I agree wholeheartedly with comments expressed here, including being unlikely to agree with Tony Abbott about most things.

As a father I would offer the same advise (if asked which is highly unlikely) who you share your time with and your bed with, will have profound effects on your life.

Choosing rather than fumbling into relationships is always good advise.

This piece tries and fails to rescue Abbott's remarks by claiming they are really innocuous because his express sentiment only applies to the abstract notion of sexual commitment before marriage as opposed to virginity. It's a nice try, but the piece only succeeds at addressing some of the excessive hyperbole in the press which uncharitably extend his remarks to Islamism and 'lecturing Australian women' - which aren't the substance of the mainstream reaction.

I read this piece a couple of times to make sure, but I failed to find anywhere where the author actually substantiates the idea that his comment was" "a rather straightforwardly commendable comment to make about the importance of caring and respect for the person with whom one makes love."

Like it or not, but the above is simply the author inserting nuance into Abbott's quote out of whole cloth. It may be charitably assumed that Abbott is capable of such nuance, but the fact remains that the comments made no clear distinction and the substance of the umbrage that is made out - ie. that a young women's sexual activity (whether losing her virginity or not) is a 'gift'.

As the leader of the opposition, Abbott should be expected to deal with all reasonable cut and thrust in the media, and still have his message prevail. If he cannot do that then he has failed as a political communicator. It is not the responsibility of others to come in and perform linguistic gymnastics to rescue and sanitise his comments for modern sensibilities as this piece tries so desperately to do.

Whatever way you cut it, the comment was inappropriate as given and must be called a faux pas

Without turning this response into an academic treatise, which the subject certainly doesn't warrant and has never justified, I would just like to say to Helen Pringle that she seems to have missed the main point and that is, if it is to do with Abbott, whether it is Speedos, Virgins, wife, family, inept political comment or anything that emanates from the new leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, the media is using the poor and naive fellow as a source of news, any news, ad nauseum. Is it any wonder then that his comment does appear to have been subject to various interpretations and some misinterpretations. That is the way the media works in this country with some of the very worst journalistic efforts seen every morning in every state.
Abbott is a product of his own background, arousing great suspicion with every statement he makes. His total preoccupation with his dominating form of religious thinking, controlling every thing he does, every word he utters, is the reason he must eventually be seen for what he is, a stooge for the Catholic Church and in this role he is surrounded by the likes of Hockey, Pine and many others who jump to the commands of Rome. His inability to see anything in government in a non-secular way will be realised by the voters eventually who are somewhat tired of the undue and excessive influence of tax-free religion in this once secular-oriented country.
So, in conclusion, if any journalist cares to seriously question Abbott and not treat him as a novelty, they will find a void in his perception on almost every subject except religion and eventually should see him for what he is, totally inept with little worthy or original judgement or ability. Therefore what he says will seldom be worth great comment and any comment today could be reversed tomorrow, except of course the kind of comment that started this whole exercise, virgins, a subject of great pith and moment in 2010.

I am in total agreement with the writer of this article and also with the comments made by Tony Abbott. This man has the guts to say what he believes.
He never mentioned the word virginity, so why did all these people use that interpretation of his words? I think it was due to malice. Also, they get themselves publicity - they are attention seekers!
What I like about Tony Abbott is that he has 'values' which he is prepared to state. He doesn't ask that we espouse the same beliefs, or preach at us.
As a feminist myself I have always believed that equality can only be achieved if women are prepared to make statements of their values/beliefs and then stand by them. Too often both men and women respond to criticism of their statements by saying:
"It is written in the Bible/Koran"
"My father/mother/husband/wife/sister/brother/son/daughter says that."
"I agree with my teacher/priest/neighbour who said that."
Be like Tony Abbott, state your beliefs and defend them - don't criticize the beliefs of others unless they rob you of your own right to free speech.

Perhaps a journalist could ask Abbott directly, whether or not he was referring to virginity as a gift from a woman to a man.... or not?

Hmmmm?

Of course, it is a bit late now.

Clever Abbott - enough ambiguity to permit his supporters to self-righteously defend him and his detractors to lack a definitive foundation - apart from Abbott's own track record of course.

"He never mentioned the word virginity, so why did all these people use that interpretation of his words? I think it was due to malice. Also, they get themselves publicity - they are attention seekers!"

