I wonder what Gillards answer would have been had Sattler asked her if her defacto relationship with Mathieson was a sham and simply arranged so she would appear acceptable to all those people with geninue partners ... same sex or otherwise.

I sense a considersble number of people would sudpect her answer would include obsfication or lies.

Imajuliarnutter, I would suggest that we could ask that question of any politician, surely?

Why would Gillard's relationship come under more scrutiny than any other so-called lying politician?

I've always been suspect about Abbott's marriage...maybe that one is a sham?

Do you know ANY politician who hasn't or doesn't lie?

This article uses the argument of free speech to deride those who took issue with Sattler's inane questions of the PM.

In a democracy where free speech is valued, anyone has the right to be inane but equally others have the right to point out the inanity.

The author as a "Christian", obviously moves in strange religious circles by this essay.

Constance, apologies for the delay in responding, as I said elsewhere, the post count beat me.

I think a lot of people are coming to recognise feminism as seriously flawed in its conception. It has produced nothing good unless you happen to be a middle-class woman with no kids and a professional career and much that is bad.

I've pointed out several times that it has been supported only because it increases consumerism. Consumerism fosters a concentration of wealth by taking the money that would otherwise be saved by the consumer and invested to some purpose of their own and passing it to investors in the retail, logistics, manufacturing and resource sectors, while the consumer must borrow to do things they could fund themselves if they hadn't spent the money, meaning that investors in banks profit. At the same time, the massive growth in regulatory stuctures, mostly employing women who are net consumers, is taking every cent of personal income tax collected and making it available to finance consumption.

When it collapses there will be a runaway economic disaster because it is all interdependent. It must collapse, because it is predicated on growth in consumption, which cannot be sustained.

The US is facing the problem as we speak, with the fed deciding to stop simply printing money to prop up consumerism (quantitative easing) because it is debasing the currency for international trade purposes.

They are still better off than we, because much of their economy is driven by the receipts from offshore business controlled from the US, but that will only delay, not prevent the coming disaster.

Within 50 years world population will start to decline. We need to plan for that or face the reality that our grandchildren will be poverty-stricken.

Carefully dismantling the economic house-of-cards created by the last 50 years of feminist/consumerist policies is the key.

Anti,

Regarding your comments on the US, I thought I'd have a peek at the latest figures on their debt clock.

Around eighteen months ago there was an enormous wringing of hands and a gnashing of teeth when they hit 15 trillion in national debt. It took a further seven months for them to reach 16 trillion - and I note they are now fast approaching 17 trillion - almost 107 percent gross debt to GDP ratio. In that time, total debt has risen from 54 trillion to 59.5 trillion.

Much of their "keeping their heads above water" is due to cheap Chinese imports to keep the consumerist principle on life support.

http://usdebtclock.org/