Just when I thought that the Australian Labor party couldn’t sink any lower into the quicksand of irrelevancy they manage to submerge themselves yet again.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says a Labor government would introduce laws requiring Internet service providers to offer a “clean feed” without pornographic and violent sites, thereby limiting offensive content.

“The reality is … only about a third of the parents put some sort of blocker in relation to the sites on their home computers, it’s too hard for most of them but if you did it at the level of the provider, probably very few people would opt in.” -Kim Beazley.

Why do parents not bother Kim? Maybe because by and large parents aren’t concerned enough to monitor (actually or electronically) their children when they surf the net.

Or perhaps parents, who are also consenting adults, create, consume and enjoy erotic images and stories found on the internet and do not want it filtered out.

The greatest offensive content out there now is the pathetic, irrelevant excuse for an idea that Kim believes passes for opposition policy.

Image from here

My MP for the House of Representatives is Mr. Alan Glyndwr Cadman.

This is how he used his 16 minutes when offered a conscience vote regarding the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005.

Let me know if you can spot a conscience.   

Read the rest of this entry »

In his latest attempt to come across as believable, Costello is worse than a lazy student. At least a lazy student will give you vague credibility, but Costello expects us to believe that ‘not’ and ‘now’ were mysteriously interchanged and we read the document wherein they lay all wrong.

Not, Peter tell the truth. It was now the dog – it was the goldfish.

If we believe this then we have as much memory as one.

With thanks to Ani DiFranco and her Little Plastic Castle CD

Senator Fielding is defending his decision in the light of criticism leveled at his vote to push through the government’s VSU policy not being family (where a parent is at University) friendly.  He is quoted as saying,   

"Everybody in the community needs access to childcare and they need to pay for it themselves. You don’t ask everybody else to pay."

Using his logic then I should get a reduction in my taxes. See I don’t use childcare at all, but am clearly subsidising part of its cost impact to families through Centrelink payments.  I do not think that it is fair that I should have to subsidise the cost of caring for other people’s children.  To paraphrase the Family First Senator – You breed them you pay for them. 

I am amazed that the Senator made such an obvious error in either judgment or understanding (or both).  Clearly the nature of the common good, a sense of community if you will, is what makes Australia the society that it is.  Admittedly under HoWARd we are moving towards a less socialist, caring society, but by and large Australians do not begrudge the assistance we provide through our taxes to welfare.  Be that a baby bonus or a drought subsidy.

Or has the good Senator, in that one statement given Australians a glimpse of his prejudices, narrowness of thought and political agenda?

The Senator is right to expect his offices not to be trashed, but he is wrong if he thinks that he remains unaccountable to the voters.

Image from here  

Original image from here