Whether he said virginity or not is irrelevant. He is still characterising sexual activity before marriage as a 'gift' or trophy, whether it involves the girl losing her virginity or not. That's why this article fails. It tries to jump from the somewhat plausible argument that the context of the lead question suggests that Abbott may have been talking about sex in general, rather than virginity, to some completely invented scenario where he gave a carefully-worded innocuous sentiment about counselling delay and caution. But this completely misses the point. The word 'gift' was always the problem, whether it is used in relation to virginity or sexuality in general. Fixating on virginity makes it more inflammatory, but it isn't the substance of the objection.

Yet, the author thinks that by making this distinction that the issue simply disappears. But all she has done is disappear the word 'gift' and all it's connotations into the oblivion and swapped some highly sanitised, modernity-friendly interpretation of what he actually said.

If Abbott was really only counselling caution in forming relationship, there would be no issue here except for whatever was invented by the press. But he didn't. He made a highly anachronistic comment. I cannot help but feel those defending Abbott, whether feminists or conservatives, simply want to rage against the machine of modern sexual permissiveness and raunch culture, rather than actually deal with what he said.

I don't find Tony Abbott 'charming or down to
earth.' He reminds me of a scavenger. A crow
that sits on your roof and makes a nuisance
of itself. If the PM was to have a piece of
paper fall out of his pocket - Abbott would accuse
him of littering the country. Abbott has nothing
new to offer - he's simply an attention-seeker.
The more the crow screeches - the more you want
to chase it away. His views on any given subject -
are rather narrow and limited.

I can't believe that the Party has elected a leader
who's anti-IVF, anti-stem cell research and who
wants to ban no-fault divorce. He scares the bejesus
out of me as a Party Leader.

Whatever Tony Abbott said it is clear that he has made a value judgement about certain types of sexual behaviour. He has made it quite clear that sexual behaviour outside a loving, caring relationship is nowhere near as valuable as sex within such a relationship.

Many of those who support his stance and proclaim him a good father on the basis of these comments also hold the same values. One must wonder exactly where these values come from and what kind of ideology or religion is driving them. Whilst he is entitled to his opinion the rest of us are also entitled to comment on his opinion. That is what people like Julia Gillard and others were doing. It is the substance of what he said and the inferences drawn from it that have concerned many people.

The onus should be on those who make such a judgement to show why they think it to be true that sex in a ‘loving, committed’ relationship is better than sex outside of one. Most could not come up with an argument because there simply isn’t one. So it is natural to suspect that the values are part of a package which someone has to accept as a consequence of membership of some autocratic group. In Tony Abbot’s case this membership could have repercussions for the rest of Australia and this is what worries people.

There is nothing wrong with reading between the lines to see what a person is getting at. Just because they chose their words carefully does not mean that we cannot reasonably infer the intent in what they say. Politicians are masters at trying to cover their tracks. They say things in such a way that allows them to escape when cornered with the intent of their message. Tony Abbott is one such master but even he can be so driven by his unconscious need to protect his religious affiliation that things just slip out and he should be challenged when they do.

BBoy,

'The word 'gift' was always the problem, whether it is used in relation to virginity or sexuality in general.'

Not really. It was the assigning of 'gift' to a woman's sexuality, but not to men's. But he only has daughters. He may well think giving your body to anyone to play with is a gift, whether it be from a male or female.

Rudd would never be asked as he's not got the fundi-religious image, and he would dodge the question anyway. I like a guy who tells us what he thinks. It's no sermon by any stretch of the imagination, just his values. The most important part of the statement is 'if they were to ask' in my book.

Which brings us to...

'I can't believe that the Party has elected a leader
who's anti-IVF, anti-stem cell research and who
wants to ban no-fault divorce. He scares the bejesus
out of me as a Party Leader.'

which is the real problem, not that he values taking sex so seriously. If Rudd said the same thing nobody would have given a shite. But he's a marked man for these other views, so extrapolation of what he says is fine apparently. Regardless it's a huge jump to 'equating a woman's value to a hymen'. I think he loves and values woman, especially his daughters.

phanto,

'That is what people like Julia Gillard and others were doing. It is the substance of what he said and the inferences drawn from it that have concerned many people.'

Julia was being mean and tricky. 'inferences drawn' indeed.

Why is it Baron Julia can cry when someone makes comment on her personal life, yet slam a guy for his hypothetical advice to his daughters. Media staging be damned, she still makes a judgement on his personal beliefs and on his relationship with his daughters.

BTW Foxy: Is there any Liberal politician that you don't despise with to very core of your soul, and any Labour politician who isn't a nice chap just trying to do a god honourable job making compromises along the way?

