Items of interest found recently in my RSS feed. What did I miss? Please share what you've been reading (and writing!) in the comments.
- The Health Debate – Kevin grins, Abbott grits and Journalists talk.
- Tasmanian Greens – take power by staying out of government
- Google to Stop Censoring in China
- Feminism | Maternal Deaths | One Child Policy
- HCR: Wingnuts Say Blarg!
- Making everything about men
– “Oh cry me a river Dutton! You’re playing for keeps here, if you expect Rudd to give you an inch, you might as well plan your after politics retirement right now. Every bit of political logic says not to give the Opposition leader a chance to appear on the same stage as the Prime Minister; it was all there for Rudd to lose today – if Abbott had “won” the debate, Rudd would have been savaged by the media (and likely his own backbench). Instead he walked away stronger than he was yesterday – that requires political courage and smarts to know that going against convention is the right thing to do.”
– “Faced with the enormous pressure to support a party in government or even enter coalition, they should refuse.
Instead they should invite a general budget proposal from each major party, guarantee their support for that vote (and the initial confidence vote) only, and only if they conform to that proposal in its essence – and then announce that they will take every other issue on its merits.”
– “This is huge. Surely the biggest media story in the year, if not the decade. And it is not only a media story. It is also about culture, censorship, dictatorship and, well, the future of the world.”
– “What is it about girls that make them so utterly undesirable? And what is it about women that make them so utterly dispensable?
While the so called crime of ”gendercide” appears predominately an Asian problem, don’t for a minute think that Australia isn’t also complicit in the continued negating of females – as if they don’t matter. “
– Sadly No! summarises rightwing bloggers heads as they go splodey ov HCR
– “Maybe it’s just me, but I would have thought that the negative consequences for women are much more substantial than the negative consequences for men. So why the fuck do the headline and first sentence focus on the harm to men?
(No need to answer, the question is rhetorical.)”