SHONGA, this is true and I know you'll also share my concern about the increasing control over western media by the Middle East, where they are buying into the various media, including I think it's either Reuters or AP.

Scary times, which is why we as individuals must seek out for ourselves the information from as many sources as possible to use our own minds to determine our attitudes and beliefs. We should be grateful that we are no longer reliant on our own MSM for this and have the internet and blogosphere available.

I notice the author is silent on who funds her own Centre for Gender and Medicine. Probably us long-suffering taxpayers, again. At least the people who finance the IPA and its ilk do so knowingly and voluntarily. I resent being compelled through taxes to finance the full-time propaganda machines that shelter in academia. Perhaps we could debate the ethics of that, one day.

More seriously, I agree to an extent with the author’s point that we should know where people are coming from and how they are financed. But in contemporary debates, these things are more likely to be given too much weight, not too little.

Ideologues of both right and left tend to dismiss counter-arguments simply by virtue of who is presenting them or who they represent, most typically in ad hominem attacks on the messenger, appeals to authority, and association fallacies (“Hitler supported animal rights, and the RSPCA supports animal rights, therefore the RSPCA is a fascist organisation”) – all forms of logical fallacy.

The main issue in any policy debate should be the quality of the argument and evidence presented, not the funding or character of the presenter.

Shonga

I must have turn left or right somewhere if you got the wrong impression.

I have been told out there that there is no other choice in politics but after writing to newspapers and that did they report the choice of the Australian Peoples Party even though not yet registered no on your life, this is not part of their agenda and to packer and murdoch they run the media agenda and we only read what they want us to hear.

So realy the media should be unbiased and there should be laws to be able to protect the people from untruths and what is realy happening.

Even here on OLO you see the factions bringing up facts and figures on how each party have been better but now solutions to the problem.

I myself am not a academic and even though my spelling is not correct at times it is what i am feeling is what is happening to the people and why i get angry.

Overall people will accept what they are told as many are brainwashed into a certain fold and it doesnt matter how much corruption and deciet is brought up and shown to be truth they dont care and until they start to care things will not change.

I am not her to give you a load of crap and that is how i have been brought up and also my respect from being ex army which gives you that sense of mateship and patriosm which people dont like to here but it is what i fell and with what i am trying to achieve is to find the problem and solve it.

I couldnt care less if you sit in a safe , minority seat that is just bull Sh#t party agenda bull if there is a problem at least we will fix it and be looking at the future.

I enjoyed this article. While not really saying anything new, it did articulate a few of my own concerns about the nature of money in politics.

I, and many people I've spoken with over the years, find something unsettling about our political parties and "private" think-tanks being funded by large corporations. Two good examples are the NSW state government, which received in excess of $650,000 in 2004/2005 from developers, and the so called "competitive enterprise institute" in the US, a think-tank specialising in pushing (mis) information about global warming, which is almost completely funding by oil and energy utility companies. These groups are not dealing out cash for the sake of it. They are buying something with their money. This perverts the democratic process.

For those who are interested in where the money comes from, here are two good sites. The Greens democracy for sale:

www.democracy4sale.org/

is good for tracking the flow of cash to political parties, while source watch:
www.sourcewatch.org/
gives a good background on think-tanks and political figures

Now, a quick rant about some of the comments on this article. Please address the issues raised in the article. A few posters seem to have gone of on tangents about feminism, despite the fact that the article does not address any particular feminist topic.

chrissie

Your abuse shows you are on the defensive against against anyone who would question your view of 'feminism'. On the other hand you would 'love bomb' anyone who agrees with you. That is the way of some modern feminists I guess.

I do not agree that feminism is best served by presenting a united front at all costs. The theories, values and beliefs of those feminists who claim to represent us should be tested and be revised or discarded if found wanting.

I suspect and I think quite rightly so, that the theories and opinions of some of the feminists penning articles for OLO are quite different and probably alien to most Australian women. To give an example, very few women would honestly believe that false paternity is merely a 'discrepancy' and men should be trained and 'encouraged' to accept financial responsibility for any of their partner's progeny wherever the female partner chooses to 'label' them as a 'parent' [not 'father', of course].

Likewise I would be confident that few women would ever be in a position where they were unsure, through frequent illicit, overlapping encounters (combined with failing memory), just who was the father of their child (so presumably the one with the best prospects for $$ might do). For whom are these 'ethics' framed? Not for the general community surely!

To my way of thinking feminists should be inclusive, frank and above all, honest and forthright in their dealings. If that sounds old-fashioned to you then so be it.

So it is reasonable for me to ask for feminists to clean up their own backyard ethically speaking before challenging others.

Anyhow what is so wrong about women with (possibly) differing opinions joining the groups mentioned by the author? Is feminism so fragile that it cannot withstand some alternative opinions or do all who join organisations that (reputedly) represent women have to first pass muster with an inner sanctum comprised of a self-appointed feminist intellectual elite?

One of the features of Western feminists is their intolerance of tolerance.

Nik, Of course it matters who you are and where you come from. People have likes and dislikes that are groomed by environment and culture.

The biggest problem is that there is this push to not differentiate and to see everybody as the same no matter what.

This takes away our freedem of choice.

Everybody is not the same and we shouldn't have to see them as such. We should have the right to discriminate so long as we show all due respect.

It is when discrimination is borne out of malice or spite that it is a problem and guess what, discrimination fueled by malice or spite is not against the Law. Only discrimination in relation to certain things are agains the law. I cant help but wonder who designed these laws and who they were trying to protect?