Leigh
I totally agree with everything you say too.

runner

Three of the oldest debating trick in the world and among the most transparent:

(a) Deflect a positive issue (listening to Indigenous voices again) towards a nasty negative (child abuse) to avoid discussion of the first issue. So to repeat: Let's start to listen to Indigenous people before we tell them yet again what's best for them.

(b) Set up a false dichotomy - the symbolism of saying 'sorry' to Indigenous people is alleged to be more important than preventing 'barbaric practices' - and then assert that those who support the first don't support the second. To clarify: my post didn't mention the 'sorry' word, but now that you mention it, it's not a question of either/or. Let's take symbolic actions AND prevent child abuse too.

(c) Kick up dust with irrelevant business without too much regard for the facts - it's "under decades of State Labor Governments" that we have had "an avalanche of child abuse among indigenous people".

Decades of Labor Governments? Are you referring to the NT where the ALP had held power only since 2001 while the Coalition has governed for the entire period before that? Or WA where the ALP has held power there since 2001 but before that the Coalition held office for 25 out of the past 40 years? Or SA where the Coalition has held office for the majority of the time up to 2002 (starting with Playford’s 27 years)?

And given that the Federal Government has the power to over-rule the States and has done so in the case of the NT - and given that the Coalition has been in power federally for over a decade - I suppose you'd agree that child abuse is all Howard's fault?

Do you think child abusers ask themselves which Party is in power before they abuse a child?

Leigh, Q&A is right. Sometimes the only appropriate response to some posts is Bollocks!

Do the right wing funadamentalists not know that they lost the election.

That both of their idols have forsaken them!

Thompson hits the nail on the head. His claims are spot on and I've yet to see any decent analysis that contradicts them.

Most of leigh's criticism isn't directed at the article, but more of a tirade against the fact that a youthful author had the temerity to express views he disagrees with.

He also follows with: "Have your say, and don't take any notice of the idiots; the crap they come up with is not worth reading, let alone responding to."

Which, translated to its simplest form, is the electronic equivalent of shouting out some inflammatory remarks then putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!'

As far as Liberty's comments go, he's talking about pure socialism and pretending this is what 'left wing' politics in the current era is all about, which is pretty far from the truth.
Economic and social issues are two very different ideals, plus he doesn't appear to have any real understanding of the social-libertarian economic model which is used by pretty much all western nations today, with a sliding scale of government intervention vs free market economics. Truly, the old 'socialist' whipping horse has been well and truly flogged, and is utterly irrelevant.
The truth is, on the economic side of the debate, we just have social libertarianism, and we need to decide which direction we want to trend - do we embrace the Danish model which is the third most competitive nation in the world but has maternity leave and generous welfare, or do we adopt the American model, which does deliver powerful results for capitalism albeit with a significant wage disparity in the populace.

I say this, to highlight the stupidity of this 'evil socialism' argument - and I say that, to highlight why this article is spot on. Liberty - and Leigh - are doing precisely the simplistic 'us against them' vitriol that gets us absolutely nowhere, except for lingering feelings of hostility, whereas the enlightened discuss the true complexities.

And that's not even beginning on the social issues of liberal v conservative thought...

I must say that this piece by Jay Thompson was all promise and no delivery. If you are going to have a go at what we conservatives cite as "political correctness" I think he could have don a far better job had he looked at actual examples invoked by Janet and then tried to explain why her opinion was in error. In stead we got a wafflathon full of the usual weak generalities so common on the left.
I really hope that the PhD is better than this effort or scholarship is in big trouble in this country.

Three recent examples to highlight the wonderful dawning of the new age of Labor moral and ethical superiority-

1) the leaking, by Labor of the story that Kelly Hoare has a libido, (snigger, snigger): to invalidate her and her complaints after she was dumped by her party.

2)the current internal machinations of the NSW branch where it is widely reported that ALP member Gibson is behind the attempts to rehash 20 yo accusations of domestic abuse against fellow member Koperburg

3)the use by Iemma staff of 7 yo rumour about the same Paul Gibson and accusations of domestic abuse against Sandra Nori, whilst she was OS, and presumably without her knowledge; all to get at Gibson.

You Labor droogies are living in fairyland.