An excellent article, which encapsulates much of what I've personally written here in response to some of the more outlandish disinformation posted on On Line Opinion about the Greens. Full credit to On Line Opinion for publishing it, although I suspect it could well turn out to be another troll-fest.

I find it interesting that Nils von Kalm says that it's the Greens' "core principles of social justice, peace, democracy, and environmental concern" accord with his Christian principles that attract him to the party - they accord with mine too, but I'm certainly no Christian.

We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies, even when their mendacity has been pointed out repeatedly. As von Kalm says, such lies are often taken at face value by the credulous, who then repeat the lie often enough that it attracts the veneer of truth.

I've resolved to limit my interaction with the negative spin doctors and hateful liars who engage in this process, to refuting their lies whenever they do it. Unfortunately though, there are far too many out there who are more receptive to lies that suit their prejudices, than they are to truth that might cause them to reappraise some basic assumptions.

"We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies"

Now you know how Liberal Party members feel, and other parties when they are the brunt of lies, and fear campaigns - get used to it.

The amount of effort that goes in, from the ALP, to massaging and developing negative campaigns, against for instance Tony Abbott is astounding and they have their own tame media accomplices, like the Channel 7 "reporter" who doctored some tapes from Afghanistan to change the message of Tony Abbot's comment. The same "reporter" who begged Juliar to tell the media how she wanted them to behave, it beggars belief that he is not an ALP stooge.

The ALP are the masters of spin and misdirection, and if they turn their sights, even obliquely on the Greens, you will feel it.

They don't even have to do it directly, they have many instruments, like tame journalists, the ABC, Getup and the AYCC and many other, "useful" tools, who all have shady funding lines.

Regardless of the stated policies of the Greens, it is the behavior of their leadership, their public facade, that they will be judged by, you may find that unfair, but such is life.

Bob Brown likes to have things both ways, like complaining about big donors to political parties, while he takes a donation of over $1M .. hypocrisy in any politician, is seen as the values of the party being reflected.

So Greens talk one way bit behave another .. their leader sets an example. What was their policy on donations again?

People's behavior is not ignored because you have a wonderful manifesto, to think it will be, is completely naive.

You can't demand people only look at the parties policies when it suits you, they are merely "guidelines", the public and private behavior of the representatives or even party members, let alone voters, will be held as indicative of Green "policy" and goals.

Nice attempt at a pre-emptive strike, morganzola, to label any criticism as lies, and those who disagree with you as spindoctors.

>>We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies... I've resolved to limit my interaction with the negative spin doctors and hateful liars who engage in this process<<

What the Greens need more than anything is someone within their ranks to ask the hard questions about the effect of their cosy idealism. Because they appear unprepared to take criticism from outside their own closed-loop coterie.

The priorities in this article are interesting. The lead-off complaint that the author has is... injecting rooms. As a headline policy this has its pluses and minuses. But it is certainly not the most worrying aspect of Green policy.

What next? Those "preference deals". Where do they appear in the list of Green policies that the writer recommends we examine? There are 43 headings in that list. Not one says "preferences".

Third on the list is the economy, where Mr von Kalm selects a couple of marginal items with which to make his only genuine point: the Greens are Compassionate. Like Christians.

In doing so, he falls into the trap that tends to claim all enthusiastic idealists, which is self-contradiction.

On the one hand we are told what various polls demonstrate that 86% would like "more aggressive regulating activities of national and multinational corporations", 75% "believe that large or foreign corporations are more powerful than governments" (whatever that signifies), 59% want "a levy on bank profits", 80% support "a crackdown on tax loopholes" and so on.

But apparently, we are to eschew such populist leanings. Quoting Leslie Cannold...

"Stop replying to our every ill-informed, over-hyped whinge with well-versed empathy and solicit a heartbeat from our better selves"

Precisely.

As the writer himself points out:

"We are like the adolescents who demand their own way regardless of the consequences"

That's the problem with idealism. If your only objective is to occupy the moral high ground, you remain aloof to reality.

I don't know if this makes me a troll or not but I found this article a bit sad and naive to be brutally frank. If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot operate within a political system that works on the assumption that you live or die based on your ability to secure the support of a majority of voters to your cause then perhaps politics is not for you. The Greens can always revert to being a protest vote or they can engage in intelligent (and properly costed) economic debate so that the voting public can gain a better understanding of what a Green Government would deliver by way of living standards (these standards can take a variety of forms but economics living standards cannot be ignored). Marginal electorates decide elections. Populism obviously works in some forums (and Bob Brown is a keen exponent of populist politics) but I suspect most people in those all important marginal electorates will only support Green policies as long as they don't see it putting them out of work. If you doubt that then you are even more naive than I thought.

PS, how to vote cards and preference deals. The Greens could always say "we don't do them" if they wanted to be totally pure of purpose. They know as well as anyone in the voting caper that how to vote cards have a huge impact on the voting decisions of people who accept them from party hacks at polling booths.

Ah yes, some good old Greeny censorship and threats of "action" by CJ, hey isn't this what good old Bobbie Brown is up to now, doesn't like criticism, or questioning of any kind - complained about the ABC questioning him, now wants News Ltd and the Daily tele in Sydney hushed.

CJ, you guys are all the same, love handing it out, hate having to take it .. the Greens are like any other political party, full of people who are good and bad, suck it up, you will have to suffer criticism, and sometimes .. nasty things will be said!

The Greens and their lackies, need to learn some tolerance. The days of slagging off and getting away with it are over.

Ok Nils an evaluation.

One world parliament. That should be enough for any thinking person to see the hob nailed boot, hiding in the green fairy floss.

