In an wonderful essay, Conservatism and the Culture , the late Robert Bork writes:
“True conservatism,” we are informed, requires that we be at the center of American culture. That would be a liberal panacea. If their opponents are careful to stay in the center while liberals pull from the left, the center will continually move left and “true conservatives” will, by definition, be bound to move with it. This is a liberal ratchet and a recipe for the destruction of any effective conservatism.
How true. Exhibit A, the latest of two articles appearing in the Australian in which Abbott distances himself from the Catholic Church’s position on IVF. The motivation, according to Kerr and Maher, is
to pre-empt further expected government attacks on Mr Abbott’s attitude to women and perceptions that he is a conservative Catholic.
This is not merely disgraceful but also a self-defeating political strategy setting aside this specific issue. As Bork implies, every time conservatives or libertarians are attacked by those on the left as ‘extremists’, who often themselves hold opinions regarded as extreme by the centre, and we defend a meek position because we are either or both unwilling to attack our critics or defend our own considered position, we slowly and inexorably cede every position we hold between the centre and the right. And as we continually do this the centre inevitably moves more leftward, and the left’s strategy becomes ever more easier to accomplish. This must stop. The strategy of continual accommodation has failed. It has become ever harder to defend positions, cultural, economic, moral, and political, that only a generation ago where accepted as the common currency of voters, and as our common inheritance.
I am disgusted by the remarks made today by that pillar of rectitude Nicola Roxon.The morals of certain members of the Labor Women Handbag brigade would not pass scrutiny but they attack Abbott for being sympathetic to IVF. If they consider Abbott as being a woman hater then what do they think about their own Leader who spent time with many married men who had young childen.
Mother G
7 Jan 13 at 11:03 am
“The policy of progressives is to make as many mistakes as possible. The policy of conservatives is to correct as few of those mistakes as possible”
GK Chesterton
Lysander Spooner
7 Jan 13 at 11:07 am
This depends on the public policy issue does it not? We’re talking about IVF here, a process designed to help a couple to have a child.
Does your point apply to a policy – such as workplace law – that has a critical relationship to the health of our economy and what follows from that? (I don’t know the answer, and would like to hear from you.)
rafiki
7 Jan 13 at 11:07 am
I feel that way every time she opens her mouth.
She shows a poor grasp on the truth once again. Does she lives in the pre-Smart Phone era and think people can’t check the record?
Roxon continually shows a horendous lack of judgement, reinforcing the fact she does not have the ability to straddle her dual roles of the countries # 1 law officer and hyper-partisan Labor Party minister.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 11:08 am
Taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding IVF.
How’s that?
Forester
7 Jan 13 at 11:19 am
Trying to defend the Catholic Church’s position on IVF would be a surefire loser. As a liberatarian I have no trouble with IVF. But like Forester, it should not be paid for out of the public purse.
I agree with Bork’s sentiments but there are a thousand better battle grounds than IVF.
eb
7 Jan 13 at 11:26 am
It seems always that Abbott is wrong and his critics are right. Unlike those paragons of rectitude the left.
stackja
7 Jan 13 at 11:29 am
Rafiki, I said that this was
The problem is that we do this when ever we hold positions contrary to those of our opponents and our strategy plays continually into their hands.
dover_beach
7 Jan 13 at 11:31 am
We are in a new political climate.
Only right-wing male politicians are attacked. Only left-wing females accuse men of misogyny. The reverse is unthinkable. Bear in mind the man who most hates Ms Gillard is Mr Kevin Rudd.
So this is not a male-female issue. It is an issue of the left conscripting one of its own -isms as a blunt instrument for defeating its opponent in an atmosphere of utter political failure.
There is no level playing field. The right has yet to come to grips with how to deal with this. Standing your ground is viewed as dangerous – because the Left will hound you – yet ceding looks defensive, although Abbott’s position is actually quite reasonable.
ilibcc
7 Jan 13 at 11:32 am
EB
I’m not sure that being against IVF or say abortion rules a person out from being a libertarian.
I’m not suggesting that is my position, just making the point.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 11:34 am
It’s a good rule of thumb though. Abortion, less so.
.
7 Jan 13 at 11:36 am
Use surrogates to attack the hand bag hit squad. Use high value ones and then go in with the butcher’s axe.
Abbott made a huge mistake here in not immediately getting back at her in parliament by describing what an appalling person she is.
Don’t forget that Newman played defense and it worked a treat against that human abomination (Bligh).
I for instance cannot believe that the Libs don’t mention the fact that the minister of health (Tanya Plibersek) is married to a former convicted herion dealer. FFS, that valuable stuff right there.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 11:39 am
eb, Abbott doesn’t need to defend the CC’s position on IVF. The Liberal Party isn’t proposing to adopt it. It is simply a non-issue so far as the up-coming election is concerned. And as for the better battlegrounds, which are those? I don’t see any being defended. Plain packaging was seen as a “surefire loser”, gay ‘marriage’ is seen as a surefire loser by most libertarians, and so on. What battles are being fought? What I see, however, is continual retreat or friendly fire of conservatives or libertarians who are willing to take the field.
dover_beach
7 Jan 13 at 11:42 am
Terrific post, Dover.
You raise a general issue concerning how liberal-conservative politicians, purportedly philosophically devoted to free enterprise, robust markets and limited government, tend to unprincipally yield to the socialistic agendas of the left (whose views, not coincidentally, dominate policy discourse in universities, media, etc.).
The result of this perverse political dynamic of philosophical surrender to the left is a certain growth in the size and scope of the public sector.
Incidentally, I got rounded on by the great Sam Peltzman at MPS last year for making this point, but I certainly stick by it. I only need refer to the continuous growth in the welfare state, and numbers of public sector dependents, and the explosion in regulation, under governments of all political stripes, to rest my case!
Julie Novak
7 Jan 13 at 11:43 am
There is a right-wing core in the general public waiting to emerge. The protest parties One Nation, Katter etc, capitalise on it by picking up protest votes from frustrated right-wingers (in addition to their own little core). But it could easily become mainstream if we had some leadership that was both intelligent and courageous (don’t look to the Liberal Party!!) Political correctness has been an amazingly effective instrument in oppressing this section of the community.
John Mc
7 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
Very hard not to be sympathetic to IVF but it feels like Tony Abbott is getting too scared of losing votes because he’s Catholic. If people didn’t approve of him before they’re not going to change now. I hope he doesn’t start sort of grovelling to get people to like him, he’s great as he is.
candy
7 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
The real battleground is abortion. As I understand it, Tony Abbott thinks that abortion (subject to medical advice) should be available, safe and rare. If that is true, then it is a massive lie to claim that Abbott is “against abortion”, as though he would try to “turn back the clock” on access to abortion.
That is a position that most of the abortion law reformers of the 1970s would have endoresed. That movement was led by reasonable feminists like Beatrice Faust and Anne Levy.
Getting back on the topic of the post, in some cultures, willingness to compromise and see the other point of view is interpreted as weakness to be exploited, not the reasonable approach that might yield a win/win outcome.
Those of use who are philosophically and temperamentally inclined to compromise need to muscle up when we confront people who are not playing by the same rules.
Poor Old Rafe
7 Jan 13 at 11:48 am
Good luck with that. You are dealing with a cohort of self-obsessed adult/children who are always positioning themselves as the victim.
In case you missed it, this is the level of the “dialog” we are having.
[From the Newscorp Tele mind you]
The summary to this article shows how IVF is just a tool to deal with bioligical inequality:
Please read and re-read that paragrpah and remember the statement of stereotyping above…
…I can smell that a new “right” is being created here which of course taxpayers will be expected to fund….
Token
7 Jan 13 at 11:50 am
Julie, Dover..
I take your point. However we have often seen the left pretend they are taking a conservative position when it’s obvious they are lying.
The Lying Slapper and the Little Turd’s invocation they were economic conservatives is a case in point.
There are bigger issues to fry. Abbott is a politician who wants to win an election and not get caught up in the smaller stuff.
Let him bullshit like the left do while eventually he does the opposite. Fine with me. Use the same tactics.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 11:50 am
From the LDP website:
Tel
7 Jan 13 at 11:50 am
Conservatism has not been included on the political grid as it is not really a political philosophy but is rather a belief that the rate of change should be slow, or that institutions that existed yesterday should be preserved.