"Casual sex is a shallow and meaningless experience, but as far as shallow and meaningless experiences go, it's pretty good."
Woody Allen

I can't see what's the big fuss about suggesting that a woman's sexual favour is a gift. Assuming she's not selling it, it is a gift, because she's giving away something - an agreement to have sex - that has a value higher than nothing, whether you like that fact or not.

There was news recently about women auctioning off their virginity online to the highest bidder. One of them attracted bids in the millions of dollars. (The successful bidder - an Australian - ended up reneging because his wife wouldn't agree - "Damn!"). Another reportedly got over eight thousand pounds; flew to meet the guy in Venice; got invited back for a repeat performance next day; liked the guy, had a good time and now is doing it with him "for free".

But the one guy who offered to auction his virginity got a top offer of $3. A gift of small worth, apparently.

At least in regard to sexual favours for the opposite sex, the idea that the sexes are equal is simply false. But there was that ad in the classifieds a while back, that went something like this "randy, ugly, grumpy old man seeks pretty young virgin for wild sex". Perhaps the egalitarians will insist that he should equally be regarded as conferring a gift on her?

The way I see it, people with opinions like this...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/memo-abbott-virginity-debate-is-no-mans-land-20100127-mz0y.html

on the matter need a reality check. And a good lie down. And maybe a twisted up pair of knickers adorned atop a huge trophy. But she probably got that form her boss for generating so much 'outrage traffic' for advertising.

I found this the most comprehensive and objective article on the matter...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-monk-might-make-sense-20100127-mz0v.html

My view....

Abbot tries to improve his image with chicks after all that abortion denying action by appearing the wonderful family man in Woman's Day, and pimping his gorgeous daughters as eye candy and reflecting in their glory.

Julia says, 'oh no you don't', picks up an innocent comment, adds distortion, and throws to her feminist media pack of attack dogs.

Abbot says, 'so that's how you're gonna play huh', and whistles to his attack dogs to bring out the Barren (yes spelt better this time, but I like 'Baron Julia' also) jibes.

Julia doesn't have to do much more as he's digging a hole and playing into her hands.

Conclusion: Julia is running rings around him, but I still say Abbott's Mark Latham like honesty is more refreshing. Sure he denies global warming and tries to pretend it never happened later and a bunch of other stuff all pollies do, but at least you can be guaranteed he'll give a straight answer more often than the Albino Chinese dentist.

The bonus is it's still fun to read articles like the one from the Age's 'Senior Writer' Coslovich (arf) which amount to nothing but a pynchme-like rant about the evil Sheik Hilaly and Abbot joining Buster Hymen and the Penetrators*

* http://www.myspace.com/thepenetratorsne

Oh, I want to live in a world where men were valued for their policies rather than what swimwear they liked to wear. I'm waiting for someone to catch Kate Ellis in a bikini, and then for a male politician to make comment and be blasted by Julia and her feminist groupies! Actually Kate in a bikini would do, that other stuff would just be a bonus.

I wonder what advice Ms Gillard or Ms Haussegger might have given their children if they had had any? I wonder too if they could wave a magic wand and return to their youth whether they would make the same choices in life again?

Ms Gillard is too much the career politician to reveal anything of herself (does she have a centre core at all or is she just an egg shell?), however Ms Haussegger certainly has expressed regrets in her In WONDER WOMAN: The myth of 'having it all' and young women would be advised to take heed:

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006jul08_b2.html

Maybe both and Ms Haussegger and the woman she sees as her mentor, Ms Gillard, could have benefited in the developmental stages of their lives from listening to a father like Tony Abbott, who from his own example enjoys and worships the family he has built with his loving wife.

If Abbott was making a general point at all it was for adolescents and teens to be careful of the choices they make. Why waste yourself wandering through affairs and one night stands with aimless losers if you want better things in life? Women at least have a biological clock and whilst yours might be nobody's business bur your own, it is still ticking. Then there are the other risks of the raunch lifestyle, easily acquired STDs like Chlamydia that could limit choices forever.

Hmmm, perhaps Tony Annott wasn't being such a mean spirited, lying, wrong old fundy after all.

Foxy,

All of those items you mentioned, that is banning no fault divorce, no stem cell research and no IVF are all part of the Catholic doctrine and there is not a thing in Abbott's political or personal thinking that in any way crosses the the line drawn by his mentor, Georgie Pell and his boss in Rome. It is not possible for him to stray, have an original thought or consider euthanasia, abortion or contraception fairly. And when it comes to monies for Catholic schools, what do you think? If there is some imbalance today, under Abbott it would be open slather.
Frightens the bejesus out of you does it? By the way, most of the country as well. He is nothing but a devious and cunning politician, not too bright and capitalising in 2010 in the very low level of Liberal politicians warming the opposition benches. If he is the best they have, it does make you wonder.