Well, that didn't take long. Any other suggestions mate?

Greens NEED rational scrutiny

Well Nils, I too have no political afiliations of any kind. Neither do I have any religious affiliations. Unless, well I could be called a Callathumpian.

You seem to be an Analytical Thinker. I have been told that I'm one too. There is a good paper at "TechRepublic" about "The 10 curses of an Analytical Thinker." Definately worth a read, if you are interested. Like Kangaroo's. We're a dangerious breed mate.

Having read your piece I tend to agree with you in certain areas but possibly not for the same reasons.

Bob Brown bats for the other side. ;-) which, even though Australians are a reasonably tolerent lot, doesn't sit well with most of us. On drugs. With the Greens the perception is that they are a lot of hard drug taking, smoking, crack heads who want drugs legalized. Which doesn't sit well with most of us.

Now on Alternate energy. I, myself, would like nothing better than to extradite the world out from under the feet of the Oil Barons. Alternate energy is a good way to go. But unfortunatly it's not, & can't & will not happen over night as the Greens want it too.

Cont. over

Cont.

The Green Policy on Alternate Energy is somewhat more than contradictory.

They want Australia to adopt Alternate Energy, NOW. They say Solar Power is the way to go, but they oppose the building of thermal power stations anywhere the Government wants to put one. Something to do with the destroying Amimals habitats, creating heat sinks & creating violent storms.

Try getting a Wind farm off the ground. No that gets opposed as well because it'll stop the cows from milking & kill birds. & the noise, the noise.

Hydro Power, No that will kill the little bum breathing turtles & stop the Lung fish from breading & destroy animal habitats. You can only build Dams where rain never falls, there are no trees, plants or birds.

Deep thermal rock fracking. No that will contaminate the Aquifyers & release poisonious gases into the land & destroy animal habitats.

I'm really at a loss here. Help me understand how Alternate Energy is going to happen.

Morganzola, you no doubt see me as one of the trolls, I except that.
Yet I think your charges, and you have made many of late, are better suited to your self.
You told my I am a good bloke, but once I come to my senses? then no more answers to my posts came.
A question, is *Rational Scrutiny* only judged as so if it is not questioning the greens?
Can I ask posters to consider the Rational Scrutiny my ALP is currently receiving.
Or to read Morganzolas thoughts Labor is dead and ask, why is that not making him a troll?
Look down your nose at me, but do not ignore, tell me if you dare this is not true.
More Labor voters more conservatives, at least 50% of voters are in some words not mine trolls.
I honestly firmly think the greens are an awful weight on my country's future, Troll that I am, or just maybe only 12% think that.

Now, if only we could get them to give up those silly environmental policies....

@ Belly:

I agree that the Greens need 'rational scrutiny', as do all political parties. The author of the article agrees too.

What no party should be subjected to is a campaign based on irrational fear, spin, disinformation and relentless, obvious lying. It concerns me that so many of you who oppose the Greens seem to think that sort of political discourse is acceptable these days.

The Greens don't play that game, which is one reason I vote for them - and also why Bob Brown is consistently rated the Australian political leader with the most integrity. Their policies are by no means perfect, but they certainly come closer to my own beliefs than other parties, including the ALP since it shifted so far to the Right.

I'm happy to have a rational debate with you, but I refuse to stoop to lies and insults. May I remind you that it was you who declared war on me - I just started ignoring you when you refused to debate rationally. Do you think you can engage in 'rational criticism' without resorting to spin, lies or disinformation?

I am sorry if I am wrong, I can be and often.
But Morganzola, I truly think it was you who started the war.
I will take up your offer if it is ok.
In general comments if it suits you start your thread.
I guess we can agree the title could be along the lines of what have I got against the greens.
I offer this evidence, that I research and think, not just drop my personal opinions.
Today, to town, filled in my last tax return ever,working part of my life is over.
Radio National and the subject was Tasmanian Forest peace agreement.
At timber industry head, senator Milne your 2ic head of CFMEU [my belief the only union supporting greens,] look at that lost tribes self description on its home page.
Greens are unhappy with the deal, threatened both Tasmanian Parliament and federal.
Now Morgan, forget me , ignore every one of us here in this thread.
BUT understand,your party ,in my view fails the compromise test, has not understood its power is miss used if not used well.
Keep my powder dry but you know my questions, statements about numbers, are not going away.

@ Belly:

With the greatest respect, if you have something you want to discuss, isn't it up to you to submit a post? As I recall, part of our previous problem was that nobody could work out what your actual beef was, except that you decided one day that the Greens are your personal enemy.

If you do submit a post, might I suggest that you confine it to a single issue or question? Might be less confusing and annoying for everybody :)

Latest News on Yahoo & News: wind farms are the stars of Australia's clean energy future, but health problems from the turbine noise are forcing some neighbouring residents off the land.

Well there goes that idea. Next...

I will start such a thread soon in general comments.
Thought I already had.
The one that opened the wound between us.
It had maybe too many themes.
I put my views there, first that, in my view preferential voting works against majority views.
That many if not most do not understand or like it.
I said such as the greens lower house rep, the family first senator now gone,Andrew Wilkie, found a place based on preferences.
You and others forcibly told me it would be undemocratic to get rid of the senate, in my view a better government comes if we did.
I questioned then and now, if voters for Liberals, and Labor,can just vote one, why should greens and sundry others be afraid of doing the same.
Is Democracy about majority's or is it about inclusion of minority's by giving them an extra advantage.
Last, and I under stand your dislike of it I continue to ask is it true, is it rational scrutiny? to say currently right or wrong more Australian voters, in my view,dislike the greens than would ever vote for them.