That’s David Lleyonhjelm’s position. He’s a top bloke but that is just overly simplistic.
Conservatism isn’t defined. It’s a space, more than a defined point on the map. But it is more than just ‘I don’t like change too much’.
John Mc
7 Jan 13 at 11:54 am
I’ve said it before but I would advise the opposite. Getting into a spat just drags you down to their level, so Abbott should be a gentleman and continually (gently) bring the topic back to the present government’s record in office.
Tel
7 Jan 13 at 11:58 am
Tel’s point came up in Hayek’s essay “why I am not a conservative”, on line and essential reading for nerds. His point was that conservatives support the stutus quo or the ruling opinion whatever it is, so when laissez faire was on the rise, conservatives opposed it, then they moved on to social democracy and the Big State (following the left liberals) and so in the 1980s the deregulators got flack from both sides of the House and nothing much has changed.
In Britain New Labor took the econonomic gains from Thatcherism and used them to fund the Nanny State.
Poor Old Rafe
7 Jan 13 at 11:59 am
I would like to see the Opposition demand that Roxon and the rest of the coven present those explicit statements which support their assertions.
“Show Australians verbatim the sorts of comments that people will judge Mr Abbott on.” should be the response to innuendo.
Don’t hope that the average punter will check for themselves.
Make these despicable people display their wares for all to see.
lotocoti
7 Jan 13 at 12:02 pm
“Taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding IVF.”
How could that even be controversial? Since when was a right to do something also the right to force other people to pay for it? There’s a line in the sand right there. Only extreme timidity could scare off someone from defending that line.
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 12:04 pm
My personal belief is that for libertarians to work with conservatives you just need to put two things out of bounds from libertarian intervention:
1. Traditional marriage and family. That means no support for gay marriage, but OK to support an equivalent contract.
2 Abortion. I think the legal, safe and rare line is the compromise area.
In most other areas I believe libertarians and conservatives could work in a mutually beneficial way.
John Mc
7 Jan 13 at 12:06 pm
Dover Beach – yes, I see now that you did qualify what you said, and I apologise for overlooking this. But, does not this present a problem for your general point, which includes the proposition that Abbott gives ground whenever (that is, in all cases) he holds positions contrary to those of his opponents? Is it not always necessary to look at the specific issue? Has he yilede too much on workplace law?
2013 is going to be all about political strategy, and Abbott must from time to time (perhaps constantly) shave his political beliefs to deflect the hostile and unfair attacks from Gillard and her many supporters in the media. We have to ‘cut him some slack’ in 2013 if we want him to be PM.
rafiki
7 Jan 13 at 12:08 pm
Beer W
Abbott doesn’t have to stake an unequivocal position on IVF, get stuck on that and end up being hen pecked to death by the left.
Of course it shouldn’t be funded. However he doesn’t have to firmly commit to a position now anyway.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:09 pm
“I for instance cannot believe that the Libs don’t mention the fact that the minister of health (Tanya Plibersek) is married to a former convicted herion dealer. FFS, that valuable stuff right there”
You’d think she’d be minding her p’s and q’s with a skeleton that big and ugly lurking in her closet. A nice trump to have in your hand if Labor goes totally feral in the election campaign. They must be betting on the Libs not fighting them in the gutter.
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 12:12 pm
John Mc
Until we hit a road block and people like Barnaby Joyce wants to stop all farm land being sold to foreigners as he must think they’ll ship it away. And yes I do think transacting land with foreign government agencies could cause a problem.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:12 pm
The guts of this whole debate is that we have a Leftist Labour Party which has been captured by the extremists, and a Centre Left Liberal Party who have been white anted by the Leftist Party.
Until we get an Australian version of UKIP, I won’t be voting Liberal because that just reinforces the gutlessness of the Libs to stand up for their values.
Winston SMITH
7 Jan 13 at 12:12 pm
We have to ‘cut him some slack’ in 2013 if we want him to be PM.
I don’t think we need to. Short of attending the gay mardi gras in an arse-less cardinal outfit on a crack bender, I think he’s pretty much got it in the bag.
John Mc
7 Jan 13 at 12:13 pm
Read the article I posted. It provides an answer for you.
There is a class of people who do not see IVF as a process to assist those who can not concieve but rather a means to deal with biological “inequality”.
To summarise, these people:
1. deem it the “right” of women to receive government subsidised abortions during their fertile period 15-35 and
2. deem it the “right” of women to receive government subsidised IVF to overcome fertility problems during the period after 35 years of age.
PS: You are SEXIST and a MYSOGINIST if you disagree.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 12:13 pm
I know. For lord’s sake I’d get into a sewer to attack them.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:14 pm
Ah yes. Not this one but that one. No no, not that one either but this one.
There are always “better battle grounds” for those surrendering to the left every day of the week.
Tell me, on what major issue has Tony Abbott ever battled? He likes to publicise is opposition to IR reform. He meekly obeyed Roxon and Plibersek on plain packaging. He wants to spend billions on “direct action” to stop ‘climate change.’ Now he’s boasting about his view that 45 year-olds should have taxpayer-funded access to IVF and apeing Bill Clinton.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 12:15 pm
That’s very true too. They really deserve a kick in the butt that way.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:15 pm
Er, ‘yilede’ shopuld be ‘yielded’.
Julie Novak – you are making the case for a organised, tough-minded ginger group that is somehow positioned to put pressure on an abbott government. That means I think that it has to be associated with the Liberals.
rafiki
7 Jan 13 at 12:15 pm
My conservative, Catholic, older sister thinks TA is awful. He is aggressive, shifty, inarticulate and uncomfortable with women. But she will vote Lib because Labor and Gillard are unspeakable.
Jannie
7 Jan 13 at 12:17 pm
Cl
Watch what he does rather than what he says.
He’s taken the stand that he will remove the mining tax and that’s just one example from the top of my head.
Hockey said he would fire 12,000 APS.
Don’t apply a strict set of rules for the right when the Liars Party isn’t.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:18 pm
There’s a very simple biological imperative – if an organism isn’t changing, it’s moribund – dead.
Conservatism is therefore essentially a moribund position. It rejects change, and cannot remain viable in a changing world.
Abbott, although nominally a Conservative, has enough political nous to understand this. The more extreme Conservatives never have, and probably never will.
1735099
7 Jan 13 at 12:20 pm
To quote a famoius R&B song….in baritone…
“Baby, I knew, I just DIDN’T CARE…”
.
7 Jan 13 at 12:22 pm
Numbers that is another fail. You are doing very poorly with your trolling.
You need to spend less time reading the extreme left wing diatribe you are adicted to as it is rotting your brain.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 12:23 pm
Riiight.
Because the Greens with their pre 1956 or pre 1968 Communist mindset, or the ALP, who have nothing to do with their rooots in practice, but use the tree of knowledge like spiritual kleenex, are of course rooly dynamic with their inbred, dynastic princelings like Shortened etc…
Fuck off numbers. They are like the Bourbons and Habsburgs.
.
7 Jan 13 at 12:25 pm
“Fine with me. Use the same tactics.”
Call me what you like, but I have no qualms about fighting by the same terms. Unless you’re prepared to take the Churchill route, you’re a bunny and should let someone else take up the fight.
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 12:26 pm
So she’s taken the msm/labor version, hook, line and sinker. I wouldn’t be advertising that level of perception in intelligent company, however it illustrates the problem that the left/green/ALP media represents.
blogstrop
7 Jan 13 at 12:26 pm
How many votes would Abbott have lost if he’d said, ‘you know what – no. We won’t support plain packaging. Enough already with the anti-smoking obsession, which is becoming totalitarian. No, we won’t allow the private property rights of legal entities to be banned.’
Answer: about 11.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 12:28 pm
There is a doctor in Fortitude Valley who will fiddle the books so that Medicare coverage for same-sex couples wanting an IVF baby get it on the taxpayer tab. I personally know two recipients of this, but I don’t know who the doctor is. Maybe it’s not even considered wrong as far as Medicare is concerned. It seems questionable to me.
