James Hardie asbestos case. Under an unfettered Liberal government, unions would be neutered in this situation.

I don't say this as a particularly big fan of unions - I was a reluctant member of the SDA, the most right-wing, homophobic union in Australia, and saw absolute power corrupting absolutely an organisation that certainly wasn't representative of me or my interests. Likewise, I have first-hand experience of how quickly public sector unions abandon their members when it's politically expedient to do so. But just because unions don't always operate in practice as well as they should in principle does not mean they should be completely decimated.

I don't buy the Liberal scare campaign that the big evil union bosses will be in charge again under a Labor government - it's obvious Kevin Rudd has very few senior union friends - so I want to give them an opportunity to reprioritise, ideally to show that working long, hard hours to earn thousands of dollars to buy McMansions, gas-guzzling SUVs and plasma TVs and/or donate to Hillsong should not be the only goal to which all Australians should aspire.

This is the one election where voters actually have an opportunity to do what they should have been allowed to do last time - vote for or against WorkChoices. It only became a reality when the Coalition gained Senate control and the legislation was rammed through without any legitimate mandate. I firmly believe the hard economic warriors of the Liberal Party - Costello, Minchin etc - wish to take WorkChoices to its furthest possible extreme, and unlike this election people should be able to bear this in mind when they cast their vote. We were duped last time, but if we vote to keep the Howard/Costello government and its Senate majority in tact, we will only have ourselves to blame when WorkChoices is progressed to its natural extremity(ies).

7. Referenda on Republic and fixed elections This one is pretty self-explanatory. Both are exercises in democracy to which Howard is vehemently opposed. I believe the majority of people want both and should be allowed an opportunity to vote accordingly. Rudd is committed to both. Both will strengthen Australia's democracy, enhance our independence on the global stage and, perhaps most importantly, remove the pain of waiting for the PM in charge to capriciously determine when we go to vote according to the most favourable opinion poll. We now have fixed dates in most states and it's time for the Commonwealth (which hopefully won't be called the 'Commonwealth' much longer) to catch up.

The 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' argument against Australia severing ties with the monarchy is rubbish. The Australian Head of State should be Australian and should not be representing a redundant queen. I'll always have a soft spot for Lizzie #2 but I think Australia is all growed up now, that we can move out of her home and no longer be beholden to her in any way. The 1999 Republic referendum, which denied Australians the opportunity to express their genuine desires, highlighted that the majority of us did indeed wish to become a republic - we were just split on how to get there. I have major reservations about a directly-elected presidential model but I'd still much prefer this to the current alternative.

A lot of people are of the opinion that both these issues are just two of those things that will naturally sort themselves out - but don't seem to understand this won't happen until Howard is removed. Now's the time.

Coming up next on QP: 6 confronts 5, and sparks fly.

Labels: 2007 federal election, fixed terms, Labor, Liberal Party, Republic, unions, WorkChoices

posted by Sam @ Monday, November 12, 2007 1 comments

10 reasons why I'm preferencing Labor at this election

The number one cliche best remembered for the 2007 Australian Federal Election will surely be 'me-too'. Kevin Rudd's strongest critics argue he shouldn't win because he's only ever parroting government policy - therefore, why not vote for the genuine article? In fact, I'll bet dollars for donuts this will be the line in the Oz's Vote Howard editorial on Saturday morning, 24 November.

(PS: My challenge still stands, that I will shave my head if the Oz or any Murdoch rag gives a Vote Rudd editorial on the day, even though they're still hilariously claiming they 'haven't made up their mind yet'.)

There's no doubt Rudd has gone for a safer, small target election campaign than his predecessor - after all, it makes little sense to present a vastly different alternative to someone who is undeniably a popular PM, even after 11 long years. And maybe the policies between Labor and Liberal are so closely mirrored because Rudd is in fact just another Howard - a ruthlessly ambitious, socially conservative populist with few genuine friends in the party - and apart from industrial relations, Labor is essentially a right-wing, as opposed to a far right-wing party.

But for me, there are 10 issues where I see clear delineation between Labor and Liberal, and based on these I will be preferencing the former ahead of the latter*. I will order them from 10 to 1, Bert Newton style, over the next week and a bit.

10. The Rancid Religious Right There is no doubt the RRR has a friend in John Howard. Both the rise of Fundies First and failure of Exclusive Brethren to be shut down can both be atrributed to him and his courting of 'Christian' extremists rather than condemning them.

