It's peculiar that the Greens have always been critical of the Democrats' political process which allowed Natasha Stott Despoja to exercise her right to vote against the GST.

Would the Greens have allowed one of their senators to cross the floor? They are an unknown quantity on so many fronts, not the least having little, if any social justice runs on the board.

Has anyone noticed that when the Greens criticise the Democrats they have to go back six or seven years to do it. Talk about living in the past. It's that sort of retrospective criticism that will alienate voters on poll day.

Natasha S-D was the Democrats last hope, and the final nail in their coffin. Her attempt to pull the Party to the centre-left was astute, considering the gaping hole in that part of the spectrum at the time. Many of the new Democrat members were of this persuasion, while Don Chipps' small "l" liberals were in decline. She saw it opening up on Labor's left as they moved centrewards. And she understood a basic principle of Life, it moves into an unoccupied niche; the Greens certainly did. But her inept leadership allowed her parliamentarians to implode the Party on national television, and she could not contain the damage done by Meg Lees and her GST. I handed out How to Vote cards for the Dems that election, and was shocked to see many people taking Liberal and Labor cards, and just shooting me ugly stares as they walked past. No one wanted Liberal Lite, it ended up the Democrats stood for nothing. Que Sera Sera.

I am hearted to see all the attacks on the Greens here. Tells me people are taking them seriously, that they are becoming a threat to the status quo. The status quo that sent my beautiful country to assault and rape another innocent people; I will never fly this Australian flag again, all I see is blood. The status quo where uber-corporations are pillaging our world, destituting nations and concentrating wealth in fewer hands. And the status quo where our people are sedated and depressed, sleepwalking through shopping malls, self-medicating with retail therapy; totally disenfranchised without even knowing it. If you don't oppose this, you silently or overtly endorse it. The only organised political opposition is the Greens. Not perfect, but in place.

I am happy to see you all attacking the Greens, because that means their victory draws even closer. As M. Gandhi said, you have ignored them (for eleven years on Climate Change), you have laughed at them (extreme/kooky/loopy Greens) and now you attack them.

Then they win.

I suppose one of the things that worries me Earthrise and Skye and Morgan Le Faye is that everytime a strident Greens party member gushes like this and starts invoking Ghandi et al, it really gives the screaming yips to the strategists who are trying to portray The Greens as normal, reasonable people.

I didn't think the article especially anti-Green and it raised some questions about balanced reporting which affects both the minor parties.

I applaud your enthusiasm though.

Hi Cheryl,

If there were strategists trying to portray the Greens as 'normal' and 'reasonable', I would ask them which definitions they were using? If 'normal and reasonable' means keeping quiet and letting things go on as they have, these strategists would be trying to whiteant what could be a positive movement for change. I certainly wouldn't vote for the Greens if they said they were going to keep doing business as 'normal', or if they were going to use the description 'reasonable' for the continued global violence and plunder the Major parties, and a good segment of the population, find 'reasonable'.

If the Greens become 'normal' and 'reasonable', they'd lose my vote. And this country would lose a whole lot more.

Hi Earthrise, loverly name. Reminds me of the Apollo missions. Was it Apollo 8 that took the pic?

This story is about done and dusted but I will add that while I applaud your radicalism, I warn you that the kind of zealot rhetoric coming from some quarters of the Greens is akin to the type of tripe put out by Hillsong and the pentacostals. It's tainted by fundamentalist thinking. There are no shades of grey.

The business of politics is to be reasonable. That's how we live together.

Hi Cheryl,

I'm embarrassed to say I didn't realise that famous photo was called Earthrise until I saw "An Inconvenient Truth", though the imagery fits well. In 2003 (just before the war), Mars was really large in the night sky. One night I was thinking how Earth would look in the Martian sky, a bright blue star on the horizon. I thought the God of War might see our 'star' as the God of Peace, though we do not deserve that title. As the Big O said, 'In Dreams', at least.

I always smile when people use the word 'radicalism' to describe my ideals. The use of the term ‘radical’ is normally an attempt to tar someone's views as extreme and unacceptable to the mainstream, which I find a little demeaning. But we are not really talking about the mainstream, where my views are more widely shared, but about the tiny minority who hold the power in our societies. To them my views are not just radical, but dangerous, because they threaten their status quo. When dealing with some of their more radical programs, to 'compromise' and deal 'pragmatically' is to join them in oppressing our fellow humanity. On some issues, there is no compromise (like rape and murder, for instance). Or global pillage and war, to extrapolate it wider.

We need red lines. This is not radicalism, because the red line is far enough away that there is plenty of room for consensus and compromise. But once government crosses one of these red lines, then We the People are duty-bound to act. If we don't, if we join the oppressors, or silently look on, we are no better. I think this is what killed the Democrats in the end, they stood for nothing; there were no red lines. I take your point about the risk of the Greens becoming dogmatic, the trick is in setting the red lines far enough out for consensus, but bold enough that when they are crossed, they stand.

If these times don't call us all to make a stand, when?