There's no denying the UN is a monstrously undemocratic, deeply flawed organisation. One bomb, one vote? Very enlightened.
It's still, however, just about the only international forum we have.
We can't fix it by turning our backs on it.
But before we (Rudd) attempt a louder voice in the forum, we should perhaps first remove the plank from our own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from our neighbour's eye.
I really don't think our domestic situation is quite 'export quality' yet.

Dear Joe in the USA....

get back to us when you have to speak Spanish cobber.

How do you feel about lax border security and the daily flood of Mexicans who are openly saying things like:

"All we have to do is survive.. we are breeding, we are millions...and the white poeple are not having babies, we will take over" etc.

It's not 'arrogance' from which we speak...its down to earth common sense and the ability to 'read the tealeaves' of history.

The tragedy is, many Americans appear to be oblivious of their own decay and destruction happening on their doorstep, and they have swallowed hook line and sinker the Left's propoganda.

Bush? he is an idiot.. have a look at this for why.

Go straight to 2m40s on the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipsYKjHJktQ

In regard to Tony Kevin’s comment on the asylum seeker issue, perhaps I may be permitted to quote Dr. Katherine Betts of Swinburne University of technology in Melbourne who is an expert on the Australian public’s attitude to immigration:

“the evidence shows that there was no sudden desire to close the door on boat people dating only in the last couple of years. This has been a slow and growing trend over the last quarter of a century. Critics are quick to dismiss this attitude as narrow minded xenophobia, the mindset of a paranoid people still gripped by 19th century fear of invasion.....

But many intellectuals are tone deaf to the ideas of nation and peoplehood and the power these ideas have for most Australians. People who are secure in their identity may choose to act compassionately, as in the case of the Kosovars, but resent attempts to coerce them to share their home with outsiders.

Critics who cannot understand this imagine that if they assault and insult the idea of nation with sufficient vigour we will all become generous internationalists living in a world of peace and harmony.”

May I also quote Paul Sheehan from his excellent book “The Electronic Whorehouse” which critiques the bias of the Australian media on various issues, including the significant bias of ABC reporters on the asylum seeker issue:

Despite media uproar about the “demonising” of boat people, the argument failed to have moral resonance with the majority of Australians. The 2001 Australian Electoral Study, which analysed the behaviour of the electorate, surveyed 1702 voters at the height of the campaign and found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people. This majority support held true across eight of nine occupational categories into which respondents were divided.

In only one category, “social professionals”, was there majority opposition to government policy, and this category only represented 10 per cent of those surveyed. “The attitudes of the social professionals are quite unlike those of the rest of the sample”, wrote Dr Katherine Betts in an analysis of the electoral survey. “It shows how unrepresentative the vocal social professionals are of other voters; it is not just that they do not speak for the working class, they do not speak for a majority in any other occupational group.”

Had the government been perceived by the public to be allowing Australian sovereignty to be rendered irrelevant and public policy to be dictated by an alliance of people smugglers, asylum seekers, journalists and legal activists, the political upheaval would have been enormous. Real damage would have been done to the public’s faith in the legal system, the democratic process and the immigration system.

Marilyn, I think I kapeesh.

It seems as though I kapeeshed some time back, but refused to believe the message I was receiving from you….because…well, it is truly unbelievable.

Your argument is that refugees can cross borders….end of story. No matter how many, nor what effect they may have on a host country. And no matter how long the movement might continue.

You apparently feel that onshore asylum-seekers (whether refugees or not) should have always been and still be allowed to come to Australia unrestricted and be accepted into mainstream society straight away. You condemn anyone who thinks otherwise.

Been out of town.

Franklin -- right on.

Paul Sheehan(ex labor party) also outed the great lie of multiculturalism in Among the Barbarians i.e. the policy had very little to do with empathy and humanitarianism but had every thing to do with importing a political constituency (votes). BTW I am a migrant.

Isn't it interesting that populism is only a dirty word when uttered by the chattering leftists while deriding those who possess a traditional sense of fairness.

Lindsay Tanner once informed me (in writing) that there are no illegal migrants simply because it is not against the law to be in Australia without permission. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I know what you are thinking, but Lindsay insists this is the case! My correspondence with him resulted from a TV quote of his, "after all they are only guilty of wanting to be Australian". I pointed out that if this were true then, "thieves were only guilty of wanting to be affluent" hence his response.

This simple fact probably led to J Howard holding our uninvited guests off shore. Interestingly, I do not recall the Liberals wanting to create a law that would make the activity illegal.

Wouldn't it be nice if the 6:00 news were as uncomplicated as it is presented?