I'm by no means anti-religion or anti-Christian - I know there are many millions of good folk doing great work across the world all in the name of Christ, Budda, Allah, whoever. And good luck to them. But I do believe in secular nations and constitutional separation of church and state, and I don't believe biblical passages have any place in the legislature. After all, if they did my partner and I would probably be dead by now - so consider my position self-preserving, if you wish.

This is why I find Fundies First particularly threatening - they're smart enough to conceal their Bible-thumping agenda behind a fallacy of 'secular family values'. They've noted from Fred Nile's Christian Democrats that an overtly Christian-based political party will only garner so many votes, so they need to market differently to lure more innocent prey into their trap.

Labor made their mistake arranging a Senate preference deal that got Steve Fielding a job, but they appear to have learnt their lesson, judging by this year's deal in which the Greens are rightly preferenced ahead of FF in all states. The Libs, however, continue to spoon with FF, meet with and receive funding from the EB (which Rudd did rightly identify as an 'extremist cult', so there's a clear point of difference) while hypocritically gaining mileage condemning the 'troublesome' Islamic element.

I know Rudd feels the JC love big-time too, but I believe a key point of difference is that not as many of his senior ministers/allies will be thumpers as Howard's (Abbott, Andrews, Heffernan etc). Plus Rudd has previously outlined his belief in church/state separation, so I'm prepared to give him a shot that as PM he will practice what he preaches, and keep his personal religious beliefs just that - personal.

Bear in mind too, that Godfather David Clarke's chief flying monkey, Alex Hawke, is about to begin his no doubt long and illustrious career with the federal Liberal Party - and we know how dangerous both these men are.

9. Tony Abbott, Alexander Downer, Christopher Pyne, Kevin Andrews, Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz will not be ministers under a Labor government. 'Nuff said.

Coming up next: 8 and 7! Don't miss it.

(*Quite honestly, I haven't yet decided who's getting my No 1 vote. There are 11 candidates in Wentworth and I know my No 1 won't go to the Fundies First, CEC, Christian Democrats, Labor or Liberal candidates, but that still leaves me with 6 to order.)

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First, Labor, Liberal Party, rancid religious right

posted by Sam @ Friday, November 09, 2007 2 comments

Gay Bashers First

It occurs to me some might perceive my fury at Fundies First's continued obsessive stalking of teh gay as somewhat hypocritical. How can I get mad at a bunch of gay-bashers attempting to out a Lib politician, when I have form on outing myself?

I'll do a Kevin Rudd here and answer my own question: 'Fair enough point...but there's no real comparison in this particular case.' And here's why:

1. Ben Jacobsen clearly believes being gay or lesbian is a bad thing, and that a local member being such will negatively impact on their job representing their constituents. I don't. What I think is bad is when a queer pollie gets into a position of power and possible influence, and rather than lead by positive example of being out and proud (Brian Grieg, or Bob Brown on a good day), they are at best ambivalent (Penny Wong) or worst closeted (you know who) about their sexuality.

2. Jacobsen is only articulating the overall Fundies First philosophy. They don't attract candidates like this man - or supporters who seek to burn lesbians at the stake - by accident. Similarly, they don't preference all but two Liberal candidates - one openly lesbian, the other one of the party's most vocal GLBTI supporters - by accident either, as they did at the last election.

So Steve Fielding's statement that he has 'spoken to the candidate and told him that his comments were inappropriate and offensive' rings very hollow. He and his party may claim that a person's sexuality is a private thing that has no bearing on how they will deal with them, but their past acts clearly suggest otherwise.

3. Fundies First want it both ways. They go out of their way to keep teh gay down and denied equal rights in our relationships, parenting and access to the public purse, but as Jacobsen demonstrates it's not even enough for them for us all to stay quiet in the closet - we must make a public declaration too, presumably for ease of identifying targets for further persecution. Perhaps they'd like us to go around wearing pink triangles on our biceps? That worked so brilliantly the last time, after all.

4. If Charlie McKillop is a lesbian (and I don't mean to insinuate one way or the other), I sincerely hope that, if she chooses to stay in the closet, she will at least do justice to the man she is replacing in Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, by carrying on his tremendous work lobbying his party internally to act on their own alleged opposition to unjustifiable discrimination. After all, the seat takes in Cairns and its surroundings which I understand contains quite a bit of teh gay, so if nothing else it's smart and effective grass roots representation.

