Quote: US where its historical stupidity upholds the right to bear arms (and a very high murder rate).

And a very low home invasion rate - Australia's is, by any available statistics, far higher than in the US because of Australia's stupidity in effectively not allowing people to defend their person and property in their own home - I cannot defend myself and my daughter against the typically younger, stronger and often more numerous invaders other than with a weapon, which by law I am not allowed to have for the purpose of self-defence, not even a baseball bat and not even in my own home, but am expected to go belly up, to allow the rapists, thieves and assailants to have their way.

Good but you could have stopped at Janet Albrechtsen has a poor understanding of.... and we could fill in the blanks depending on the topic.
She is a contrarian with no ideas other than to declare that she right and the rest of us are wrong, and it's all an act. She is a yuppie from Bondi who's never done a day’s real work in her life.

Interesting article. I agree with Chris Lewis's assessment of the differences between the US and Australia. Far too many Australian journalists get their ideas 'off the shelf' from the US without bothering to consider the political, economic and social differences between the two countries. Do they even care?

As to Alan ('The Parrot') Jones, he seems to be preaching to the converted, I doubt that's he's an opinion leader in any effective sense

The role of the conservative commentator is not to report. They can safely leave that onerous task to others.

Their job is simply to provoke the reaction "by jove, she's right y'know. Smart woman, that" amongst like-minded individuals.

So there is little point in appealing to her "decency".

"Surely, Albrechtsen has enough intelligence and decency to hope that Australia does not create the same social cleavages that exist in the US which could encourage a similar movement to emerge here."

The lady's intelligence is not at issue. She is smart, to the point of intellectual, and capable of rational thought at a level that few of us attain. She has a Doctorate in Law, which is rarely awarded to dummies, I am told.

But decency is an entirely different proposition.

As a fear-mongering dog-whistler, the lady has few peers. Who can forget her assertion, in print, that "pack rape of white girls is an initiation rite of passage for a small section of young male Muslim youths". An accusation that was accompanied by no evidence. Instead, she knew she could rely upon the academic glow that surrounds a Doctor of Law, and the knee-jerk "smart woman, that" response from her audience.

On balance, I think that Chris Lewis' appeal to Ms Albrechtsen's decency may have come a little late in the day .

Pericles,

I have always thought that all perspectives, whether liberal, conservative, marxist, or whatever, do not amount to much if they cannot contribute analysis or ideas to encourage a fairer society or world.

What is intelligent writing? I suppose it is using one's unique perspective, but doing so in a way which can hep mediate problems and break down barriers between people and societies. I also struggle to do this with my support for liberalism, but concerns about free trade in recent years.

It is ia very hard task, certainly much harder than being a mere left or right-wing commentator trying to sell publicity through shock statements or appealing to the already converted.

Chris you're pretty much right- the cultural/societal differences between Australians and Americans are too profound to nurture a "Tea Party Movement" here.

The biggest contrast is that America has long and largely been a very near-'libertarian' country- people have been generally expected that they must defend themselves and cover their own medical and care expenses, and providing only minimal coverage to a few other infrastructural needs;
As such, for this country, socialized coverage of medicine had to be INTRODUCED- and given this nations vastly less socialized culture (and long stance on the evils of 'socialism' in the recent past), this wouldn't have been easy to swallow.

Meanwhile, in Australia- socialized services have been a fact of life- it would be more a shock if a party announced it were going to cut it than build further on it- which may be the only way we would get a 'tea party-type' movement of our own.

We eat sort-of similar food, wear the same clothes and watch similar TV shows ( though who doesn't these days), speak the same language and live in similar housing layouts, and both like the capitalist system as far as consumerables go, but beyond that our cultures are actually quite different.

This is a sane and intelligent assessment of the relevance of such matters as the Tea Party to our position in Australia. We are a "collectivist" society in that we do believe, unlike Margaret Thatcher, that we are a community and there is need for mutual support. The size of the Qld Premier's purely voluntary fund for flood relief is a clear indicator of this collectivist as opposed to the individualistic view. Not every one shares this view and Ms Albrechtsen would probably agree with the young Queensland man on TV the other night who asserted that since he worked hard and earned more money than most people, nevertheless he should get the full flood relief funding. I used, in my younger days, to annoy people at dinner parties by my assertion that my comfortable life was due primarily to the start in life that my parents were able to give me and very little to do with any intrinsic merit on my part!!