It’s rather a grand social experiment to introduce children to life with two mothers and no identifiable father. One that I’m not sure everyone has exactly thought through yet. Said child from one of these is about to enter school next year, it’s an outcome that will be curious to watch.
Having said that, two decent hard-working mums is probably a better life draw than a couple of marxist parents with bitter envy and hatred as a guiding life philosophy.
brc
7 Jan 13 at 12:28 pm
A number of “conservative” women I know regurgitate the same crap.
I have stopped asking why they dislike a man who spends his spare time volunteering to raise money for women’s shelters over a habitual liar and person who held a conman steal money from an orphans fund.
They then talk about “feelings”…
Token
7 Jan 13 at 12:29 pm
Strop
That comment represents the same views my wife has about Abbott.
She has no interest in politics at all and has mildly soft left views.
This bilge comes from the MSM.
The MSM has really done a number on the gals. Seriously.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:30 pm
“Conservatism isn’t defined. It’s a space, more than a defined point on the map. But it is more than just ‘I don’t like change too much’.”
Conservatism is wisely proceeding with caution, as opposed to adopting the hasty approach by those convinced of the infallibility of their own brilliance. “Haste makes waste” aptly describes our current government, does it not?
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 12:31 pm
Incidentally, how many embryos were destroyed in order to give the Credlins and Pynes the babies they wanted?
More Than Three Million Human Embryos Destroyed in UK IVF.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 12:31 pm
Lol… Eggsactly… It’s da feelings.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:31 pm
Having said that, two decent hard-working mums is probably a better life draw than a couple of marxist parents with bitter envy and hatred as a guiding life philosophy.
I think there may be a high correlation between those type of people and double mummy families.
John Mc
7 Jan 13 at 12:38 pm
I’ve heard the misgivings about Abbott endlessly from people who I know do not vote Labor and reserve complete and utter contempt for the Lodge resident and her lead-footed live-in lover. It’s really just that the media have managed to fashion a narrative of a ‘pox on both their houses’ as the fasionable response, in the same way Rudd was fashioned as a Howard-lite who was hip to the jive, instead of an angry little lying control freak, who he really is.
In my opinion, Abbot should just wear the badge given to him with pride. He should mock them and lighten up somewhat. Keep bringing it back to policy. As long as you are getting things done I think people will forgive all sorts of personality things they don’t like.
To paraphrase Popeye ‘I yam what I yam’. IMO Tony should turn up to parliament in the surf lifesaving outfit for charity or something. Either set up donations to pay him to wear them, or donations to pay him to cover up the budgies. He could set up competing donations and whoever paid the most (cover up or bare all) would win the day.
Using humor and self-deprecation like that works a million times better than joining the likes of Roxon and Pliebersek in the gutter.
brc
7 Jan 13 at 12:38 pm
“PS: You are SEXIST and a MYSOGINIST if you disagree”
Like I said about the line in the sand. Anyone incapable or unwilling to fight at that line is undeserving of the position of opposition leader, let alone Prime Minister. On that basis I can only conclude that I am I perfect agreement with you.
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 12:40 pm
Use both. However other people need to get in the gutter, not Abbott.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 12:47 pm
blogstrop, it is illustrative of the problem TA faces with his image projected by the ABC guided media. He fails to connect with many natural, politically inarticulate conservatives, with “feelings”…
TA’s community and volunteering work is not well known, or appreciated.
On the other hand, Labor’s tactic of personally demonising TA will not stop them from voting Lib anyway, because Labor is beyond awful. Maybe post election the overwhelming media projection will dissipate.
Jannie
7 Jan 13 at 12:50 pm
I’ll have a bash.
The Catholic Church holds that all life is sacred. (I won’t get into capital punisment and just war at lunch time, however).
With IVF, a doctor is deliberately creating a zygote from an egg and a sperm. This is creating a life, and while as humans we participate in creation (God’s work) via procreation, the life that is conceived is more likely to be destroyed in the process than not.
For this reason, as a Catholic, I’m against IVF, particularly when you also bring into it the supposedly non-existent slippery slope of: anonymous gamete donors, surorgates/gestational carriers, the Indian womb factories.
We have a couple of generations of children who have been deliberately created to grow up ignorant of their biological history. According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, all children have the right to a biological mother and a father.
Then we have homosexual couples wanting their very own child, which means bringing into the mix gametes from a donor who often remains unknown.
But, after all, it’s all about the children.
Pig’s arse it is.
It’s about the complete lack of any recognition of a Higher Principle and therefore anything goes.
There’s no God, so scientists can do what they want, and if they can make babies, then anyone can have one. All you need is a few bucks, a test tube and your very own woman to incubate it for you.
Oh yes, and now we have the case where a baby has been conceived using DNA from 3 adults, but that’s okay because “birth” certificates in a lot of places have “parent A” and “parent B” – soon to add “parent C” I guess.
What a brave new world we live in.
/rant off.
nilk
7 Jan 13 at 12:52 pm
Quite. This seemingly 2013 election year preemptive strike against the expected continuation of Labor’s character assassination of Abbott is puzzling in it’s strategy. Why bring up IVF and how supportive Abbott has been without mentioning Labor’s cuts to the IVF scheme?
IVF treatments fell 13 per cent the year following this government’s reduction in funding by $50 million. With only an 18 per cent success rate I can only echo similar comments about the need for any taxpayer funding to the tune of around $300 million for such a scheme (now down to approximately $250 million). But why no mention of this in any articles by the Libs?
I am bewildered as to the Liberal strategy behind this parading of Abbott’s IVF support. It’s not necessary at this stage and the fanfare appears to reek nothing short of desperation.
Liberal strategists need to understand the correct timing to employ either offensive or defensive tactics.
This latest one is handing Labor – and it’s media divisions ABC and Faifax – a knife with which to skin Abbott. What were they thinking?
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 12:56 pm
“Conservatism is therefore essentially a moribund position. It rejects change, and cannot remain viable in a changing world.”
Numbers, I object to your blatant bias against the right side of your mouth.
In the interests of fairness, I demand that you dribble equally out of both sides of your mouth.
The Beer Whisperer
7 Jan 13 at 1:02 pm
For that reason Token the stupid cows are getting what they thoroughly deserve from the evil witch.
I’m jack of those numbskulled females (and have torn into them on occasion) who do the “Oh Madge, she does look lovely though in that Wimminses Weeply article, very intelligent – she went to university you know – and that drab olive (XXXXXL) pant suit is soooo fetching, slimming don’t you think … yeah, no, no, yeah, my word it is.”
QLD is full of ‘em – conservative middle aged oxygen thieves who complain about their taxes, rates, vehicle registrations and so on but do not trouble their unattended intellectual capacity with an examination into why. They had the opportunity to improve their education decades ago but were too bone idle to take it up.
For years they left it up to Beattie and Anna Blie$ to tell them what to do, to lead them with a jolly good fake snivelling in public, then they voted her out but didn’t know why. Channel 7 News and Madge is the extent of their enquiry.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
7 Jan 13 at 1:10 pm
I should add I do know part of the reason why – 20 odd years ago I discovered the abysmal quality of “teachers” and the appallingly simplistic education on offer in QLD had left it way behind NSW and Victoria.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
7 Jan 13 at 1:15 pm
Yep same here, where ever I go it is trotted out. I argue against it, they say (vomit) Turn can’t say the name would be better, I say – that is just the Labore party becasue they know they can beat him. They had him licked before TA took over and TA turned the whole show around and nearly won the election. Before that they were talking about Libs being 3 or 4 terms in opposition.
I heard Abbott speak recently and he filled the room with his presence, humble and yet also powerful.
Further to blogs’ comment on open thread and Peter Costello, I believed all that was said about him, too, and then one day towards the end of our days in the sun I heard him speak, and I was just so impressed with him. Humility is something rare in an ego driven profession and both these guys have it.
It is the MSM acolytes spoon fed by their masters who have bought about this state and I believe TA does have to do something about it. He is miles ahead but there will be a shitstorm this year and need to make sure he and we come out winners at on the other side.
As a woman and knowing what even conservative women are being told and think (and if you throw enough shit, some of it will stick) I think this message (IVF) is pitched to women as a counterfoil.