But given what's happened, I think it would be hypocritical of McKillop to accept any preferences from Fundies First, though I guess such a decision would be out of her hands anyway. Remember, even though Jacobsen has 'apologised' for his statement, he has still 'refused to say if it was still his personal view that all candidates should declare their sexuality' - i.e. his views, and no doubt those of many Fundies First candidates, remain the same, no matter how much the party leader tries to spin them.

Every statement like this is helpful in the sense that it scratches away Fundies First's thin veneer of pleasant secularity - they're neither - and given Labor is on track to screw them out of a preference deal and thereby not accidentally hand them a senate spot, as they did in 2004, hopefully after this election Fielding will remain the only Fundie First in federal politics we have to endure.

But on the flip side, statements like this remind you of the horror inherent in the possibility that, even if we finally get Howard out, Fundies First could control the Senate. And at that point, it wouldn't matter if Howard, Rudd or Patti Newton were PM - we'd be fucked.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First, GLBTI

posted by Sam @ Friday, November 02, 2007 1 comments

It's gonna be a lonnnng week...

Two doozy news bytes waiting for me at work this morning. First up, the misadventures of this particular Fundies First candidate and his wacky genitalia. It's not quite on par with 'burning lesbians at the stake' but it is kinda funny - especially his defence: 'I might have been drunk off my face or my political enemies might have drugged me.' Riiiiight.

Further: 'But that's not my penis ... Look, maybe somebody photoshopped it, and put another one on the photo ... I can tell you, it's not me. I know these things. But really, I can't remember … All I know, I have been humiliated.'

Bit all over the shop, isn't he? Makes you think he's making up his defence as he goes along. Still, it's a good laff and it's a blow against Fundies First, which can never be a bad thing.

Then things get a bit more serious, as we read about the delightful Pastor Curtis, Liberal candidate for Lalor.

"As a Christian, I do not agree with the idea of homosexuality. That's the reality. I can't put it any other way," Mr Curtis told The Sunday Age yesterday.
"I certainly could never change my views that homosexuality is a perversion, because it is a perversion."

Oh - but don't fret kids, it's not like he's a gay-bashing extremist or anything:

"I'd offer myself as a genuine grassroots candidate who would be delighted to represent them and who would have no favouritism or negative approach to any individual based on their lifestyle. I would love to represent them, I would love to represent anybody."

Phew! That's OK then. For a moment I thought you might be a right-wing homophobic preacher positing a scientifically, medically and psychologically disproved theory about 'perversion'. You sure put my mind at ease.

The reason why I'm taking this seriously is that this is not some extremist from One Nation or Fundies First - this is a Liberal candidate for the John Howard government. Granted, he's running for a safe Labor seat he has little chance of winning, but he has influence within the party, having been vice-president of the party's Werribee branch since 2001, delegate to state council since 2002 and a member of its policy assembly committee since 2004.

Personally, I find the thought of a government being filled with men like this a mite scarier than one filled with ex union hacks. Of course, the Libs could do the right thing and disendorse this man straight away - but I'm guessing they won't. There are simply too many people in the party - including elder statesmen like Abbott and Andrews - who agree with Curtis' views.

I can already hear J-Ho's soothing tones: 'Look, I don't personally agree with the pastor's views, I don't, but I wouldn't want to infringe on his right to express them ...' something along those lines.

Julia Gillard is the member for Lalor. I'll greatly look forward to the press release she issues condemning her opponent's views as having no place in a progressive, secular nation and demanding the Liberal Party disendorse him immediately.

Hrm - I'm gonna be waiting a while, aren't I?

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First, Liberal Party

posted by Sam @ Monday, October 29, 2007 3 comments

Worm pun-free zone

Was fun watching Krudd kick J-Ho's tired arse all over the Great Hall at last night's Mass Debate. Krudd's cool, unruffled demeanour shat J-Ho to tears, who by comparison was unnecessarily crusty, flailing his fisted arms about (hitting his mike several times, gold) and often speaking over his allocated time. Way to stick to the rules you yourself set, J-Ho.

The moderator was pretty wet but most of the journos asked decent questions - Paul Kelly actually challenged J-Ho on an answer he gave. Crazy stuff!

