Senator Andrew Bartlett
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
 
Although I only met Janine Haines twice, she was a key reason why I decided to join the Democrats back in 1989.

The Democrats' ethos of participatory democracy and attempt to move beyond the old ideological divisions had already drawn my attention. Janine Haines seemed to embody the reality that moving away from a two party system would make our democracy more vibrant and dynamic.

I also appreciated her irreverence and willingness to make comments that were a bit 'courageous' and outside the safe clichés which dominated party political discussion. One example that sticks in my mind was when she said (words to the effect that) a large proportion of the electorate didn't know enough to cast an informed vote. This was naturally jumped on straight away as an allegedly disgraceful insult of the average Australian, but in many respects it was (and remains) true. Given the abysmal coverage of political issues by the mainstream media, it is probably not surprising that most of the public aren't terribly well informed about the reality of what happens in the Parliament, but that doesn't make the comment incorrect.

The first time I met Janine was at the Democrats' launch of our Queensland candidates for the 1990 federal election. It was a function held at the Greek Club at South Brisbane, a convenient function centre which still serves as the venue for a wide variety of meetings and forums. I’ve gone to at least 10 different events there since that time, from small community group meetings, to dinners and speeches. I even played a gig there once with one of my bands at a Qld music awards night.

I don't remember a huge amount about the candidate launch. It was relatively early in my days in the party, and I was still very much at the stage of sussing things out. I was standing on the edges, just observing people and Janine came over specifically to say hello to me. I was 25 years old and had very long, died black hair – probably untidy although I don't recall. Rather than ask me how long I'd been a member and why I joined and the usual sorts of questions, she just started making conversation about how boring these sorts of events could be for many people, but for some candidates and some of their supporters they were a good morale boost. She then walked off and gave a typically rousing campaign launch speech. About the only other thing that sticks in my mind was that one of our candidates (for the seat of Moreton I think) was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, so it probably was a fairly dull event.

The only other time I met her would have been around 1992. By that stage I was Qld Secretary and on Cheryl Kernot's staff. She was visiting Cheryl's office in Melbourne St, South Brisbane and I was sitting out the back in the little kitchen area talking to her about the other time that I'd met her. She was friendly, but in keeping with her approach once she left politics at the 1990 election, she was very reluctant to making pronouncements about what the party should be doing or to give political advice.

A combination of her desire not to be commenting form the sidelines after she'd left politics and a worsening illness meant she made few forays into the public arena after that. Her illness was such that she ceased appearing even at celebratory and official party occasions. In some ways, this has helped in her being remembered at her dynamic and charismatic best.Janine still remains the most electorally successful third party leader and she did that with strong opinions and an open-minded attitude to good policy, but without being extremist or fundamentalist in her approach, something we could do with more of today.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 23, 2004
|
Sunday, November 21, 2004
 
Many thoughts went through my mind hearing John Anderson complaining about the smear on his reputation and the lack of natural justice he received from Tony Windsor regarding the bribery allegations.I do have sympathy for John Anderson in such a situation. However he is a senior member of a Government which has been quite happy to be party to vilifying, misrepresenting and slurring a large number of people for political purposes, without any concern for the impact on the person or their family and very rarely apologising when proved incorrect.

I can’t recall John Anderson doing too much of this vilifying himself, but he is Deputy Prime Minister in a Government which has excelled in it. It’s a bit rich to complain loudly about a lack of natural justice and to call for an apology when this Government has specialised in denying natural justice and in not apologising. In fact this Government is so antagonistic to the concept of natural justice that it has specifically removed any entitlement to it from the Migration Act.

They are not alone in the political sphere in refusing to apologise when an egregious slur has been found to be baseless or grossly overstated, but I’d say they’re the most regular and calculated offenders. (Apart from the media of course, who use the excuse that they are just the messenger when in reality they not only contribute to a lot of the distortions but do more than anyone else to perpetuate them and regularly refuse to correct the record in anything close to a balanced way.)