Sadly, the Albrechtsens of this world do not write for the people.
She considers hereself to be a grand philosopher, dropping little gems of wisdom from on high. As such and the fact that she writes for The Australian, make her a person with little credibility. The fact that the ABC in their scraping of the barrel for Q & A, drag her out occasionally to pontificate on subjects of little interest to her, allows others to see her as she really is.

It is hard enough to get Australians away from their Saturday sports to vote for two parties and the feckless politicians that offer themselves up for the confortable life. The ability to understand or even care about a third would be just too much. We are the people that tolerate Gillard and Abbott, two of the most unworthy people ever to be seen on an election poster and if they are the leaders, imagine the overall quality of the remainder. You've seen them, the clowns on the hill supported by the faceless gnomes on the back bench, nodding as required, contributing nothing of any pith and moment. They make up the numbers for the performers in the front row, the ones that decide the future of this country.

A decidedly dismal thought.

In the US, this so-called Tea Party is bankrolled by the Koch brothers, oil dripping out of every pore and a bank balance up there with the top ten, such people with their own their agenda. Certainly not designed to improve the lot of the working man but as a leverage point for their power, their future plans, having Congress do their bidding, all of which are regarded as having little to do with social justice, democracy, improved lifestyle and progress.

Such worthy plans would occupy little time in the busy days of the Koch brothers. They have bigger fish to fry such as removing Union negotiationg powers as they have already engineered in Minnesota this week.

Now "down with unions" sounds much more like an article in The Australian.

Did Albrechtsen not mention that

Rhys Stanley writes

'the fact that the ABC in their scraping of the barrel for Q & A, drag her out occasionally to pontificate on subjects of little interest to her, allows others to see her as she really is.'

maybe Rhys prefers the charming Deveny who thinks the young 12 year old Irwin girl needs to be laid. And of course this vile hater of Howard is an expert on everything from climate change to economics. Scraping to the bottom of the barrel yes but certainly not with Janet Albrechtsen.

Australia has already had a "Tea Party" moment, Mr Chris Lewis, it was called "One Nation" and it won 14 state seats in Queensland alone, before both Liberal and Labor used the legal gerrymander of combining their preferences to destroy the Party at a Federal election.

While there may be differences between "One Nation" and the US "Tea Party" over specific issues, the common cause was that the majority of white Australians was sick and tired of being marginalised and ignored by the Tweedledee/Tweedledum- two party system.

I think that the message that "Ome Nation" and "the Tea Party" is sending to their respective politicians,is to stop sucking up to minorities in order to get their minority votes, or you are going to lose the majority vote.

The Labor Party is a great example of this. It is a party which has run out of rank and file suburban branch members. For decades, the wishes of ordinary Labor Party branch members was simply ignored by the executive. It did not matter how many resolutions a branch passed, or how many other branches held similar views, the Labor party executive refused to act on anything that they disagreed with.

What is the point of being in a political party, if the people who are running the party could not care less what you or the other ordinary members think?

Yes Janet is an ignorant twit when it comes to social commentary - full of sound and fury and signifying nothing except her own preening self-importance.

Meanwhile I find that these two references give important insights into the origins and intentions of both the Tea Party and right-wing USA politics altogether.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lynde-and-harry-bradley-foundation

Note that Janet and the Australian CIS (for which she used to work) are closely associated with some of the propaganda outfits listed in the second reference

Chris, I agree that the possibility of a Tea Party style movement in Australia is remote at this point.

However, given that Australian churches have exemption from anti discrimination legislation in the matter of the employment of homosexuals, given that church schools are permitted to expel homosexual students for their sexual preference alone; given that Christian sexual conservatives, as represented by the anti choice feminist Melinda Tankard Reist, are powerful enough to censor various expressions of popular culture they don't approve of, we do have a situation we should be aware of and concerned about.

These Australian conservative activists have learned from and adopted the tactics of the US religious right and Tea Party movements.