Krudd finally addressed the biggest elephants in the Labor room - high interest rates under Hawke/Keating and union affiliation - by pointing out J-Ho's 22% interest rate goodness while he was Treasurer under Fraser. Apparently Latham and Beazley always refused to bring this up because invariably it would also bring up memories of the Hawke/Keating legacy, which both were keen to avoid like the plague. Krudd called it, talked of mistakes of the past on both sides and looking onwards and upwards instead. Nicely played. He also romanticised the union movement with reference to their involvement in James Hardie asbestos compensation.

J-Ho's bovver boys, Costello and Downer, were in the audience and reprimanded for heckling, typifying the standard to which they've dragged down public debate in this country.

J-Ho hates Krudd with a fiery passion, and no doubt the feeling's mutual, but the difference is Krudd doesn't let it show. J-Ho resents that finally there is a Labor opposition leader who can get the better of him. He hates having his authoritah genuinely undermined and looked correspondingly rattled for most of the night. After years of mastering his otherwise woeful TV performance, it was like watching him in '96 again debating Keating.

Of course, the Mass Debate counts for very little where it matters. Howard frequently loses them, often by big margins, but goes on to win elections. Still, this was a key moment of truth for Rudd and he set the bar high for the remaining election campaign. This may not have won him many votes, but it certainly wouldn't have lost him any either.

The worm conspiracy is a bit of a laff. I'd say 'so much for democracy' is a tad hyperbolic, cheers Ray, since 9 was under strict instruction not to use it. Plus it's such a useless gimmick anyway - the figure showing 65% of the studio audience saying Rudd won in favour against Howard's 29% is what matters.

Still, says a lot about Howard's paranoia around public response to his debating that he's so terrified about the worm's use, donut?

Overall, a tiny, tiny glimmer of hope for us most.

Labels: 2007 federal election, Great Debate '07, John Howard, Kevin Rudd

posted by Sam @ Monday, October 22, 2007 3 comments

So, who do you trust to keep interest rates low, huh? Huh?

It's hard not to be cynical and join some dots that shouldn't be joined: Rise in support for J-Ho and Libs around the same time they announce their $34 billion tax cuts.

That is, some undecided voters may be swayed when he offers them a big juicy tax cut.

The. Fuck? I don't pretend to be an economist - I struggled with it in Yr 12 - but even I know the most basic of equations: Tax cuts = greater spending = increased upwards pressure on inflation = increased upwards pressure on interest rates.

Are some voters genuinely so dim that they're prepared to be bribed at election time by a cynical vote-grab, scratch their heads when interest rates rise, say, five times after the bribers to whom they give their vote win the election, then forget about that long enough to vote for them the next time round?

Never mind the necessary slashing of department, service and infrastructure funding required to fund the bribe - that can start six months after the election, when voters' apparently eccy-fucked short-term memories fail to remember their part in helping it happen.

I don't know what will happen to interest rates under a Labor government. I do know that unlike Howard, they have not claimed to be single-handedly responsible for interest rate movements.

And I know that I would never trust a government that determines its tax policy solely according to what will maximise their votes at election time. How in godbuddallah's name does this government bask in the misperception that they are great economic managers, when they spend like the drunken proverbial at election time for which the voters suffer in the three years following through higher interest rates and reduced services?

I guess this could be put down to that 'inevitable' narrowing in opinion polls during the election campaign you hear about. But if Labor do not effectively get across the message that what the government's doing right now is by definition grossly irresponsible - and will lead to long-term pain - they'll probably lose yet another election. Whoopee shit.

Labels: 2007 federal election, policy

posted by Sam @ Friday, October 19, 2007 8 comments

Fundies First love Teh Gay after all!

Judging by their plan of attack in Sturt, FF must've reversed their policy of never preferencing dykes, fags and fag-enablers.

Maybe there's hope for us in the Fundies First Senate-controlled, post-election universe after all.

(Or maybe someone needs to have a very, very quiet word in their ear.)

Labels: 2007 federal election, Fundies First

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1 comments

And they're off...

Finally. Gonna be a doozy of a six-week campaign.

John Howard's already kick-started his stand-up comedy routine, claiming to know nuzzzink about the Coalition dirt unit.

'I want to make it very clear ... there will be no attacks of people's private lives from me or from the Government.'

Boom-tish. He's here all night folks.

