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.