I don’t think I’ll start listing this Government’s examples of vilifying and deliberately slurring people here, as it will take too long. It would also risk the misperception that those I omit are less significant than those I list. However, if people want to provide any examples, that would be welcome – there have been so many it’s hard to remember them all.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, November 21, 2004 Permalink
|
 
The current big political story is the allegation by Independent MP Tony Windsor that the Deputy Prime Minister was behind an offer of a possible ambassadorship in return for resigning his seat. Obviously I can't know the full facts, so I'll just make a few observations about things I do know.

I don't know any of the politicians involved exceptionally well, but I have worked with Tony Windsor on a few issues over recent years and in my experience I have found him a straight shooter.

Regardless of the truth behind these particular allegations - and that’s a matter for the Federal Police to determine - the fact that anyone making alleged offers like this can be seen as believable is a clear indication of how corrupted the process of Government appointments is.

Perhaps the most famous offer of an ambassadorship for blatantly politically motivated purposes was Whitlam making DLP Senator Vince Gair ambassador for Ireland in a failed attempt to tilt the balance in the Senate his way. This sort of 'wink and nod' behaviour is so common from Governments, particularly ones that have been in power for some time, that it is easy to become accustomed to it. It is only when it is presented baldly and blatantly as bribery, as is the case with the Windsor allegations, that the stark reality of the true nature of this sort of behaviour is manifest.

What has got little attention, but is in its own way equally damning is the reported concern of the Tamworth businessman who allegedly made the offer, that millions of dollars in Government funding for a worthwhile local project would not be forthcoming because Mr Windsor was not a member of the Government. The funding was eventually provided and is probably well merited, but it is a reminder that the factors that influence distribution of large amounts of public funds often include political and partisan consideration.

The only way to prevent these sorts of offers being made (and acted on) is to have a proper, merit-based system for determining Government appointments. The Democrats have pursued this repeatedly over the years, but have always been rebuffed by both major parties for the obvious reason that it removes a key area of patronage and largesse from their political arsenal and would be a loss of what is still seen as one of the spoils of office.

The fact is that these appointments can matter enormously whether we are talking about an ambassadorship, a High Court Judge, a Departmental head or the thousands of other positions that are the subject of Ministerial appointment. At key times or on key issues, people in these roles can affect the course of history and change lives dramatically. The better the quality of person in them, the better the chance that it will change for the better rather than the worse.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, November 21, 2004 Permalink
|
 
I went to the launch of Don Chipp's latest book Friday morning titled 'Keep the Bastards Honest'. There was an impressive turnout of people, including Andrew Peacock and his wife, Michael Kroger, John Button, Ron Barassi, Steve Vizard, as well as the MC John Singleton and Andrew Denton, who gave a very good speech.

There was an implicit assumption in a number of the comments made that the Democrats had now failed as a political force and - in many ways far worse - had failed to even be a voice on some of the important issues such as honesty, the war, refugees and aboriginal disadvantage. I should have found this annoying and dispiriting, but I have become used to our efforts being perceived as invisible or non-existent by the media (and therefore by many in the community). It didn’t overly trouble me, as this wasn’t meant to be a forum on the fine print of current political reality.

It was in large part an event to pay tribute to someone who has certainly made an extraordinary impact and had a fairly extraordinary life. Don Chipp is affected by Parkinson's disease, but he is also clearly still full of fight. Andrew Denton highlighted a simple, but very evocative line from the book about continuing to explore the 'delights life has to offer', which probably portrays very well Chipp's general outlook.

It is an outlook I support the adoption of and that I sometimes envy. Living with depression over decades makes such an outlook inaccessible for me in some respects, although occasionally I think I get a sense of what it might be like, like a breeze blowing fleetingly past. Still maybe that's all anyone really experiences and they just talk it up because it makes them feel better - who's to know the intensity and nature of what other people really feel.

Andrew Denton made a comment I particularly liked, talking (jokingly) of his new organisation of 'fundamentalist moderates' whose role would be to travel the world and exterminate everyone who doesn't accept that there are two sides to every argument. My predilection for insisting on acknowledging both (or more) sides to an argument has sometimes got me into trouble and is often totally unsuited to the polarising, black and white way in which politics operates in Australia.