I'll post in greater substance over the next few days and weeks, but for now I offer my final reminder about enrolling to vote:

If you are not on the electoral roll and you are an Australian citizen 18 years of age and over, you must complete an enrolment form and return it to the AEC by 8pm Wednesday 17 October 2007.

If you are already on the roll but need to update your address details, you must do this by 8pm Tuesday 23 October 2007.

Got that? Sweet.

Just a general first thought: Enthusiasm to see Howard gone, no matter how powerful, does not alone equate to the event occurring. Unfortunately, elections are not determined by willpower; they're determined by swinging voters in marginal seats with little allegiance or political conscience beyond their hip-pocket.

This election will only be won by Labor if enough of those voters in enough of those seats are sufficiently angry about their interests having risen 5 times since Uncle John promised to keep them low, to take a chance with an unknown quantity as punishment.

Likewise, enough of the same Howard Battlers need to switch, if not because of interest rates, because their job security has been undermined by SerfChoices.

I think there are a lot of people in this situation, but I'm not sure there are enough to equate to depriving the Coalition of 16 net seats. Sure hope I'm wrong though.

Labels: 2007 federal election

posted by Sam @ Monday, October 15, 2007 2 comments

Yays! and Boo-hiss-boos for Krudd

The Yay!: Krudd's money meets his mouth to promise a referendum on fixed, four-year parliamentary terms. And about frickin' time. It is a joke that the election can be called at the whim of a PM - particularly one like this sweetheart, who'll stall as long as electorally possible in the pathetic hope he can still conjur up some last-minute dirt to fling.

Why do we think J-Ho's not putting us all out of our misery by just calling the damn thing? Because his good mate Dennis ShamIam is telling him not to. Personally, I reckon election dates should be determined by we great unwashed voters, not some party hack posing as a journalist.

Four years is a logical term of office. Less elections mean cost savings to the taxpayer and provide elected governments a proper period of time in which to implement its agenda. Fixed dates provide electoral certainty - particularly in these new uncertain times, thanks J-Ho - which in turn strengthens a democracy and its citizens' confidence therein.

The only real negative corollary to this I can see is senators getting eight-year gigs from half-elections. The concept of Barnaby Joyce and/or Steve Fielding wielding significant clout until 2013 is ... scary, to say the least.

Still, you'll never have an entirely perfect system, and this will at least be an improvement on the current one.

The Boo-hiss-boo: Finally, a glimmer of hope Krudd was going to provide us with a genuinely significant point of difference from the Libs: a plan to collaborate with other Asia-Pacific nations to lobby for the abolition of capital punishment - no ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

The fact is, what Robert McClelland highlighted is absolutely correct: The Howard government claims to oppose the death penalty but the opposition is equivocal, subject to what is or is not electorally popular. Krudd has completely caved on this, purely because of McClelland's so-called 'insensitive' timing - and once again shows himself as a little bit different to Howard, but not much, and not where it really matters.

You either support capital punishment or you don't. Similarly, you either respect the laws of other nations or you don't. Either option is fine, but you must be consistent. This government has not been - remember Shapelle Corby and Thomas McCoskar? - and all I saw McClelland doing was pleading for consistency. This was a perfect opportunity for Krudd to clearly distinguish himself and his party from J-Ho's, and he sank.

Don't forget, a lot of terrorists seek martyrdom; in their fucked-up brains, they believe it's helping their deluded cause being executed before the worldwide media after they themselves have executed civilians. Why give them what they want?

And if you're really enthusiastic about effective state punishment, what's better: Depriving a murderer of his life or of his remaining life's liberty, to be aware every day that he'll never be free again? I would've thought the latter would be more appealing to the salivating law-and-order shriekers.

At times like this, Krudd's strategies make me think Peter Hartcher is into something labelling him 'Kevohn Roward'. Still, if there's one thing more offensive than Krudd, it's the government's response to him. Here are some pearlers:

J-Ho: He should have been man enough to have accepted responsibility for it, instead of trying to blame somebody else.

Let's just skip past Tampa and AWB, yeah?

J-Ho: If you're the leader of a government and a party and something good happens, you get some of the credit for it. If something bad happens you've got to wear it.

Oh - except of course for interest rates. We'll take sole credit when they're low and blame every other conceivable external factor when they rise. That's cool, yeah?