Who pays for it is another story but if TA said ‘if you want IVF, pay for it yourself – which I think is perfectly reasonable, then the mountains of shit poured on his head by the commos and progressives would be Everest like in its size and smell and probably obscure ever other policy he put forward.
Helen Armstrong
7 Jan 13 at 1:20 pm
I don’t think Tony Abbott has ever been much liked, even before he became opposition leader.
He’s always been tops in my books but.
Perhaps if he’s seen out and about with his charming wife and daughters, that’s the best thing he can do for his ‘image’.
candy
7 Jan 13 at 1:29 pm
I’m sorry, Helen, but this encapsulates everything that’s wrong with the Liberal Party. ‘We can’t advocate A – which is right and reasonable – because we’d be attacked; so we’ll just back down and pursue B which is basically the same as the ALP’s policy anyway.’ The result is the heritage listing of leftism in our politics and society.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 1:30 pm
Maragert Thatcher spoke in the late 1970 about the rise / need for consensus in politics and how damaging it is for the country as a whole.
Abbott needs to forget about the Canberra press gallary and concentrate on the people with the real power……………us the voters.
Please dont turn into a Ted, a do nothing, Labor clone.
Bugme
7 Jan 13 at 1:31 pm
I used to be a Liberal Party branch secretary years ago and remain concerned over the portability between the ALP and the Libs – lose preselection for one, you would get it for the other. Notice that the same situation exists in the US? Republican one day, Democrat the next. I read that Johnno Johnson did his best to try to recruit both Abbott and Costello for the ALP.
What intrigues me is why TA went to London recently and answered that he was there for Australia’s benefit etc. in response to why he had not read or studied the Slipper/Ashby ruling.
Que?
And also note the burgeoning increase in legislation from both sides of the box when in power – who is driving that? Of course if the politicians are under a KPI regime, then indeed to get good scores they have to generate legislation.
The Nationals are agrarian socialists and the Liberals are basically wet with no hard and fast principles based on conservatism, so they are easy prey to the intellectual barrage coming from the left.
In any case we underestimate the role of the Fabians in all this – it’s their MO to infiltrate the political parties, whether physically or intellectually, to further their agenda – and this they are achieving spectacularly well. The tragedy is that our conservative journalists haven’t the wit to recognise it – all seem to be suffering from the boiling frog syndrome. There seems to be an inbuilt aversion to even enunciating the word “Fabian”.
But if you don’t even understand who your enemy is, then be not surprised when they manoeuvre you in their direction.
Louis Hissink
7 Jan 13 at 1:37 pm
CL don’t be sorry, I think we are thinking about this from two different angles.
I think you have to separate the arguments. ALP are saying he is mean to women and doesn’t support IVF.
In keeping the message simple ‘TA is supportive of IVF – and here are two bona fide witnesses to that effect) is addressing the accusation made about him that he does not (support IVF).
Where does the mean to women message trotted out by ALP say that if you support IVF = gov pays? I know it is a logical progression for you, who thinks deeply about who pays for what, but not for most people. I think most people would take the message on face value. And I think the message is attitude to women, not the economics of fertility intervention.
Helen Armstrong
7 Jan 13 at 1:44 pm
The SMH has a poll up:
How do you feel about Peta Credlin and Christopher Pyne making public the personal support they received from Tony Abbott during their respective experiences with IVF?
- It made me re-think how I see Tony Abbott; he’s not as conservative as I thought
- I didn’t think Tony Abbott’s support was very surprising; any decent person would react that way
- Blatantly political – it was tacky to use their personal experiences like that
——————————————————
Guess which response is way out in front.
So that worked out well.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 1:48 pm
I see nothing wrong with what Abbott is doing. Stephen Harper has shown the benefits of lying to the Left about his intentions and then doing the opposite (which is, after all, the m.o. of the Left). He claimed to support Canada’s anti-speech laws and then did a reversal once he got a majority in both houses. On social/cultural matters, Abbott should do the same. Just tell barefaced lies and then “change (his) mind” after he wins, ramming through everything in his first year (sacking all Labor appointees no matter how competent, repealing the speech provisions of the RDA, and so on).
Fisky
7 Jan 13 at 1:48 pm
“How could that even be controversial? Since when was a right to do something also the right to force other people to pay for it?”
These days pretty much the only things that are considered inalienable rights involve some kind of claim to the resources and productivity of others.
Monkey's Uncle
7 Jan 13 at 1:49 pm
Sorry to butt in, Helen. It is my understanding that the IVF issue was brought up by the Liberals recently, not Labor, and now Labor is calling Abbott out as not supportive of IVF in response to those Credlin/Pyne articles. A quick glance at Hansard shows Abbott to be on record in Parliament supportive of IVF, so I am at a loss as to why the Liberals broached this IVF issue up now.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 1:52 pm
Louis,
I hope there are some new younger members coming through the ranks that will take us back to the right of center, and drag the Labor party back with them. Even in the CLP there is a move to the Left, and those who are Right of Center are viewed by some as Genghis Khans. A member said – I used to be a conservative but now I am a moderate – in all seriousness. The retort should have been ‘well go and join the Labor party then’.
Has it all come about by chasing the green nazivironmental vote?
Helen Armstrong
7 Jan 13 at 1:54 pm
You have preferential voting my friend, enjoy!
Tel
7 Jan 13 at 1:58 pm
It’s also early January – dead air in Australian politics.
Nobody’s listening and nobody cares.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 1:59 pm
While I agree with the poll results, CL it is Fairfax and I would expect nothing less of their readers than to tick the ‘Liberals wrong on this and everything else’ box.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 2:01 pm
Gab, CL, I guess that shows why I’m not employed as a media person and I should have researched it better.
Was it bought up by the Libs because ALP had reduced funding?
Helen Armstrong
7 Jan 13 at 2:02 pm
No. No mention of funding reductions by Labor anywhere to be seen.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 2:05 pm
See how it works? This is how the centre moves ever leftward.
dover_beach
7 Jan 13 at 2:08 pm
Helen,
I suspect it has (the green vote) but the other reason is the inability and futility of repealing the various collectivist acts and regulations the ALP puts in place as well. The slide into serfdom is inevitable and the Libs don’t realise it. The boiling frog metaphor at its best.
Louis Hissink
7 Jan 13 at 2:37 pm
This is going to go for the next eight months. The media most people read/see/listen to, commercial electronic and print media, will ignore it. However, except for the mass media bloggers like Bolt and Blair, the MSM will also not counter it.
Most people don’t like Abbott, mainly because they’ve never heard him speak in anything more than five-second sound bites for the six o’clock news – because Loughnane and Credlin have instructed him to do just that.
I don’t think ordinary people yet understand that the ABC and Fairfax are first and foremost political organisations whose singleminded aim is to ensure that the current government is not defeated.
You can see why these drooling wreckers are doing this and keep doing this today: Because Abbott won’t push back. Theirs is the only voice talking about AbbottAbbottAbbott. This is blatant barracking by news organisations, but they don’t care about the niceties. Nothing else matters today besides damaging Abbott.
And it will keep happening until Abbott stops apologising for himself. If he wants to the PM this year, he has to start showing some authority and pull these delinquents into line. They can’t believe they’re getting away with all their lying and ad hominems like naughty children because he’s letting them do it.
Tom
7 Jan 13 at 2:45 pm
I wouldn’t normally have to say it (there has been no need, from my intermittent viewing of posts by Prof Davidson) but he is totally wrong on this, so far as ‘disgraceful’ and ‘self-defeating political strategy’ is concerned. On such issues as IVF? Use of Contraception? No, silly argument to my mind. When those hardline, socially conservative views determine ‘conservatism’ the whole idea is finished and is just a rump, leaving millions without a political home. The great stupidity from many on the Left about the Tea Party was its attempt (followed by ignorant Australian commentators who get their US news from a few websites or Australian newspaper correspondents who also seemingly get their info from the same websites) to classify the growth and strength of the Tea Party as socially conservative driven rather than fiscally-conservative. I fact it was a standout that the original Teas Party agitation specifically rejected getting into the socially conservative issues much at all. Obviously, when their moves into the Republican Party (plus the usual ‘let’s get on board’ crew wanted to get in on their rise) these clashes have arisen but I am yet to be convinced that there is any dominance at all by socially conservative views outweighing the fiscally conservative ones. Witness the defeat suffered by the old religious crew who tried to shut out the Gay Patriot conservative because of their being ……well…..gay.