Given that the Australian Christian Lobby is so powerful it persuaded the atheist Julia Gillard to state some 12 hours after ousting Kevin that she would not be legalising gay marriage, (right up there on everybody's lists of concerns that momentous day) we would be silly to pretend these movements in our country do not have power.

Research in the USA now proves close ties between the religious right and the Tea Party,
http://www.noplaceforsheep.com - the reality of a dominionist theocracy is accepted.

The US Constitution plays a significant role in the daily life of ordinary Americans, as I know from spending considerable time there twice a year, living in the community. There is nothing comparable in our country, especially the right to free speech and the right to bear arms so valued by Tea Party supporters, neo cons and "ordinary" Americans. These are rabidly valued at a grass roots level and I can't think of any equivalent in Australia.

While far from the sole concerns of the Tea Party, these attitudes form their support base.
I can't think of similar principles around which "ordinary" Australians might rally and form a Tea Party. Race perhaps. Boat people and immigration?

Even so, I think Albrechtson is wrong in predicting (hoping) for a Tea Party here.

A person some time ago, remarked that the people in the slums of the US, had five or six looks fitted to their doors to prevent unauthorised entry, but for the rest of the conduct, the very low top tax (35%) is the main reason. In contrast with the thoughts, when there is a low top tax, there are high and very high incomes up to and over $100 million in the US, but on the other hand, there are millions out of work and struggling to get enough cash to live, let alone to provide the essentials for a family. Along those lines is happening to our workers, the factories - what there are of them, are providing two and three days work a week, so they are not unemployed, but it is not enough to provide the essentials for a family, to feed, cloth and buy or even rent a decent house. This has been forced gradually onto the people or I should say back onto the people as a regurgitation of the 1930's depression, and only that the treasurer has stopped short - several times in a recession, to ease slowly, pretending that he knows what he is doing. And this has been the destructive action of all the treasurers since 1971. The 66.6% top tax stopped that in the '50's and '60's, but we also need a no tax up to about $30,000, to keep within that 30% of GDP.

briar,

'Given that the Australian Christian Lobby is so powerful it persuaded the atheist Julia Gillard to state some 12 hours after ousting Kevin that she would not be legalising gay marriage, (right up there on everybody's lists of concerns that momentous day) we would be silly to pretend these movements in our country do not have power.'

That gave me a chuckle too. She was pretty quick to reaffirm the school Chaplain program too.

Briar writes

'given that church schools are permitted to expel homosexual students for their sexual preference alone; given that Christian sexual conservatives, as represented by the anti choice feminist Melinda Tankard Reist, are powerful enough to censor various expressions of popular culture they don't approve of, we do have a situation we should be aware of and concerned about. '

and thankfully parents (many non believing) are enrolling their kids in droves in schools as they reject the fruit of the godless sexualisation of kids, drug taking and brain washing often going on in the schools that Briar champion.

Chris, Your reply refers to a condition of anti intellectualism right across the spectrum.
Someone above took the words right of my mouth when they talked of personality issues rather than brains being the issue with this whimsical soul, also many playmates of this character also at Murderdoch Mansions.
The most arid example of this perversity comes within a day or so, with the fed ALP giving Gunns pulp fiction the nod with Garrett gone and Gillard out of town.

"'the fact that the ABC in their scraping of the barrel for Q & A, drag her out occasionally to pontificate on subjects of little interest to her, allows others to see her as she really is."

dear oh dear, when you lack any kind of argument or rational thought, you attack the person .. not their ideas .. is that what is going on here?

Is this just a little hate club, online to compare notes about how much they hate a particular person .. what a profoundly leftist liberal thing to do. I imagine you'rea ll so happy agreeing with each other.

They get Janet on Q&A because there are so few conservatives in Australia, but so many liberals, outnumbered what, about 10,000 to 1 in the Media? Tell me I'm wrong .. name 10 conservatives in the media .. name 2 in the ABC, oh bugger it .. just name 1 ..

For balance, and to reflect the populace, how about stacking Q&A with one liberal and the rest of the panel conservatives? So the compere, Tony, and the rest conservatives .. imagine the horror at the ABC having more than one conservative in the building !

So poor is the tolerance of liberals in Australia, but of course they bemoan how intolerant conservatives are .. if only you could see yourselves as we see you .. hypocrits

You may not like her, but clearly Janet represents and appeals to a large part of Australia, get over it.