Ah isn't language wonderful.

Tony says one thing and feminists hear another. Must have been because he is male and they already hate him, for not being like them.

I think in psychology terms what has happened is a classic case of projection or maybe transference.

Tony is not the only male in the world to say something, and then wonder why some if not a lot of women toss a real hissy fit of what was said.

This shows (some) women are not the great listeners (or communicators) that they are portrayed as being.

Sure there is reading between the lines business, but reading between the lines means that ones own biases and prejudices can interfer with the meaning.

the more feminists condem him, the more likely I'll vote for him.

I don't expect my daughter when she is older will be a virgin bride or expect that her husband will be her first.

I would hope that she is not wantonly promiscuous, and that her encounters are with someone with whom she has a considered longer term relationship.

This is pretty much what I think Tony Abbot was trying to say. However, the left is so keen to jump on his religious side that short of saying that his daughters should sleep around, the labor press will lambast him as a prude.

While I don't support his views on abortion, stem cell research etc, at least he is prepared to speak his mind without having to consult the latest opinion polls.

the permissive left just hate anything decent outside of their own perverted self righteousness. They claim hate is wrong but when it came to Howard and now Abbott hate spews from their lips.

Yep this one went right over the top and I rarely support Tony's position on things. What did you expect him to advise - darlings I think you should be promiscous little tarts and bonk as many people as possible at drunken parties.
The responce didn't do the credibility of the feminists cause or Julia any favors

Dear Houellie,

You asked me whether I liked any
Liberal Party Leaders? What an odd
question. I've stated time and time
again - that I'm not pro - any particular
political party. I prefer to vote for
people and policies - that make sense to
me. But to answer your question ...

I liked John Hewson,
I greatly admire Malcolm Fraser,
and after reading, "The Costello Memoirs,"
I think that Peter Costello may have made
a difference. He certainly was a splendid
parliamentary performer. Malcolm Turnbull,
unfortunately was in Parliament for too short
a time to establish strong relations with his
colleagues. Still he lost the Leadership by
only one vote - which doesn't say much for
Tony Abbott. So you see, I'm not anti-Liberal,
just anti-Abbott!

To me the man has no credibility. He seems to
see himself as a "romantic figure," a Don Quixote.
But he's never one to be held back by the
financial consequences of decisions, having grand
plans for public expenditure.

According to Peter Costello, Abbott once described
himself as the "political love-child" of John Howard
and Bronwyn Bishop.

Need more be said?

Foxy, "Abbott once described himself as the "political love-child" of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop.

Need more be said?"

Heh, heh, yes, for starters there no way that the Greens can top that and secondly, Labor's Lollypop Kid would be eaten alive by his deputy before he could delegate the necessary deed to Swann.

"According to Peter Costello, Abbott once described
himself as the "political love-child" of John Howard
and Bronwyn Bishop."

Thank-you Foxy, for putting that image in my head.

SM,

Tony Abbott is far too much of a politician to in such a staged position to make *any* comment that he feel isn't going to give him some political advantage. He is as foxy says he's an opportunistic, scavenger/feeder.
I suggest like the lines in the Rod Stewart song "Your,(his) ad libbed lines were well rehearsed". That whole piece was a set up to gain gullible voters.

It is one thing to tell things as you see them but another thing entirely if you're trying to get elected. I'm sure his strategists have crunched the numbers and figure that he maybe able to pull back a few lost votes from the defector particularly those from family first and independents.

In politics at that level there is no such a thing as off the cuff personal beliefs or it's political Russian roulette

There is an old lawyer's (and politician's) saying that you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer that you expect to get.

What else did this publication expect to hear from Abbott's lips? That he condoned his daughters screwing around? Of course not.

The most ridiculous thing about this whole issue is that this is a magazine that specialises in celebrity gossip, diets, fashion, horoscopes, sex tips and adverts for so-called mediums and spiritualists is being taken 'seriously' when they do an interview with a politician.

The lesson to all politicians, and other notables, is NEVER get drawn into an interview with such magazines.

Really, who gives a flying fig about anything that these magazines say?

In a week when the coalition has finally picked itself up out of the gutter, the Womens Weekly does an interview with Tony Abbott, he gets denigrated, and loads of unlikely people spring to his defence.