Without banging on about it, the stupid, incompetent few who blew their chances with whacko views on abortion were not only NOT universally Tea Party people, but the reaction from the Tea Party was fierce and strongly against those way-out views anyway. No matter that some might hold such personal views those are not the reason why they support Tea Party ideas or come out for them.
Why mention the Tea Party so far? Well, for what I say about the Tea Party goes tenfold about the rest of the ‘conservative’ base that is NOT the Religious Right. Start to ignore good policy and rigidly use it as a membership entry card and you lose all credibility – especially if it is based on some idea about pulling away from the centre!
M Ryutin
7 Jan 13 at 2:48 pm
Abbott should have clarified his position on IVF and abortion a long time ago. He would have avoided the severity of the attacks from the handbag hit squad.
Andrew
7 Jan 13 at 2:49 pm
There is no gulf betwen ‘social conservatism’ and ‘fiscal conservatism.’ Social progressives are responsible for the growth of statism and entitlement. They are also responsible for almost all of the major attacks on liberty, free speech, the second amendment etc.
Love liberty and smaller government?
Vote 1: Sarah Palin.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 2:52 pm
Small government is a long lost dream. It is not really popular now when you think of the consequences in the media of trying to achieve it. In principle, it sounds good but many reject it practically. What happened to Jeff Kennett when he tried and succeeded in removing the interference of Govt? He got kicked out.
Even during the Howard years, there was initially cut to the public sector
to help balance the books, which occurred, but eventually the public sector increased because of a growing population amongst other reasons. I also don’t agree with the increased regulation and welfare being something that occurs under all stripes. People often confuse good public policy spending with welfare. Secondly, governments are forced to increase welfare in order to get the desired outcome of their choice to pass both houses. It is the system that forces welfare to increase.
Andrew
7 Jan 13 at 3:18 pm
M Ryutin, four things. Firstly, Sinc didn’t author this post, I did, so the criticism should be directed at me (note to Sinc: maybe you need to double the size and embolden the heading even more to avoid further confusion). Secondly, this post isn’t about Abbott’s or my view of contraception, IVF, or any other ‘silly’, ‘hardline’, socially conservative position. Leftists don’t hate the Tea Party because they imagine they are socially and fiscally conservative. They hate them because they are conservative. Period. And when they see you throw social (and fiscal) conservatives under a bus, by referring to them as “silly and hardline” they laugh at their good fortune. Thirdly, CL’s point is dead right. If you imagine you can reign in government spending supporting a socially liberally platform you haven’t drawn the appropriate lessons of the last 40 years. Fourthly, who has said anything about membership entry cards? In fact, your comment above seems to be a concerted, well, just SHUT UP directed at social conservatives. Sorry. No.
Just a question, do you think the position of Hobby Lobby and the Greens just too ‘silly and hardline’ to defend? It’s just abortion and conscience at issue; non-fiscal issues. Not this battle, not that one, but the….
dover_beach
7 Jan 13 at 3:31 pm
Dover – “If you imagine you can reign in government spending supporting a socially liberally platform you haven’t drawn the appropriate lessons of the last 40 years”.
In my view the socially liberal platform you seem to be talking about is not liberal at all. To me, being socially liberal is not telling other people what to do. It doesn’t have to cost any money.
What, in your mind, are the most pressing issues for social conservatives at the moment?
eb
7 Jan 13 at 4:12 pm
While apologists for that disgraced institution – the Catholic Church – are many and plenty here on the Cat, Abbott realises that, in the real world, trying to defend pedo-central is a lost cause.
He is thus right, politically, to distance himself from the foul stench of the church. He would be even more right, morally, to revise his own personal beliefs and acceptance of its anti-human teachings, but Rome won’t be demolished in a day.
[This comment is extraordinarily offensive but deserves to be preserved for posterity. Sinc]
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 4:21 pm
Numbers, you have some nerve lecturing others on being backward-looking. All you ever talk about is your experience in ‘Nam.
Fisky
7 Jan 13 at 4:29 pm
Braggs
Didn’t take long to go “Catholic”. Its always there with you leftwhiners.. Kinda like eating at your brain like a fast moving aggressive tumor.
How did that economics lesson work out for you, Mr Positional externality?
You appallingly stupid dickwad.
(it’s a surefire thing with the leftie pinatas we’re sent by Leftwhiner central. They invariably always go “catholic”).
Get the bruises checked out Braggs, as some of them look really bad.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 4:30 pm
William, you are a supporter of fanatical millenarian terrorist groups in the M/E, such as Hezbollah. Please refrain from hypocritical pope-baiting.
Fisky
7 Jan 13 at 4:32 pm
That’s a bit upsetting to Catholics, William, who have nothing to do with abuse, but just have personal faith which is important in their lives.
candy
7 Jan 13 at 4:37 pm
[That sort of comment is unacceptable. Sinc]
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 4:41 pm
Sinc, I could make a case that the previous one was as well! Blatantly off topic, mindless sectarian nonsense.
mct
7 Jan 13 at 4:46 pm
I can’t recall – because they all sound the same – but which one of the moonbat leftards here lectured at us about using abuse as argument yesterday? I think it was “Bragg”.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 4:49 pm
Then I look forward to you applying the same standards to comments from WC, although will reduce postings on the Cat by about 80%.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 4:50 pm
Yup, William Bragg has about done it for me. Free speech is cool, but so is a punch in the nose, which is where it would be if this was a pub.
Jannie
7 Jan 13 at 4:57 pm
From Tony Abbott’s own article (popup?):
“A minister’s job is to implement the policy of the government and to administer departmental programs. It is not to make moral decisions for people. Governments should do what’s best based on expert advice and keep prudent control over expenditure, as taxpayer dollars are not inexhaustible, but otherwise leave people to decide what’s right for them. *Contrary to myth, as health minister I never sought to restrict access to the morning-after pill, never sought to prevent the importation of RU486 and never sought to limit access to abortion.*
Australia is a pluralist democracy. It always has been and it always should be. The values that political parties and governments should uphold in a country like ours are those that can be justified on the basis of human reason and are potentially accessible to everyone.”
I find the revelations therein including *…* above just gobsmacking, considering all the hoohah over the years. Personally I agree with his above stated view of the role of a govt minister. But why now? If he had said the above before the last election he more likely would have won. Why now?
one old bruce
7 Jan 13 at 5:03 pm
Given the extraordinary accusations made by the comedian at the recent CFMEU event, Peta Credlin has now come out to talk about her own IVF treatment, and Tony Abbott’s support. This satanic ALP adviser, John McTernan’s ‘gender strategy’ is going to turn things really vile in the lead up to the election.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/alp-advisers-story-a-gender-tactic-20130106-2cb66.html
linecall
7 Jan 13 at 5:11 pm
So, Cats can give but they can’t take.
All the notions in my deleted post have found expression previously on the Cat (although not all in the one post). I fully agree that they are offensive, and that the Cat would be far better for banning their use and setting less sub-terranium standards for civility on this blog. The infantile tactics of WC and co do nothing for robust debate – they in fact crowd it out – and simply lower the tone and further besmirch the reputation of the Cat.
Sinc sets the standards so its his choice. My main request is that he apply them consistently.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 5:14 pm
Anyway, back to the topic…
He did and it’s on record in Hansard.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 5:19 pm
Braggs
Fuck off. No one likes you here, you pompous loser.
You leftie pinata braggs.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 5:21 pm
Yeah, but a very minute percentage of political pundits read Hansard and now what he said back then. It should have been more open and in the public so the ALP could not have something to point score over for the past couple of months.
Andrew
7 Jan 13 at 5:22 pm
When it the “past couple of months” has the ALP hit squad vilified Abbott for his views on IVF?
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 5:24 pm
A bit difficult when the meeja picks and chooses what to make their story of the day. Much easier to go with sound-bites from Nanny Roxon.