So I'll get out of your way now so you can all continue to vent about how awful it is that there is some representation of conservatism in Australia .. if only there were none .. yes that would be nice, what's that sate called, where you're all socialist big government controll the people types?

rpg,

I have no problem with conservatives on any show or media source. In fact, I am all for it. I know a few, and they do have useful things to say.

I am merely responding to the Tea Party issue.

chris .. I was responding to the other posters who instantly go ballistic at the mention of another opinion contrary to their own, and a known conservative like Janet is mentioned .. why worry, conservatives are so marginalized in the media here .. and the ABC unheard of except as a curiosity at such events as Q&A .. didn't some idiot throw a shoe at a conservative at one of the ABC events .. what sort of people are they?

Chris, face it, RPG is one of those people who believe there is a great secret war between people who are "left" and people who are "right" and insist that the other side has taken over the country and "persecuting" their side, and the only way to restore balance is to make an alternate source of media that follows their side (a source that actually IS left/right wing, as opposed to catering for a generalized audience like every other media outlet).

You've seen it before I'm sure Chris- where people who call themselves 'left' insist a media outlet is "right wing" because it interviewed John Howard without saying he is evil, or people who call themselves 'right' complaining a channel MUST be left because it had a story about David Hicks without once talking to Piers Akerman about it.

To be honest I'm still trying to figure out where the strict 'left wingedness' or 'right wingedness' in most of our media actually exists, beyond a couple of opinion authors some papers/channels hire.

King Hazza,

I think all forums, including academia and media, should have a variety of perspectives on them.

Unfortunately, differences between commentators do lead to labels when, in reality, most people have eclectic tastes on political issues.

Sure those with different perspectives will seek to take issue or make points wherever possible over the makeup of people in various institutions, so comments should be made about balance.

But, as I am one who believes it is impossible to have a perfect perspective, I do believe that 'debate' can only be enhanced by exposure of each commentator's strengths and weaknesses. Hence, I think the ABC is improving, although the complex issues remain unresolved.

Indeed Chris- and I actually think it's specifically because most of our media outlets are generally quite open to broad input and coverage and entertaining many viewpoints; that leaves more polarized individuals longing for a more polarized outlet.

I'd disagree with the ABC (or the SBS as some also imply) being particularly biased towards the left-wing viewpoints either- I've found they have indeed given a fair bit of screen time to a wide range of opinions (mainly politicians of numerous parties); the 'left' thing seems to be from that they are more persistent in covering political issues that the "left" seem to be lobbying about.
Some have even placed the Chaser and the David Hicks documentary as examples of "left wingedness" when neither seemed to have any great bias.

I see king hazza notices no bias at all, till a conservative, RPG, posts, then flames him .. oh well, no bias there eh hazza

"RPG is one of those people who believe there is a great secret war between people who are "left" and people who are "right" and insist that the other side has taken over the country and "persecuting" their side, and the only way to restore balance is to make an alternate source of media that follows their side (a source that actually IS left/right wing, as opposed to catering for a generalized audience like every other media outlet).

where did RPG say any of that? (or is that what you imagine he thinks?, being the sage you are of course you know what everyone thinks .. why do we bother, you could just put up all our opinions for us, since you seem to know what everyone thinks .. nes pa?)

I think you see bias where you want to .. and particularly if the source might be conservative.

Did you not see any bias in all the posts before RPGs?

No of course, not they were all rational measured posts ..

no surprise you see the ABC as an unbiased source

I also think the ABC is a fantastic news source, always have.
In fact, my main source of info, besides world newspapers and Internet, is the ABC (and SBS).

On radio, I enjoy AM, PM, the World Today, Late Night Live, Saturday Extra, Counter Point, Tony Delroy and so on.

The type of society the Tea Party wants suits man's natural tendencies, i.e. freedom, faith and family.

A Tea Party in Australia?.... it's not question of if, but when.

People don't want an authority to take their money against their will and to spend it on things they don't approve of.

Socialism is also anathema to Aussies as it is to Amercians. It's in our DNA to look after ourselves, the idea that government should provide for our families is offensive