Of course politics doesn't need to be polarising and black and white, but the way the media frames politics rewards that approach, while at the same time diminishing and even poisoning reasoned debate (and therefore the potential for reasoned thought). I very much appreciated the sentiment of Denton's comment. If there's one thing I am fundamentally and uncompromisingly opposed to without any equivocation, it is fundamentalism. For many people it equates to and feeds their passion. Passion is usually very good as long as it is not devoid of reason and it sometimes seems that’s easier said than done for political activists of all colours.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, November 21, 2004
|
Saturday, November 20, 2004
 
The first week of Parliament is over. It was a short week, just one day for the ceremonial opening and the Governor-General's speech, and two days for any business of substance. My speech in response to the Governor-General is here for any that care to read it.

There was one piece of legislation passed to implement a Free Trade Agreement between Thailand and Australia. Whilst not as economically significant as the agreement with the USA, it still will have a major impact, not that you would know it from the minimal media coverage. Because there was no political drama around it, between or within the two major parties, it was barely reported.

The Democrats and Greens opposed it, in our case particularly because it failed to even attempt to address potential shortcomings with labour standards, as well as the fact that it had yet to be properly considered by the Parliamentary Committee set up to examine treaties.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Saturday, November 20, 2004
|
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
 
One of the best things about having a break after the election has been getting away from all that pseudo-substance and inane babble that sometimes passes for political debate, to a place where people just care about issues. It is a nice chance to inhabit the real world. But all good things must come to an end (which is quite a depressing cliché when you think about it) and so I find myself back on yet another aeroplane, flying to Canberra for the Opening of Parliament.

It's no major revelation to say that I found the Australian election result depressing (not to mention the USA result). Depressing for the Australian Democrats, but far worse for democracy. The Government's control of the Senate will mean less diversity of opinion and the perceived legitimising of some truly appalling polices. For the sake of balance, it must be said that there are clearly some worthwhile aspects to what the Howard Government does.

Suggesting that the Government is appalling in every regard is not only inaccurate, it is also unfairly demeaning of many of the people who chose to vote for the Liberals. However, the fact remains that the worst aspects of the Government have now been just as fully legitimised and strengthened as the better aspects.

If there is one thing more depressing than the overall result, it has been that the public debate and discussion post-election has been focused on the more unedifying, distorted and distracting aspects of Politics.

The sloganeering, the search for the easy label to create yet another hopelessly over-simplistic description of the new political reality and to explain why it has come about, the tedious and predictable obsession with post-election blame games and shadow cabinet jostling – all just serves to further obscure and distort the things that actually matter.

It is hard not to get infuriated at how much it distracts from and obscures the issues that really need discussion and thought. Most of the public portrayal of politics is done through a prism that ensures it is thought of and treated in a way not dissimilar to a daytime soap opera, and with about as much depth.

Anyway, the soap opera is about to enter a new season. There are a few new characters being groomed by the scriptwriters for larger parts down the track, but it will mostly be the old favourites getting most of the lines. As with Days of Our Lives, you can go away for a year and come back and pick up the story very quickly.

Like many a soap opera and movie, there is a vast amount of activity that ends up on the cutting room floor, being deemed as too uninteresting to be screened.

Unlike a soap opera, this 'uninteresting' activity affects the lives of the audience, often in far reaching ways, but TV and newspapers are about ratings first and foremost, so this fact is considered basically superfluous to the seemingly much more important task of creating an entertaining headline.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 16, 2004
|
 
I read a newspaper column a week or so ago that outlined a few reasons why the Democrats had done badly. The reasons given were pretty facile in my view, but I won't address them at the moment. The column also said that we'd probably just blame the media and also said that this is what we usually do. I've actually spent many years avoiding blaming the media, despite strong temptation to do so. I've figured that the media isn't going to change, so blaming the media for behaving like the media is like blaming the sky for being blue (although I've always preferred black and dark grey skies now that I think of it.). However, having read this assumption that I will be blaming the media, I've decided I'll give it a go.

Before I get into this new approach of blaming the media, I will write something positive first.

There was a good piece in the Australian newspaper yesterday by Catherine Armitage on the weak approach the Australian Government takes towards the widespread and severe human rights abuses of the Chinese Government. 25 billion dollars in trade between the two countries is obviously a powerful force for buying silence and acquiescence from our Government, even whilst it still tries to paint itself as supportive of human rights to justify its actions in other parts of the world.