Happymonkey
7 Jan 13 at 5:26 pm
You are such a child.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 5:28 pm
It would help if you, at least, understood English – that sounds like a radioactive mole.
Louis Hissink
7 Jan 13 at 5:29 pm
Well it is safe there, none of the Canberra Gallery will ever find it.
Now if it was emailed press release from an address with the words ALP.ORG with large type that says…
It would be printed in a heart-beat.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 5:32 pm
Just came accross this thanks to JC. It does not have to be an issue at least in the near term. Just put a limit of 15% or 20% which would be acceptable to the protectionists. This limit is unilikely to be reached soon, many if not most foreign investors buy land in OZ because it is cheap forgetting about weather conditions and wages and distance to market. I say let them blow their money.
kelly liddle
7 Jan 13 at 5:36 pm
Kelly,
You’ve misunderstood my comment. I don’t have an issue with individuals or private corps buying up land etc. It’s just one segment.. foreign governments.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 5:39 pm
JC
I never stated anything about the form of ownership or particular owners other than foreign. If foreign governments want to waste money here then good luck to them. I only advocate a limit on the amount of foreign ownership which has not changed much at all and remains fairly low.
kelly liddle
7 Jan 13 at 5:46 pm
You mean the ALP – the only political party in the world to have chosen no fewer than three child rapists as leaders?
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 5:50 pm
On the issue of IVF, it is well-known that Abbott thinks the Vatican is wrong on the issue of IVF. This view is shared by the majority of married Catholics.
linecall
7 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
William Bragg’s pleas for civility (at 5.14) deserves discussion. There was quite a bit recently in comments to ’2012 in review’, and I admit that DaveF and I got little support, and no little abuse, when we raised the frequent (almost constant) use of foul abuse by such as JC. Lizzie, who comes across (whether truthfully one cannot know) as a refined if somewhat risque sosphisticate from a wealthy part of the eastern suburbs, went so far as to encourage JC to keep at it. (And I admit that this provoked me to call her an airhead.)
The arguments for civility in debate are various, but one that might appeal to Sinclair is that it enhances the credibility of Catallaxy as a site of which notice should be taken, and his own credibility as someone who should be taken seriously.
A possbile model is the PJ Media rules for blogging:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
rafiki
7 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
Fuck off.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 6:11 pm
So what?
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 6:13 pm
William Bragg – it works like this – I have put a stop to people calling each other pedophiles or pedophile supporters. It is unacceptable and I won’t have it. No excuses. No bullshit. No moral equivalence. Don’t do it. That is all.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Jan 13 at 6:17 pm
So what? On this particular issue – IVF – Abbott is right to come out swinging against McTernan’s Molls – the Handbag Hit Squad.
linecall
7 Jan 13 at 6:17 pm
Rafki
Please stop spamming good threads with irrelevant crap. If you have an issue take it up at the open thread or fuck right off.
I dunno what’s going here of late, but since Bolt’s on hols we’ve managed to collect the biggest bunch of asshats, cry babies and general loons I’ve ever seen here.
And you rafki, you appalling hypocrite, you abuse lizzie in that hand- -over-mouth-who-me schtick and expect to be heard because others are more upfront that you are, you sneaky little beta male.
These Bolt refs are really something.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 6:21 pm
I didn’t know what Rafki’s thing was until he showed up here and cited Bragg as a voice of reason. That’s when you know you’re being had.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 6:30 pm
Even at the expense of trashing his own faith?
The Magisterium is not “misguided” on IVF at all.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 6:33 pm
And what a little busy body he is too… Do this with the site, sinc, do that. WTF?
Here’s a challenge for the idiot. If you think you could do better Rafki, go set up a site yourself and see how you go, you interfering little twerp.
Yea and he’s peddling this lunatic Braggs as a voice of reason. This is the moron suggesting last evening that people who wear expensive suits to interviews ought to be taxed.
Dot and I kicked the living daylights out of him last evening and like any cowardly leftwing pinata, he heads straight to the Catholic church the next day…. as though we haven’t seen those sorts of tactics from previous now dead leftie pinatas b
FFS, this is the silly/stupid season… but there’s a limit to the stupidity anyone can endure.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 6:37 pm
CL
You raise issues beyond my pay-grade, but on this particular issue, it seems “his own faith” supports IVF.
linecall
7 Jan 13 at 6:39 pm
Then I’m not sure what his faith is but it isn’t the Catholic faith. The Magisterium isn’t, in his words, “misguided” and opposition to all abortion isn’t “bullshit.”
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 6:58 pm
If you wish to excommunicate Tony Abbot, you’ll need to contact his Chief of Staff – Peta Credlin. Let us know how that goes.
linecall
7 Jan 13 at 7:00 pm
JC, you have a problem. Get some help.
CL, I have not just showed up here supporting Bragg. I have been commenting for quite a while, quite sparingly, attempting to be on point, and mostly (but not be design) in accord with the Catallaxy line on the topic. I raised the lack of civility point in the comments to ’2011 in review’(as did others). I understand of course that you would have little sympathy with it.
My (quite mild by Catallaxy standards) abuse of Lizzie followed her explicit encouragement of JC, and there was nothing hand-over-mouth about it. I was trying to get through to her the offence caused by foul abuse by upsetting her with a mild dose.
Sinclair, I enjoy the lead comments, but I wonder how an academic could think that reasoned debate is assisted, and not obstructed, by the likes of JC and CL. Prof Bunyip does not permit this on his blog, and nor should you.
rafiki
7 Jan 13 at 7:07 pm
rafiki – being an academic is my day-job. For my views on blogging see here.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Jan 13 at 7:21 pm
Should add that Bunyip and PJ etc. can run their blogs anyway they like.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Jan 13 at 7:23 pm
I am getting more and more sympathetic to posters like JC and CL. Fair go, you get to a point where you know there is no point, and abuse can be appropriate and cathartic. Bragg begs for it.
Jannie
7 Jan 13 at 7:50 pm
You’re the one with the problem, sport. Try to control someone else’s blog. You’re a leftwing busybody trying to impose leftwing language rules to make this place a safe haven for trolls like the delinquent arsehole you’re busy defending. There are already enough troll baiters taking advantage of the owner’s tolerance. Fuck off back to fascist leftwing blogworld and take the teenager with you.
Tom
7 Jan 13 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for the clarification Sinc.
[No need to reproduce the comment I deleted. Sinc]
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 8:03 pm
Well brave wee William Bragg you’ve managed to insult me with that childish little outburst but then you’ve simultaneously demonstrated your complete ignorance of the body you’re mouthing off about.
Is this the Pardy’s instruction sheet for the day, straight out of the Cabinet room? Do they still run a Cabinet?
I’d be interested in former Prime Minister Keating’s assessment of your effort, and that of former Deputy Prime Minister, the late Lionel Bowen. Mick Young, Susan Ryan, Fred Daly, Frank and Kevin Stewart (same parish as me) – who were all committed Catholics proud of their faith and active in the excellent work it does for those in need. They were/are all Labor members.
You’re a bit light on in your knowledge of the Catholic faith and of the intertwined history of the ALP and the Catholic Church.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
7 Jan 13 at 8:19 pm
Rafki
For what possible reason dickhead? I’m a well adjusted, fighting fit example of Australian manhood.
What you need to do, Rafki is grow a set and stop being a busy body old aunt who no one particularly likes.
You presumptuous moron, fancy you giving the blog owner leads on how to run an already successful blog…. and to make matters worse you defend Crazy Braggs, the useless protoplasm who wants to tax people if they wear a more expensive suit than others at a job interview.
And of all things, you actually advised the blog owner to get rid of CL who perhaps is the least abusive commenter here? I take more offense that you would even suggest that than asking I get banned rafki, you fucking idiot.
You’re pathetic Raftki. A passive aggressive pathetic example of the humanity.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 8:19 pm
True. Today’s instruction from CL to ratfifi to procreate away is the first time I’ve seen him say that to anyone, let alone in such a direct manner and harsh tone.
