And this is the last I'll have to say on politics for a while, I'm sure

[guiltyschu]

Dear Australia,

Oh dear. Baby did a bad, bad thing. Congratulations Australia - you've just elected a guy who used to be nicknamed Doctor Death. Yeah, that's a good sign

Comments

[mad_monk]

Not arguing. Just expressing an opinion. I'm not sure how to could get worse than it was. I wasn't sure what your problem with Rudd was but if cheap marketing and having an American style ego trip are your biggest concerns then I'm not really worried. I would go into more detail but I'll save that for my journal.

[guiltyschu]

It really depends on whether you think the old system was bad. ;) I had my problems with it, you can't be happy with everything, but generally I was content with the Liberal government. I had no fear of the work choices legislation (and actually could see how it could be a good thing), I think BOTH showed equally a lack of concern for environmental issues (Kyoto - not a solution. Signing Kyoto means nothing, it's throwing a bone to the masses that don't realise it means nothing), and I didn't like that Labor's way of proposing policies was to either copy Liberal's or to say "WE WILL THROW MONEY AT THIS AREA" and then hope for the best because they have no plans what to actually do with the money. I thought at every point Rudd's campaign exploited the average Australian's lack of knowledge about politics and was deceitful. Liberal's smear tactics weren't much better, but I didn't find them as underhanded. I found his promises outlandish and silly. Some of the big problems I had with Howard, I still have with Rudd (the obvious -

[mad_monk]

If Kyoto is meaningless then why not sign it? Kyoto doesn't require us to change what we are doing but refusing makes us look irresponsible internationally. Saying sorry to the Aboriginals too for that matter. We are still the only country who hasn't officially apologised for the atrocities inflicted on the native inhabitants. It is similarly meaningless in a practical sense but it has great meaning to the people who care about it. Sending the army into the NT has caused serious damage to the invaded communities

[guiltyschu]

I'm not against ratifying Kyoto. I AM against Rudd using it as an environmental platform because in reality, signing Kyoto will not have any impact whatsoever on climate change. But to the people that don't know that, they'll think ratifying Kyoto is awesome, and I think Rudd capitalised on that lack of knowledge to win votes. Personal opinion, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I found it dirty.

But Howard did say he was sorry. He said he was sorry for the atrocities committed, and he felt sorry for what had happened. He refused to take personal responsibility for it though, and I don't think that any of our leaders should have to - and that applies to Rudd too. They did not personally harm the Aborigines, and I think showing sympathy and understanding towards what happened to them is very much an important thing, but they should not have to bear the burden of what was done in the past. If your great-great-grandfather killed or enslaved my great-great-grandfather, I wouldn't hold you accountable for that, because it wasn't

[mad_monk]

From a general designer and evolutionist perspective, I support effective marketing. I oppose the Lib style mudslinging, more because it frustrates me as an ineffective strategy regarding Australian voters than finding it morally reprehensible. If the Kyoto thing was only done to win votes, and it worked, then well done to Rudd for playing a sneaky hand, and having nice glasses