J-Ho: In the end, I think when Mr Rudd talks about the blame game what he's really saying is it's never his fault, it's somebody else's.

I'm ... just lost for words really. Read Other Sam on this instead. I'm too gosh darn diddily, tootin-tiddly mad.

Labels: 2007 federal election, capital punishment, electoral reform, John Howard, Kevin Rudd

posted by Sam @ Thursday, October 11, 2007 3 comments

Hard Labor

Went along to a forum at ACON last night put on by the good folk at the GLRL. 'Twas about all things ALP. And Tanya was there...And Anthony was there...And Joe was there...And George was there...And Penny was there...Yeah, you get the drift.

I actually didn't mean to go with an SX hat on - was more as a private citizen directly affected by what they were talking about - but the following article formulated anyway. Hopefully it will get into SX next week, if not here 'tis:

For the purposes of this article, let’s optimistically assume the following: Labor wins this year’s federal election; Labor and the Greens form a Senate majority; and Labor implements its promises within its first term of office.

It was with such assumptions in mind that Labor recently outlined its GLBTI policy to a small but passionate assortment of believers and cynics alike, organised by the GLRL and featuring Labor candidates for inner Sydney seats as well as the party’s would-be Attorney General, Senator Joe Ludwig.

As all speakers went to great lengths to make clear, Labor is the better option than the Howard government where ending legislative discrimination against same-sex couples is concerned. Labor is committed not only to amending the 58 laws identified in HREOC’s ‘Same Sex: Same Entitlements’ report, but also an even more comprehensive audit of additional laws and departmental policies. Sydney MP Tanya Plibersek and Wentworth candidate George Newhouse articulated a thorough understanding of other key issues concerning GLBTI folk, including domestic violence and the rise of assaults on Oxford Street, with corresponding action plans.

So far, so good. It’s at the next step – formal recognition of same-sex couples – that things get tricky. Labor’s 2007 National Platform and Constitution states:

‘Labor will take action to ensure the development of nationally consistent, state-based relationship recognition legislation that will include the opportunity for couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have those relationships registered and certified. This legislation will: be based on the scheme that has existed in Tasmania since 2004 and that the Victorian government has announced its intention to introduce; (and) not create schemes that mimic marriage or undermine existing laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.’

Essentially, Labor is washing its hands of a federal civil union or partnership scheme. Spooked by the gay marriage boogyman, the party is instead offloading responsibility to the states to follow Tasmania’s and Victoria’s lead, establishing their own state-based registries in the hope that a uniform national law would be created through mirrored legislation in each state and territory. Senator Ludwig offered the example of uniform evidence laws, in which states have individually passed identical evidence acts to create a nationally consistent model. He argued that one advantage of this approach is bypassing the Commonwealth parliament, which could be convenient in the particularly horrific event that Family First wins the Senate balance of power.

However, Ludwig’s plan, though no doubt well-intentioned – and by all reports, he’ll be an approachable and informed federal Attorney General for our community to lobby and work with – also seems somewhat naïve. He spoke of a ‘journey’ in which all states can eventually be convinced of the value of registries and motivated to legislate accordingly. But with NSW’s Attorney General, John Hatzistergos, having already made unequivocally clear he does not support enacting Tasmania’s scheme here, it’s difficult to see what Ludwig will say or do to change his mind – or to see a clear timeframe in which this will occur. The bovver boys in NSW Labor Right comprise homophobes who would put John Howard’s Family Values warriors in the shade – and they never give up anything without a fight.

Is the solution, then, that all NSW same-sex couples wishing to be ‘registered’ move to Hobart or Melbourne? Waiting for state-based legislation creates a new layer of delay and potential resistance that could easily be avoided through a Commonwealth law. If NSW and other states – quite likely South Australia, for example – do not wish to enact registries, they have a reasonable defence of autonomy against any pressure exerted by their federal counterparts. To remain consistent, those of us appalled by the Howard government’s trampling of the ACT’s civil unions legislation could not reasonably expect a Rudd government to force intransigent state governments into action. Furthermore, there will eventually come a time where Labor does not have uniform state governments – and there’s little hope an O’Farrell Coalition government, for example, would be any less reluctant than the Iemma Labor government, particularly while ‘Godfather’ David Clarke is calling the shots.