Mind you, ratfifi deserved it.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 8:23 pm
[I'm not in the habit of multiple deletions. Sinc]
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 8:29 pm
I agree on this JC
Rafikis set of rules above for Sincs blog is more than a little presumptious and lets face it – this is a poular blog that keeps moving and Sincs views on running his blog are his business.
Go play at JQs Rafiki. You will be more at home there and you will be policed if get “perceived” as not meeting the requisite standards of politeness. You would fit in well there.
Just take your standards of behaviour rules with you.
Alice
7 Jan 13 at 8:32 pm
Sure did,
What a interfering old he is , Gab.
This isn’t funny anymore. we have crazy braggs and the rafster going on endlessly about civility… their standard of course.
The Raftster gets stuck into Lizzie in that beta boy passive aggressive way of his and crazy Braggs goes into the typical leftie anti-catholic pedo calling mode the day after he cops a serious hiding over envy denial as well as demanding people wear cheap suits to interviews.
That’s civility folks. Lol.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 8:33 pm
Yea Alice..it’s no longer Rafferty’s rules, it’s Rafkis rules.
Meanwhile feeling like he’s being left out like an old pair of socks, Crazy Braggs is still whining to Sinc because he isn’t allowed to call people pedos.
I’ve seen it all now. It’s the silly season but these idiots are taking it to extremes.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 8:38 pm
JC – “Rafikis rules” LOL
Alice
7 Jan 13 at 8:39 pm
One excommunicates oneself from the Church. It isn’t done by anyone else, contrary to cinematic mythology. Certainly, if Abbott no longer believes in the authority of the Magisterium he needs to assess whether he is any longer a Catholic.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 8:40 pm
It’s well beyond whining and already at nagging.
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 8:41 pm
William Bragg – let it go.
Sinclair Davidson
7 Jan 13 at 8:42 pm
I hadn’t noticed.
Look, bonehead, following the toilet-level comment from Braggs that Sinclair warned him about you had the sheer gall to lecture us about civility – using Braggs as an authority. Then you posted a list of suggestions for reforming the site, one of which was to involve the police.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 8:46 pm
WC, for three days you accused me of JFK conspiracy theories, even though I had never once mentioned JFK on the on this blog. Last night you at least acknowledged – but of course did not apologise for – your error.
Now you have at least thrice said that I argued that people should not wear expensive suits to interviews, even though I never once did this or alluded to this.
You are a congenital liar.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 8:49 pm
Really?
Rafster, dude take a valium and settle down or go do your yoga exercises.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 8:51 pm
Great post Dover, loving it.
JC, before I die, I’d like you to give me one of your trademark sprays. Not now, but if I find myself in a situation where I’ve only months to live I’d appreciate it. Poetic scolding is a beautiful thang.
jumpnmcar
7 Jan 13 at 8:52 pm
If you continue to encourage patently anti-cat trolls you end up right about here.
blogstrop
7 Jan 13 at 8:52 pm
[FFS. Sinc]
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 8:54 pm
Who is this “WC” of which you speak in such a nasty fashion, Bragg?
Gab
7 Jan 13 at 8:55 pm
I think the idiot is referring to WC on a building plan.
WC=water closet=toilet.
Not a nice idiot that one.
jumpnmcar
7 Jan 13 at 9:05 pm
As you know, Crazy (can I call you Carze for short), it was an honest mistake, as I seriously can’t tell you from Greys. You both seem to aspire to the same giddy heights of stupidity.
I wasn’t sure so I asked a genuine question if others could confirm which of you two nutballs was the JFK conspiracy genius. Two people replied that is was the other idiot rather than you and you subsequently denied it which by default meant it was Greys.
Apologize? What the hell for? It was a mistake and mistakes happen all the time. Ive now corrected the error, but you certainly don’t need nor deserve an apology. In fact you ought to be apologizing to us all here for the crap you’ve been posting. we deserve one.
I’ve mentioned it four times actually. Well of course you “allude” and infer it by advocating positional externalities. What the fuck do you think positional externalities would mean if the country went fully retarded and began to introduce positional externality taxes, you nimbus? You would/could very well end up taxing people wearing expensive suits to job interviews. That’s what positional externality taxes are about, you freaking dense shyster.
Of course I’m not and you’re a congenital liar for even suggesting such a thing.
What you don’t like is being made of. Unfortunately you offer a lot of raw material Craze.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 9:05 pm
WC?
What does that mean as I’m interested…. my curiosity is piqued.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 9:07 pm
Jump… dude sure thing.. Lets hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does I’d be happy to oblige, but only to cheer you up as you’re a good guy.
Yep that’s about right.
The trolls I really despise the most are the “things” who show up here all the time and begin their swill with…..”Catallaxy is…..”.
Spiteful dickheads.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 9:12 pm
I did not “advocate” positional externalities – that is your erroneous projection. All I did was mention that Franks’ argument on positional externalities – which was introduced by Tel – is an efficiency argument.
Another mistake on your part, WC? Maybe, but you make ‘mistakes’ of this type so consistently – in debates with lefties, at least – that one finds it hard not to conclude that you are intentionally misrepresenting us.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 9:26 pm
“I didn’t suggest that we have sex after enjoying some coffee and wine at my luxury penthouse your honour, I merely suggested it would be be a filip to our indifference curves”
Fuckhead.
.
7 Jan 13 at 9:27 pm
What a kooky thread and to cap it off William Bragg has the typical mentally lefty brain explosion.
It was only a matter of time.
Token
7 Jan 13 at 9:33 pm
Au contraire, change is entropy, and entropy kills all things – even, eventually, the universe itself.
Hey, these ridiculous analogies are awesome!
But to attack your analogy more directly, the faster an organism changes, the faster it dies of cancer. Therefore a liberal organism is a dead organism. Boy oh boy, I love this game.
wreckage
7 Jan 13 at 9:37 pm
So you therefore completely disavow any support for the concept of positional externalities and agree with Dot that it’s about as evil form of taxing that you could get?
You do right? Yes or no?
Nope , no mistake Braggs. You’re now attempting the Happy Hamilton trick of advocating opinions of others and then when the kitchen gets too hot you walk away from it pretending you weren’t advocating it and that it was someone else.
Hamilton was once advocating that climate change sceptics should be watched by the security services. He was rightly whacked for it and immediately went into that form of casual denial, which is what you’re trying to do now…. “it wasn’t me, i was just mentioning it”…
Some advice. It doesn’t work here as we’ve seen every t single leftwhiner trick in the book. In fact the Cat has a book just being published on leftwing debating tricks and lies.
Nope, you’re lying.
Craze, take your irrelevancies to the open thread as your pathological bullshit is clogging up this post. Now fuck off.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 9:39 pm
If we all got back on topic and ignored the childish fights, that would be much appreciated and we could discuss the secret nature of the ABC top broadcasters not disclosing their salaries.
Andrew
7 Jan 13 at 9:40 pm
Sinc I think it is time to Free Willy
Rousie
7 Jan 13 at 9:42 pm
Wrong thread for that Andrew.
is another thread.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 9:43 pm
Oops. I guess the point still stands. Thanks
Andrew
7 Jan 13 at 9:49 pm
So WC, you can bring forth no evidence that I advocated ‘positional externalities’, as you said I had, because I didn’t. Do you apologise or admit your error? Of course not.
Instead, you issue another of your dumb challenges. “So, if you didn’t advocate it, then disavow it”. Sorry sport, but it doesn’t work that way. The onus is on you – the person who made the accusation – to show where I advocated positional externalities.
It is Logic 101 that whether a person supports or rejects a particular argument is a separate question to whether the person advocated the argument, so its clear that you’re just up to your usual tactic of trying to distract attention when you’re in a tight bind.
If you cannot go through the other thread and show where I advocated positional externalities, as I know you can’t, you should admit that you made an error in this case too.
Somehow though, I suspect that’s a standard of integrity that you’ll find yourself unable to reach.
—
Dot: There’s no need for you to include an additional sign-off at the bottom of your comments, as the system automatically tells us the name of the commenter over on the right.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 10:04 pm
Well you did of course as you refusal to disavow shows.
Yes or no Braggs?
Now enough. You’ve fucked up one thread too many.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 10:07 pm
Yeah, really funny, cockbreath.
