Dear Lexi,

You are right in that it is more decent to allow a conscience vote in such matters or in any matters not connected with the party platform. However, if one has to break a promise to keep power an ethical person might be willing to give up power. It is a rare national leader who is willing to give up power, but they exist. George Washington, the first president of the United States, could have been re-elected for life. He chose to resign after two terms although he didn't have to. Cincinnatus was chosen as dictator in republican Rome to rule the country during a crisis. When the crisis was over he resigned. Cincinnati, Ohio was named after him, and the officers of the Continental army which fought the American Revolution formed the society of Cincinnatus to indicate they were going back to private life and would not use their war time service for political gain. The US was founded on the idea that there would be no professional politicians. Pols would serve in government for a limited time and then go back to private life. Unfortunately that period didn't last long.

Lexi,

"Julia Gillard is not in charge of the current Government"

As PM in charge of an entirely Labor cabinet that is an exercise in extreme self delusion. If the facts are unpleasant you deal with them, trying to deny they ever happened simply strips you of credibility.

Even Juliar admitted that she broke a promise, so why can't you.

As for the conscience vote on gay marriage, there two components of this issue:

The first is the issue itself. I personally support the rights of all sexual persuasions to marry, and wish that the Coalition did too.

The second component is whether the parties are reneging on an election promise. The conscience votes I can remember were on issues such as stem cells, that had not been part of any election platform.

Juliar could meet both commitments by agreeing to a conscience vote in the next parliament, just less than 2 years from now.

Dear David F.,

I understand what you are saying about the choices
we make in our lives - they are personal, and we
have our reasons for making them - whatever they
may be. I still feel however that it is very difficult
to make judgements about somebody when circumstances
change especially in the political arena. Even Mr
Howard differentiated between his "core promises"
and "non-core promises," when his "circumstances"
changed.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'd like to apologise for my unwarranted remark
directed at you in my earlier post on this thread
and Thank You for your continued civility. Quite
frankly - I'm getting tired of all this political
argument and I think its probably best that I stay
out of these discussions in the future.

Arjay,

Gay marriage is a big issue.

It has to do with the intrusion into the relation of two humans by State and Church.

It explains, if not define, the degeneration of Humanity to the abysmal state in which it has fallen.

Yuri Koszarycz is a priest of the highest order who professes convictions ingrained into him when young and unable to question their validity.

He, with the panache of the one who has no doubts about his righteousness, writes this piece on the ‘weird’ subject that bothers him; gay-straight marriage.

But the gay-straight marriage, at base, is not a political or religious issue; it is only a money issue that has to do with government grants and questions of inheritance.

Before Christianity, the ruler’s interests were centered on the product of the marriage, the child. Each child added revenue to the king.

Since packaged religions came into being, priests came to be interested in the child as a revenue source as well, and Church joined State in the exploitation of man.

Outlaw suicide, ban homosexuality! they diminish or not add to revenues.

This war will go on until humanity gets down to one man. One man, Priest or King will have no one to exploit.

In the mean time we have to find something to make us laugh.

And there is plenty to laugh about.

Dear Lexi,

You wrote: "I still feel however that it is very difficult
to make judgements about somebody when circumstances
change especially in the political arena. Even Mr
Howard differentiated between his "core promises"
and "non-core promises," when his "circumstances"
changed."

Perhaps I find it too easy to make judgements.

I was disgusted with Mr. Howard. I feel that one should not make non-core promises. It is reasonable to change one's position when circumstances change or when knows more about the situation. However, one should fully admit either the changes, ignorance or error. John F. Kennedy admitted both error and ignorance in the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco. The country forgave him. However Howard's non-core promises were apparently promises he did not feel necessary to keep.

Fiorello La Guardia, former mayor of New York City, could also admit error.

Such pols are few, but they exist.

Does anyone know anything about cell phone jammers? I'd like to get one for my classroom. Kids are nor supposed to use cell phones in the building (landline phones are in every room in case of emergency). The kids still sneak phones in and try calling or texting on the sly. I've got a website http://www.jammerall.com/ from Google for help.Has anyone buy a one from it? Has anybody worked with these? I need more details.Am i doing the right thing then?
Introduce some more details about it!