One past action of mine I regret was deciding to attend the speech to the Australian Parliament by the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, in 2003. If I had decided to boycott the event, I doubt that it would have been noticed by many or had much impact. However, the Chinese regime is not one that deserves respect and it would have been better if I had not attended. Brian Harradine made the right decision at the time in not attending. It was barely noticed, given little coverage and perhaps made little difference, but it was still the right thing to do.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 16, 2004
|
Sunday, November 14, 2004
 

Having written my piece on 11th November and Rembrance Day, it would be remiss not to note the current war which Australia conspired in helping to start. It is good for Australians that there have been no Australian casualties yet, but that shouldn't blind us to what may well be over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

I wrote of the suffering and torment of the families and friends of those who are killed and how it can last a lifetime. There are a lot of lifetimes being poisoned forever in Fallujah and Iraq at the moment. Of course, there are many other outrageous actions destroying lives and breaching human rights the world over, but Iraq is especially relevant to Australians, as our country was one of the few who actively participated in the invasion of that country.

To me, opposing the invasion of Iraq was clearly the right thing to do. It is less clear what the best course of action is now for the people of Iraq and indeed the wider region and the rest of the planet. I am one of those who support sticking with the current UN Security Council resolution and trying to enable meaningful elections to happen, rather than just advocate for all troops to be removed.

Because of this I have been accused of supporting the sort of outrages that have been perpetrated by the USA armed forces and the various war crimes which are undoubtedly being committed. I think that shows logic about as moronic as that used by Alexander Downer and others who say that those who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq are supporters of Saddam Hussein and everything that he did.

The shallow media coverage of what is happening at the moment in Fallujah is not surprising, but it is still a disgrace. Australia’s Government is one of the few in the world who wholeheartedly embraced the invasion of Iraq and it is better placed than most to have an impact by voicing its concern at the human cost of the USA’s current behaviour. Instead, it either remains silent or makes supportive noises.

I don’t know for sure what is happening there, but here are a few links containing information from people purporting to know. It may or may not be accurate, but there’s a good chance it gives a more accurate and fuller picture than what were getting through Australia’s mainstream media at the moment.


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, November 14, 2004
|
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
 
11th November has some momentous anniversaries.


Most important is Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the end of World War I in 1918, where we acknowledge our war dead and the sacrifice they made. Such events bring up conflicting views and ideals. The fact that World War I is known as the war to end all wars in many ways illustrates the futility of war itself. There is an inherent contradiction between emphasising on one hand the sacrifice of those who die in war and how this defended our nation and its freedoms and on the other hand the futility of many wars and how there is no guarantee some of those freedoms are not taken away by other means.

Yet, even in a conflict such as Vietnam, now widely acknowledged as a mistake even by military figures, there is no doubt that those who died did so defending our nation – the tragedy is not just that they died, but that clearly they did not need to die as our Government did not need to send them to war.

For me, days like Remembrance Day are important for 3 main reasons:
  • Firstly for the families of those who have lost loved ones to war, it is a day that above else belongs to them. Whilst almost every death of a young loved one is heartbreaking, there is a unique poignancy about those who die in a war on foreign soil.
  • Secondly, the focus on the Horror, the futility and the immense human cost of war should serve to make us always strive to reduce the potential of it happening again, to not send more young Australians to kill and be killed, to be injured and scarred for life. This aspect of remembrance events seems to be lost on most Governments for some reason.
  • Thirdly, it is a day for veterans and their families in particular. Whilst we are remembering those who shall not grow old, it is the ones who do grow old who often continue to bear the pain.
I cannot really imagine the surreal horror of fighting in a war, and whilst I focus my efforts on disarmament and trying to prevent and oppose war, I acknowledge there must always be Australians willing to go off to fight them. Those who do and then return (and the families of those who don't) deserve special recognition and support.