Yep. Bring stuff up then disavow it when it is repudiated. You shallow fuckwit.
You’re an airhead, Bragg.
.
7 Jan 13 at 10:10 pm
Q.E.D.
William Bragg
7 Jan 13 at 10:11 pm
Lol.. it’s the happy Hamilton trick and this idiot thinks he could try it on thinking we’re not wise up to it.
He’s right, you are an airhead, Braggs.
Yes or no, dipstick?
JC
7 Jan 13 at 10:12 pm
Yes, personal integrity by changing the topic, again.
Fucking airhead. Go and get your balls waxed.
.
7 Jan 13 at 10:28 pm
As CL said, so what? The majority of married catholics (and singles as well) are poorly catechised and have no idea of what their Faith actually teaches.
nilk
7 Jan 13 at 10:36 pm
I think we’re done here.
wreckage
7 Jan 13 at 11:29 pm
“Fuck off” was kind of a joke, by the way.
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 11:31 pm
Could someone tell me who WC is?
C.L.
7 Jan 13 at 11:33 pm
I think Crazy Braggs is calling me that, but I have no idea what it stands for. I’m guessing it’s some sort of private joke he’s having with all the other voices in his stupid head.
Braggs, share the info, you commie twit. We’re all curious now.
JC
7 Jan 13 at 11:36 pm
Andrew, leaving aside the fact, as pointed out by one old bruce, that Abbott already has “clarified” his position, the right thing to do is to ask Gillard to clarify her own position on abortion, taking the variety of positions of Emily’s List, which she is a co-founder, as points of clarification.
Miss Gillard,
why do you support partial birth abortions?
why do you support forcing some doctors to act against their conscience?
why do you support the denial of pain relief to any unborn child during an abortion?
why do support the denial of rights to children that have survived an attempted abortion, preferring that they be left to die alone on a steel tray?
These questions sound like a good start.
eb, can you point me to a jurisdiction that is socially liberal but that lacks the institutional support provided by government for these socially liberal activities and their outcomes? I know people like to pretend that there is no nexus between social liberalism and the welfare state but the evidence seems to be non-existent. The sexual revolution of the Sixties and the dramatic increase in size of the welfare state from the 70s onward is not coincidental. So it is increasingly costing us money and will do so into the future. Lastly, to my mind, the most pressing issues for social conservatives at the moment are marriage and the deficit.
dover_beach
8 Jan 13 at 1:23 am
Thankfully, as a counter to the predominant media bias in favour of Mr Abbott, the egregious Susie O’Brien, in today’s Herald Sun, is willing to buck the trend and support the PM. In “Of course, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s cheer squad backs him”, she lambasts Abbott for his being liked, for his being supported, and for his not condoning the killing of as many fetuses as Ms O’Brien would prefer be killed each year.
O’Brien argues, inter alia, that Abbott’s contention that abortion ought to be “safe, legal and rare” proves what a meany he is; abortion, she helpfully explains, “should be freely available to those who need one. If 100,000 women (and men) decide they don’t want to go ahead with a pregnancy, it’s a good decision” because the only other possible outcome would be “100,000 more unwanted children being born into unstable homes.”
O’Brien correctly perceives that Abbott’s support for some women’s IVF treatments is hypocritical, judgemental and anti-female because he once “tried to restrict access to taxpayer-supported IVF for older women”. Clearly, if a person support any medical therapy or procedure, that person must also support its being both provided for everybody, regardless of circumstances, of course, and totally funded by taxpayers.
O’Brien concludes:
Perverse critics might say that, in addition to having no idea of what constitutes a logical argument, Ms O’Brien might just be a tad, well, judgemental—but I’d never be one of them.
Deadman
8 Jan 13 at 9:09 am
Bear in mind that funding was at that stage estimated to be $36 million in 2005 and only 2% of IVF treatments resulted in live births.
Abbott’s full quote:
Of course there’s no mention in the MSM of the gillard government cuts to funding IVF in 2009. They too, like the Howard government, considered the age factor.
Roxon & gillard then proceeded to slash $50 million in 2009 to bring costs down to $250 million.
But,as I said, the Labor Love Media make no mention of this today.
Gab
8 Jan 13 at 9:56 am
So another Labor election promise broken.
Gab
8 Jan 13 at 9:58 am
Why?
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 1:47 pm
LOL. Fight the power.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 1:49 pm
I was having a Captain at Anne Summers’ site the other day and came across this article in which she tells of the abortion she had back in the 1960s. It seems this is like a Vietnam War story for leftist women of the era. One commenter at her site praised her for her “bravery” – which seemed an odd way to describe a healthy, able-bodied woman killing an unborn child in order to (merely) secure a berth at Adelaide University. Do watch that video interview with Jeremy Sims re last year’s hagiography of supposed abortion ‘doctor,’ Bertram Wainer. Watch from about 2.40 onwards for the formaldehyde story. “It’s the best of two bad options.”
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 2:00 pm
The other extraordinary thing about that story is how little value she felt about the unborn child; s/he was hardly mentioned. She really is a vile woman.
dover_beach
8 Jan 13 at 2:33 pm
Hello, Captains Catholic who are all feeling woozy and confused about Tony now that it is abundantly clear that he is not Catholic enough for the uber Catholics of Catallaxy.
Have you not noticed Summer’s Drum article talking about the Credlin interview? Please, feel free to chase and savage it and get stuck into her ‘cos she’s a lefty woman in your usual charmless way.
steve from brisbane
8 Jan 13 at 2:43 pm
We discussed “brave” abortion survivor and former Paul Keating chambermaid Summers days ago, Steve.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 2:46 pm
Her article seems only to be dated yesterday, dear Captain.
steve from brisbane
8 Jan 13 at 2:49 pm
Many Catholics are sympathetic to IVF, Steve. It’s very troubling about the discarded embryos,but the joy of a baby a new life with loving parents, is just too good.
I wish you’d stop putting Catholics down.
candy
8 Jan 13 at 2:51 pm
‘Courageous’ abortion enthusiast and Adelaide University survivor Summers:
Ahahahahaha.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 2:53 pm
Summers is beyond pathetic which brings me to SfB QC. have you done the washing?
Tiny Dancer
8 Jan 13 at 2:54 pm
Step
I thought you weren’t coming back and went into self imposed exile.
What happened?
Jc
8 Jan 13 at 2:54 pm
This coming from the guy who tried to put the onus on me to gather evidence backing his argument.
Tel
8 Jan 13 at 2:55 pm
Do you think that bit of ‘seppo totty she keeps, realises what wil happen to him if he becomes an economic threat to Ms Summers?
Token
8 Jan 13 at 2:56 pm
That a Rugby joke, right, or Cricket? I don’t get it.
Tel
8 Jan 13 at 2:58 pm
Having learned that Summers killed her own unborn child – after all, she had an arts degree to attend to at Adelaide University – I now understand her meltdown in 2005:
Right.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 2:59 pm
Summers:
Hang on, they were raised by Gillard in her infamous misognyny speech on the Parliament or is this another thing you’ve forgotten?
See how they play this game. Of course, Gillard will never be asked to defend the position of the organisation of which she is a member on late-term abortion, partial birth abortion, the refusal to administer life-saving procedures or even pain-relief to children that survive their attempted abortion, sex-selection and abortion, and so on.
dover_beach
8 Jan 13 at 3:05 pm
LOL. A coward who killed her own unborn child to secure a place in an arts degree has the sheer gall to talk about the “yield” of grubby old stories.
She actually used the word “grubby” to describe Abbott’s happiness about his ‘son’ being alive, rather than long since trashed in an abortionist’s bin.
What a revolting human being she is. I can see why she brown-noses Gillard.
C.L.
8 Jan 13 at 3:13 pm
” “that my son’s attitude was not resentment at being given up for adoption but gratitude at being given his chance at life.””
Sounds like the boy realised if the parents had thought differently about abortion, there would never have been a him at all, probably an awesome thought for him to contemplate.
candy
8 Jan 13 at 3:15 pm
CL
You realize she’s my in-law family, right? Lol.
I just feel a little loyal to wifey so I avoid in partaking.
Good points you raise though. All fair.
JC
8 Jan 13 at 3:24 pm