One vote can change a Nation. Three votes changed the Government on 24 November 2007. KR got those three votes, and TA got only one but what a change that has engineered. I think this will make Belly very unhappy. His bookie will cancel his bets on KR, and TA will finally make the religious roots of our Good Government the issue of an election campaign.

What the few who still criticize Tony Abbott fear, is that he is a Roman Catholic puppet. You should study your history. The English Catholics are the ones who adopted the Holy Bible as the English Constitution, much to the consternation of Rome. It was Roman Catholic landholdings in England that led to the eventual split in 1533. The indigenous English were slaves on Roman Catholic Estates owned and operated by the Church, a giant corporation run from Rome. Henry VIII confiscated those estates and gave land rights as Freehold, to the English, under a Scheme of Grants. As Trustee for Almighty God, the King owned everything, ( in English Law) but granted Fee Simple, to his subjects in return for loyalty.

The Pope was rightly indignant at his displacement as Holy Father on Earth. Continental Europe never quite got the gist of this radical move. The connection between Almighty God, the land and the people, through the King is uniquely English. It comes out of the Holy Bible.

The real problem confronting Kevin07, which could shoot him down in 2010 is his failure to understand his Christianity, and his willingness to allow eight Sovereign Popes to rule, in eight of the nine State Churches in Australia. He has to pull Christina, Anna, John, and the carpenter in the West into line, and make them obey Canberra, or lose his plot and spot. We need to be One Nation, not a polyglot collection of potentates

Peter Hume.......

I love that quote from Woody Alan.

All I can say is that the last thing I would want is to marry a virgin and from the remarks of the vast majority of females I have met, the same goes for them. Is that a double standard or what ?

It's not a double standard, because the sexes are not the same nor equal, least of all in their sexuality. The nature of harmony between male and female is not that each does to the other an equal thing. It's that each does for the other an unequal thing.

I have never knowingly meet a female Virgin, at least, not since I was old enough to know what one was. I wonder what they are like?

Back in my late teens, & early 20s, many of my mates, [blokes] were virgins, [there must have a few pretty active non virgin blokes around then]. Most of these virgin mates married the first nice non virgin girl who took them to bed. Not many of these couples are still married, at least not to each other.

I'm not quite sure what all this means, except perhaps that Tony is wasting his time. The ladies will do what ever they bl00dy well like, & the blokes will be draged along, [quietly, or kicking & screaming, it doesn't matter], like it or not.

Ex,

Whether he is well rehearsed or not (even then he is spontaneous compared to Rudd) the issue is what he said, and whether the media came even close to interpreting what he said.

The left wing press took a skewed interpretation of what he said, dropped in the V word and then attacked him on what they thought he might have meant.

If you don't actually say anything, you cannot be criticised, a strategy that Rudd has employed effectively for years.

For the next electiions I wonder if Rudd would define which are core promises and which are non core (will be ignored if inconvienient)

Dear Shadow Minister,

What you're talking about is PIGO.
Politics of the Inner Glow!
And, in actual fact - this is used not
by the PM but by the Opposition.

Because the Opposition wants to be admired, loved,
and above all - win the next election -
they indulge in actions and words which can have
no conceivable effect but which makes them feel a
warm inner glow that they are fine people with firm
but compassionate moral values.

The favourite PIGO activity at present
is denouncing Global Warming -
where there's smoke there's jobs.
Linking asylum seekers to border protection.
Offering what they consider a "better" policy
on carbon emissions -
(providing that the action is not too expensive,
or bad for the polluters).
And in general expressing everything so vaguely
and densely so that they can extricate themselves
from difficulties by claiming not to have said what
they did in fact say.

PIGO is the perfect form of politics: it costs
little and fools some of the people some of the
time. It is much practised by the extreme religious
right - whose spiritual home is self-righteous
opposition. Tony Abbott and - his front-benchers -
are perfect examples.
All of them are long-standing party hacks - who can't
be left out. They're also all friends of Tony Abbott.

Foxy,

The next election won't be about values of the leaders.

It will centre on: Asylum Seekers, Rising Interest Rates, Debt, Unemployment, the disgrace in public Hospitals and maybe the meaning of a real Education Revolution.

It will also closely examine the Governmernts's record on fuel, prices, grocery prices, whaling, National Broadband, the 'blame game' and all those other promises Rudd made at the last election.

Oh and Rudd won't run on Climate Change ... he can't ... it isn't.