The most frustrating aspect of Labor’s policy is the overriding sense of how it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… If implemented effectively, federal Labor’s plan would provide same-sex couples with all the same entitlements, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual de facto couples. Ludwig made clear he would not prevent same-sex couples from holding ceremonies in which they made their commitment public. He also specified that same-sex families would not be treated any differently, and that unlike the Coalition’s (barely touched) approach of creating a category of ‘interdependent’ couples, same-sex couples would clearly be considered de facto – that is, the sexual component of our relationships would not be airbrushed out of the legislature.

So why is Labor avoiding a federal civil union scheme in principle, when in practice its alternative is an unnecessarily complicated means to essentially the same end? Is this part of Kevin Rudd’s utopian vision of uniform state and federal Labor governments working together harmoniously, ‘ending the blame game’? Or is this consistent with Rudd and Labor’s general approach to be a little bit different from John Howard and the Coalition, but not so different as to frighten the horses – swinging voters in marginal seats – or indeed Rudd’s own socially conservative beliefs?

Whatever the reason, after 11 years the GLBTI community desperately needs a federal government that will deign to recognise our needs and concerns, and act accordingly. And as seems to be the common theme in this election, though I’m both disappointed and concerned by Labor’s policy, I know it literally could not be any worse than the current alternative.

Labels: 2007 federal election, GLBTI, Labor, queer law reform

posted by Sam @ Thursday, October 04, 2007 5 comments

Erection update

Ha! That 'accidental typo' caught your attention, didn't it? (coz 'r' is so close to 'l' ... hmmm ...)

And now that I have it, remember: Check your voting enrolment status. You can do it here, right now.

Looks like J-Ho's gonna drag out calling the election for as long as he possibly can, but taking him at his word (just for novelty), at the latest he should call it around early/mid-October for late November. This week should be the last in which parliament sits.

Don't let Howard screw you out of your right to express your democratic voice. The moment he calls it, if you're not properly enrolled you won't be voting. Don't let him win this election just by sheer cheating alone.

Labels: 2007 federal election

posted by Sam @ Thursday, September 20, 2007 5 comments

Turnbull must go

The Lib 'think tank' front organisations are again trotting out their token sisters to bat the naughty PM around with their Prada handbags for putting same-sex law reform in the too-hard basket.

In Tim Wilson's defence, he has actually managed to be quite critical of Howard for the most part, maintaining his continued argument that true conservatism should by definition facilitate genuine equality. It's just his apparent surprise that Howard has made the decision he has that angers me.

Sorry to all the Howard-voting queers who thought nice Uncle John might invite them to the grown-ups table if they played nicely with the other kids and behaved themselves, but the rest of us always knew he was going to fall this way - we had 11 years of inaction and apathy to go on. There is a reason why Howard's 'critics have always ... equated his conservatism with regressivism.' But unlike what Wilson might like to believe, we have not been 'wrong' to do so.

Anyways, onto how this relates to Malcolm Turnbull. Upcoming SX column below.

***************************************************************************
Last week, John Howard confirmed what many of us have suspected all along: He was lying – surprise! – when he claimed not to be in favour of unfair discrimination against same-sex couples.

Forget about marriage rights – Howard doesn’t think we should even receive de facto or interdependency rights. He’s told his party room the issue of equality for gay and lesbian couples is ‘complicated’ (which is bullshit, it’s not) and ceded to the demands of the Australian Christian Lobby and other right-wing ‘Christian’ lobby groups with whom he wishes to stay in bed spooning.

The reason why Howard’s man in Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, must go, is not because he feels the same way as his master – quite the opposite, Turnbull has been one of the Liberal Party’s strongest internal agitators for law reform and has an admirable history raising money for the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.

But it's clear Turnbull has failed.

This election, queer voters have an unprecedented opportunity to flex some electoral muscle. If you live around the East Sydney/Kings Cross area, chances are you’re now in Turnbull’s seat where before you were in Tanya Plibersek’s – that is, you’ve been redistributed out of a safe Labor seat and into a marginal Liberal one. Turnbull knows the ‘queer vote’ he’s inherited counts in this election (not that we all vote the same, of course), and Howard has now effectively hung him out to dry once he hits the streets to confront his queer constituents.