One thing I find hard not to be cynical about is the blasé willingness of Governments to send men and women off to war and their enthusiasm to welcome them back with parades and medals, but their reluctance to provide the sort of longer-term care that so many of them need and all of them deserve.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Permalink
|
 
Another 11th November Anniversary is the execution of Ned Kelly in 1880
It's interesting that such a strong legend and aura still persists around Ned Kelly, 125 years later. People have written books about why that might be and there are still widely disparate views about whether he should be seen as a common gangster, murderer and crook or as a fighter against oppression and injustice. Even as I type this sitting in a plane, the inflight TV is advertising the 'Ned Kelly Trail', a tourist trek around parts of Victoria.

About 10 years ago, I visited the old Melbourne gaol where Ned Kelly was hanged. It is a bleak, imposing and foreboding building, made of huge blocks of black stone. It certainly speaks of a time where the brutality was starker. However, imprisonment is almost inevitably brutalising in some way, even if the facilities are far improved. I don't know if it's due to my having a significant amount of Irish ancestry, including some who lived in country Victoria in the 19th Century, but the Ned Kelly story has always had some fascination for me. I guess like many things, it really isn't a black and white story and he was both sinned against and sinner. It is certainly a story which shows how one injustice can breed another, and how systemic oppression often begets violent responses. That is a lesson we seem not to have learned. Oodles of information on Ned Kelly can be found at http://www.ironoutlaw.com/.

It is strange, but sadly not that surprising, that Ned Kelly is known by virtually all Australians and is seen by many as an icon and a hero who fought back against unfair treatment by police and the state and whose name and story would by known by virtually all Australians, and yet there remains little awareness and even less sympathy for the Aboriginal Australians who fought back against far greater injustice and attacks on their land, property, culture and family. Aboriginal resistance or freedom fighters such as Pemulwuy and Yagan are barely known and, in contrast to the mountains of material available and research done on Ned Kelly, there is very little material on these people. Here is some brief information on the web about Aboriginal Resistance, Pemulwuy (1), Yagan and Pemulwuy (2).

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Permalink
|
 
11th November also marks the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975.
It is ironic that 29 years later, the Liberals have once again been given control of the Senate. There's a fair argument to say that the Liberal's control of the Senate in 1975 was less legitimate, as it was only gained by virtue of State Governments showing contempt for convention and democratic representation by appointing people to fill Senate vacancies who were not from the same party as the person they were replacing. This time around, there can be no argument against the legitimacy of the Liberal Party's majority. (Of course they aren't likely to block supply to themselves either).

Gough Whitlam is a figure who elicits views almost as disparate as Ned Kelly. Many people view him as a Labor Party hero and a visionary. Others deride his Government as a debacle. My own view is that in many ways he is lucky he was dismissed from Government in such a disgraceful, anti-democratic way as it has made him a martyr and a victim of such injustice that it obscures his many failings. If he had simply gone to an election 18 months later, he would probably have been tossed out of office by the voters by a huge margin.

Gough was definitely a visionary and we need more of those in politics, but his implementation of those visions was dreadfully flawed. I was only 8 years old when Whitlam was elected to power and his time coincides with my earliest memories of politics. I still remember as an 11 year old being told by my sister that he'd been sacked. In my mind, I can see her, her hand holding on to the door as she is coming out of our back bathroom. She was 13 and was smiling – I don’t know whether out of joy or just because it was an exciting event.

Perhaps it wasn't the dinner table conversation of the average 11 year old, but I recall regular discussions between my parents about what they saw as the appalling nature of that Government. Whilst they probably would have normally admired Gough's intellectual nature and his knowledge of ancient history and culture, I think that was overshadowed by their intense dislike of his arrogance and their perception that much of his Ministry was a shambles.

There's an old book worth reading called "The Whitlam Venture" written by Alan Reid, a journalist of the time, which whilst probably biased against Whitlam, certainly shows how undeniably shoddy a lot of things were at that time. I think I must have inherited a sensitivity to displays of arrogance, as it is certainly something that very easily rubs me up the wrong way.