Dear Keith,

So I take it that you're pleased with
the way things are being handled then -
by the Opposition.
And according to your calculations, the
problem (climate change) doesn't exist.

In that case - you and the Opposition have
a lot in common. All they want is less to do,
more time to do it, and higher pay for not
getting it done!

Foxy,

Once again you are waving the party flag and viewing the issue solely through Rudd tinted glasses.

The issue was that Abbott was asked a politically sensitive question, which he answered in a fashion. The thread is about the media twisting and modifying the meaning and misreporting on it.

Secondly:

The entire ETS is a PIGO, feel good tax on everything. (Rudd's tax on everything)

With the failure of Copenhagen, the ETS even at a 25% reduction in Aus would have no impact globally, but a significant effect on the economy. (but some of us might feel better that we are doing the right thing.)

While I despair at the Copenhagen failure, I am painfully aware of the futility of Aus going alone, and the myth that Aus is a role model (or even that anyone is paying attention to what we do).

KRudd should realise that getting the ETS through at this point would be at best a Pyrrhic victory.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not waving the party flag at all.
I just wish that we had a credible
Opposition is all.

Abbott's hopes that flagging the ETS as the
"Big Tax," will do the electoral trick is
shallow and opportunistic - apart from being
nonsense. Even John Howard supported an ETS.

Somebody's got to pay for the carbon emissions
and it is obvious that it should be the big
polluters not the tax payers who are the victims
of pollution. So perhaps Abbott's policy needs to
be re-examined from a realistic point of view
because he's proposing that polluters continue to
pollute at no cost and tax payers will pay for
the solution.

We can't keep on doing what we're doing and expect
different results. That's insane!

Some people blame Labor for bailing out Australia from
the global economic crisis - with tax payer's money,
and here we have the Opposition proposing to bail out
the carbon pollution with tax payer's money. The
Government has clearly stated that consumer's will
be compensated for increased energy costs from fines
collected from the major polluters. That makes sense.

If we accept the Opposition's proposal - to cover the
costs of carbon emissions from tax payer money -
we can logically
assume as has been the case with the previous Howard
Government - that cost-cutting to schools, hospitals,
health, education, roads, will have to be cut to cover
the cost. Taxes will be increased.

Of course there is the possiblity that the Leader of the
Opposition has a magic cave with funds stored away - to
fund his policies.

Foxy writes she wishes we had a credible opposition. I wish we had a credible Government. The fraudulent tax based on lies, the squandering of billions and the social engineering of this Government is beginning to make Gough Whitlam (our worst ever) look good.

Dear runner,

As I've said before - I fully understand
your feelings, and those who think like
the current Opposition. All you guys really
want is to go back to the dull, self-satisfied,
and joylessly conformist times of the Howard
years. You want an ethnocentric, inward-looking,
and changless society.

We get it!

Foxy,

What runner wants is a theocracy, a biblical literalist one. But then runner (he/she/it?) would have a problem. Runner might not be appointed to a position of importance. How could runner clutch at thin straws of presumed superiority in a state where everybody was already "holier than thou", a race that *any* liar might win. Dissatisfied with the "insufficiently biblical" nature of the theocracy runner might martyr him/her/itself to a more extreme stupidity.

Rusty

Foxy,

You are repeating and defending labor's policies without deviating from the script.

With regards subsidising the polluters, there is one issue that has been conveniently brushed over by the Rudd gov. In the early 90s, Labor started selling off the brown coal power stations in the Latrobe valley.

These assets had been badly maintained and were bleeding the gov in running costs. External companies paid large sums of money to help pay back the huge deficit the last Labor gov ran up, knowing that they would have to invest hugely in refurbishing the plants and personnel to make them profitable.

15 years down the line, when they are now starting to make the profits to repay the capital and other investment costs, the state now wants to tax them to the point of making them unprofitable.

Given the guarantees the government gave them, they would have a legitimate claim if they weren't subsidised.

I agree that there should be some form of carbon tax in line with what the rest of the world is doing, but it should be low enough not to hurt business, and should not be poured back into ridiculous schemes. Replacing some of GST with the carbon tax would go a long way.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You're using put-down words on me now -
me working from a "script," while you're
coming up with "original" arguments.

Where there's smoke there's jobs -
right? And taxing the polluters is
bad for business? Now where have we
heard that before?

Or better still - the do nothing policy.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it," any
excuse for inaction will do.

"The Opposition is undertaking detailed
research in this matter. It would be
foolish for us to go off half-cocked and rush
into premature and ill-informed action without
first getting all the facts (they've had more
then 10 years to do that - but never mind).
Once we know the facts and causes we shall be
in a position to take prompt and effective
action."