It’s not easy advocating the removal of a GLBTI political ally, but Turnbull is in the unfortunate situation, for him at least, of holding a marginal seat where every individual vote will count. And in the depressing event that Howard is re-elected this year, even if Turnbull were also returned, it’s clear voters who care about ending discrimination and genuine equality will have to spend at least another three years banging our heads against a brick wall. Turnbull has had as long to get his government to act, and failed; what’s to say he’d be any more successful after another three years? Howard has had so long and such success decimating the more moderate element within his party; it’s not as though the damage he’s caused will be instantaneously undone once Peter Costello grabs the reigns.

No doubt, as a multi-millionaire Turnbull will be able to buy his way to electoral success. But with what’s going to be a very close election this year, every seat – and every vote – will count. The Liberal Party must be punished for its offensive misconduct against queer voters, and circumstances dictate that Turnbull must necessarily be a casualty.

Labels: 2007 federal election, GLBTI, John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6 comments

Don't believe the polls...

...But believe the punters - they usually get it right. Labor leads 78-70-2, and the lead is growing. Seats now starting to fall in Victoria and possible losses in WA buffered. Cause for cautious optimism amidst the pro-Labor polling orgy.

This 'I'm committing...sort of' commitment is a bit of a noodle-scratcher. It would seem Lackey Downer's sussed out for J-Ho that Pey-Pey still doesn't have the numbers now for a last-minute leadership grab, would in the event that they happen to win this election.

(PS - Pey-Pey's sook about not getting an invitation to the secret treehouse meeting? Priceless.)

But I can't see how J-Ho's announcement works to his advantage in Bennelong. He's freely passing on to Maxine McKew campaigning material you couldn't buy. 'Why vote for John Howard now when you'll have to vote again in a by-election in 18 months' time?' (Voters hate by-elections with a fiery passion and almost always vote in the opposing candidate.) 'Why vote for a candidate who has no genuine interest in serving your electorate for a full term?' And so forth.

Imagine this statement causing him to lose Bennelong, while his government just wins the election. Howard is not a stupid man by any stretch, but this seems like a conceivable outcome that he's personally helped to orchestrate. Woopsy doodle.

He must be 100% convinced both he and the Libs are going to win - which makes the conspiracy nut in wonder what he knows that the rest of us don't. Sitting on a terrorism/immigration scare campaign? The electoral rigging to block out a large chunk of non-Liberal voters, perhaps? Or some other prearranged election day rigging? I wouldn't put anything - anything - past this government, which reverts to its most vicious (or rather, its truest side starts showing) when its back is against the wall.

I'm never more nervous that when it appears J-Ho is making mistakes, because most times it's exactly that - an illusion.

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard, Liberal leadership

posted by Sam @ Thursday, September 13, 2007 4 comments

Hold on, John

Don't you listen to them, John. Don't you dare. You just stick with it. I really, really, REALLY wanna see you there on Election Day.

This has nothing to do with the fact I think you're the Liberal Party's greatest current liability and you will bring your party down even more with you.

Nothing to do with the fact that I think you have a realistic chance not only of losing this election, but also your own seat, becoming only the second PM in history ever to do so.

Nothing to do with the fact that I am so looking forward to hearing what senior Libs REALLY think about you in the post-election aftermath, when the recriminations begin to fly and Costello and all his supporters are free to point out they were right all along - that if you had graciously handed the leadership over last year like Pete thought you would, he could have reinvigorated your party enough to win them a fifth election.

Nothing to do with the fact that your egoism, stubbornness and single-minded determination to surpass Menzies' record as the longest-serving PM will ultimately be your downfall, and consign you to the place in history you truly deserve.

Nothing to do with the fact I am enjoying tremendously watching the Libs implode upon themselves and giving Rudd and Labor a free ride to power.

Nothing to do with the fact that it's amusing to watch your meeja lap-dogs, particularly those in the Gazette, write with such heavy hearts (or the charcoaly things that pass for them) that their beloved Great Leader must go. (Certainly nothing to do with the particular enjoyment of watching DammitJanet squirm, knowing that she knows her job as right-wing culture warrior at the ABC is toast, as is possibly her Weekly Howard Toadying column, should Rudd get in.)

It's really to do with...umm...

Awww, hell. You got me John. It really is to do with all those things.

So, to paraphrase Bob Sinclair: John, hold on. Tell me no more lies. On election day, you will have to answer to the children of the sky.

Labels: 2007 federal election, John Howard

posted by Sam @ Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4 comments