And when the facts are presented what do they
do?

"Cabinet will consider this information in
detail. It is a complex and important matter
which requires mature and careful consideration."

And you accuse me of working from a script?

I commend the author for having the diligence to check the primary source (its hardly an obscure journal) and the integrity to challenge the mistruths being spread by Mr Abbott's detractors. It took real integrity to defend Mr Abbott, even though she does not ordinarily like him.

It is of concern that so much of our media chose to maliciously misinterpret some fairly moderate comments. The broader pattern surrounding this event is even more troubling. It seems to be the fashion these days to interpret the most innocent remarks about women's sex life as the most diabolical insult. Any advice on this issue, given to any women can be described as an attempt to control her (assuming that she doesn-t like the advice). There is no other aspect of women's lives that they are so hypersensitive about.

It appears that Christian fundimentalists don't have the biggest possible hangups about sex after all.

I see Rusty, studying biology has also made you omniscience and able to read minds. You are totally wrong when you say I would like a theocracy. That will come without my help. What you seem to want is to silence any Christian viewpoint in a democratic society. You hate the fact that your secular viewpoint is nothing but blind dogma based on pseudo science. The fruits of it is evidence everywhere. I personally see no point in forcing people to worship or obey God. I do however see great value in influencing the Government for the good of people like any other group or individual has the right to do in a democracy. I doubt whether you will find secularist defending the unborn. It would be to much of a threat to their permissive lifestyle despite the immorality of it.

Foxy

I actually think most of the opposition are a bunch of cowards. They played along with the gw religion until it was exposed for the fraud it is. They are slightly less than pathetic than the current Government who are into symbols with no substance. The only changes under Mr Rudd is more illegals, more illegals being killed by risking their lives with an open policy, more aboriginal misery despite sorry's, a dishonest tax, more pandering to the UN, more broken promises than ever before and yet their blinded supporters remain loyal.

Dear runner,

Politicians, as Peter Coleman points out
in the Preface to "The Costello Memoirs,"
"whatever they may say, most of them do not
go into Parliament to bring about
particular reforms; they go in because they
find the life irresistible. They want to be in it
all their lives. They enjoy its exhilarating
highs and take its miserable (and tedious) lows
in their stride. They face long years in the
wilderness with equanimity. They take for granted
the slander of fools. They are politicians in the
way others are poets. They can't help themselves."

Not all politicians of course are like that.
To some all that stuff is the excuse of the
"seat warmer, the hack, the careerist, or at best
the adventurer." Some politicians belong to a
different parliamentary tradition. Some actually do
go into Parliament to make changes.

For us as voters - its a matter of finding these
people.

As I said on another thread - I firmly believe that
the voters will get it right in the end.

Thank you for all the comments, although I thought the most controversial part of the piece was the last paragraph, not the first parts about Tony Abbott.
To my friend Doug, re "Really, who gives a flying fig about anything that these magazines say?". The Women's Weekly site gives its circulation as 493,055 (ABC Jun 09) and its readership as 2,141,000 (RMR Sep 09), so I guess quite a few women in the 25-54 "target range" care enough to spend $6.80 or to loiter around the magazine stand in Coles and read it. I wouldn't underestimate its influence.
So now, having defended Tony Abbott and the Women's Weekly in the same week, I'll have to go have a lie down....
Helen

Thank you Helen for an interesting article.
Pre-marital experiences is a cultural expectation in our society and indeed is part of the remnants of our watered-down 'courtship' traditions.
However, the very ambiguity of our customs leave a good many women in a profound disadvantage pre-marriage.
The onanistic so-called 'choices' that our sixteen year old girls and boys are called upon to make in relation to sex are vapid and ill-informed, and depending on the situation can lead to lifetimes of disadvantage or emotional confusion.
Our current sexual culture is incredibly shallow, irresponsible and immature, so it's no surprise that Abbott has been critisized so vociferously and unfairly by Australian women in the media.

Helen, I understand what you are saying regarding circulation, but I wonder how many readers actually use their minds when they go through the words?

As I mentioned before, their stock is trade is superstition (horoscopes and adverts for mystics), pseudo health science (diets) and celebrity gossip. Sort of a printed version of commercial television's current affairs shows in comparison the the ABC's Corners or commercial radio shock jocks when compared with Radio National's Background Briefing.

They will pay huge amounts for photos of celebrity weddings, and people pay to see these photos. It isn't as if these celbrities actually have any real effect on anyone's lives.

And this is the shame of the debate: that so many people do read this trash, and no-one calls them to account. I am aware of one story that one of these women's magazines did in defence of the only Australian convicted female serial killer, that was libellious towards her defence team. The SC who represented her sought legal advice and was told that a case for defamation could be made, but decided against going further as it was not worth the trouble.

I guess that many people read these magazines, but few care about what they read. They read, but don't give that figurative flying fig. They are the soap operas of the printed medis, soft core escapist porn.

Actually no, runner.

I don't want to silence all christian commentary.

Just the ignorant, stupid ones that yours so closely resembles.
The other thread clearly shows your understanding of your religion to be shallow, your understanding of science to be shallow, and your expectation to be heard so out of proportion to your shameful ignorance as to make you laughingstock.

The educated and thoughtful christians (I know many) don't regard your literalist fundy position as other than an undermining of the credibilty of christianity.

Rusty

Rusty

I am heartened by your endorsement

'I don't want to silence all christian commentary.
Just the ignorant, stupid ones that yours so closely resembles.
The other thread clearly shows your understanding of your religion to be shallow, your understanding of science to be shallow, and your expectation to be heard so out of proportion to your shameful ignorance as to make you laughingstock.'

I suspect what you dislike is the simple fact that the gospel message does not allow you to entertain your fantasy of evolution along with Christ's message of salvation only to those who turn from their sin. Your 'Christian' friends could well go along with your misguided and deceitful belief but it won't help them or you find forgiveness for your sin.

I have friends with phd's in science who actually feel the same way as I do so your intellectual snobbery really is just that. I actually think your version of science is shallow and ignorant. You are still yet to give a plausible account of origins and yet want to be taken seriously. Your pride has blinded you of reality. I sincerely hope you one day come to your senses.

Runner,

Wasn't an endorsement of *your* views.

I suspect that *you* dislike the simple fact that the well-established scientific basis of evolution just doesn't bolster the fantasy-parent figure you cling to.

Your threat of some bogeyman is hardly worth mentioning except to highlight the clear issues you battle.

My christian friends include qualified ministers, theology students and genuine science phD's. All three in some cases. None are worried about the sort of bogeymen you are burdened with. None feel the paranoia you so clearly do.

I don't think you could possibly be qualified to comment on my knowledge and ongoing role in science. If you were, I'd see you about.

You really expect an explanation of origins to be as easy as the fairy tales you should have left in the nursery? Poor runner. When you can follow, maybe the library will let you borrow the books.

I once suggested you get an education. I now see that would be a waste of already overloaded and underfunded teaching resources. catch up on your own time, if you can.

Rusty

Foxy,

Instead of regurgitating the rhetoric, try doing the maths:

Given:

-Australia contributes about 1.5% of the greenhouse emissions,

-the results of Copenhagen, (that what Australia does will have no impact on what the rest of the does),

-Power consumption in Aus is set to double by 2050, (power consumption to date has an almost 100% correlation with GDP)

What will be the effect on the economy of a 5% reduction by 2020 (50% by 2050)?

What will the net impact on the global emissions be?

I see a vast difference between what Penny Wong is peddling and reality.

Rusty

Once again you come up with hot air waving your puny fist thinking a little piece of paper makes you all know knowledgably. If your theology friends are like most liberal theologians (the only way to get run at most universities) I can understand you being so smug having had your ears tickled and conscience seared.

Tony Abbott has been given a severe public lecturing on the evils of publicly lecturing people about how they should live their lives. He has been told in no uncertain terms what views he should be allowed to hold concerning sexual behaviour by people who claim that nobody has the right to impose their moral values on others. Who are the real hypocrites here?

Runner,

You think *my* fist is puny, what about yours?

Oh yes, those "little pieces of paper". Having some, I know what they represent in study and hard work. They don't just hand them out like those Jack Chick comic books you get your "opinion" from (does it really deserve even that much respect?). Study harder.

Regarding genuine theologians: I guess you *would* call them liberal theologians. *I* call them highly educated and therefore "liberal" christians as an unavoidable consequence. You might try it sometime. Say, *how* long was pastor in some bible-training compound before they let him out? Was he allowed phone calls?

*my* conscience is fine. When a person is so obviously motivated by fear of an irrational "god" as you are, *then* the rot sets in. Fix it, you bludger.

I notice it only became "snobbery" when it became clear you could not co-opt the gravitas for your own position.

Rusty