I believe some of the Whitlam Government ideals, particularly regarding education, are ones we should still admire, and the achievement of initiating Medibank/Medicare in particular is enough reason to be thankful that he did get a chance to serve in office. However, despite being unlucky in being hit with both the oil price shock and state Premiers with no respect for democracy distorting the make up of the Senate, my view is that the grotesque injustice of his dismissal obscures his Government's failings and major incompetence.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Permalink
|
 
My First Speech
Readers will be forgiven (just this once) for not being aware that Nov 11th is also the anniversary of my First Speech to the Senate in 1997, as it does rather pale in comparison to the Dismissal, Ned Kelly and Remembrance Day.

The speech can be found here. I cringe every time I read the opening lines, which were intended as a bit of an aside to set the tone rather than something to be recorded for posterity. Other than that, there's only a couple of others bits I'd take out now if I could, although looking at what I said about what I wanted to achieve and what I have managed so far is a bit sobering. Cheryl Kernot resigned from the Democrats and the Senate to join the ALP on October 15th 1997. For those that like trivia and eerie (almost) coincidences, October 16th 1997 was the day the Jupiter 2 left Earth in the TV series "Lost in Space".

Cheryl's decision (to quit the Democrats, not to leave the planet) was a total surprise to me, as it was to virtually everyone else in the nation. After waking up to what seemed likely to be a fairly average day on the 15th October, it was a bit of a quick transition to find myself sworn in as a Senator for Queensland two weeks later and making my First Speech to the Senate less than a month later on the 11th November. Some people say that the day Cheryl quit was the start of the decline of the Democrats. I guess in a purely electoral and chronological sense that has some truth, but I think it is giving it rather too much significance. Perhaps it did shake us a bit subconsiously to see our Leader appear to lose faith in us. Certainly, the delicate balances of power and influence that various people had internally in the party was altered suddenly and without any pre-planning, which led to some people having more power to influence events coupled with weaker constraints in case they made bad judgements.

In any case, while there is no doubt Cheryl's decision was a major shock at the time, I think the party dealt with it quite well and recovered quickly. If we made some bad decisions or failed to address particular problems down the track, that is the fault of those in the party, not the fault of Cheryl Kernot. Much has been written about Cheryl before and since that time. Although I defended her when the (in my view unjustified) decision was made to publicise one aspect of her personal relationship with Gareth Evans, I haven't said that much publicly about her. She is an interesting character, talented and flawed. She has been subjected to some of the most vicious and ongoing criticism I have ever seen directed at a public figure, some of it justified and a lot of it not.

Perhaps I will write more about her another time, but this is supposed to be about me and my First Speech. A great thing about that time was being able to get so many Queensland Democrats there to hear the speech, not so much because it was me but just so they and the many people committed to the Democrats could be acknowledged at a time when we were seen to be damaged. Looking at all the people whose names I mentioned, there are many who are now not involved with the party. A lot of that is due to the natural process of people moving on to other things, which happens with many community organisations, some of it is due to people falling out with others or generally getting burnt out. Those who are still active and positive after 7 years and a few more traumatic events deserve special recognition.

It was a speech I enjoyed giving at the time, because most of it felt very right, which I guess is why most of it still seems valid for me 7 years on. The saddest part in looking at the speech now is in knowing how much weaker we have become as a party. It does make me feel like I have failed all of those people I spoke on behalf of. Knowing now some of the mistakes we made (not many, but big ones), it also has a bit of an air of youthful innocence about it. Having said that, I believe maintaining idealism is important. If you allow yourself to become totally walled off behind a rhinoceros-thick hide and world-weary contempt, than you probably should give it away, as there will be enormous opportunities and ideas that you will fail to see or dismiss as unrealistic.

Don’t get me wrong, there's plenty of things that deserve complete contempt and many of them reside in Parliament House, and it is unrealistic and blinkered to think otherwise. But that does need to be balanced with some optimism and idealism, and a bit of naïve trust in the goodness of human nature (some humans that is).

One other interesting echo for me in looking at that speech again was the response I got from giving some praise to Brian Harradine. I was surprised at the time how much antagonism I got from some people for that. A few people in the gay lobby were quite grumpy about it, whereas my view was that I wasn't praising his views on gay & lesbian issues (which I disagreed with then and still do) but rather his consistency in sticking to his principles and beliefs over such a long period of time, especially in the context of the major parties having moved so far from theirs in so many key areas. I think some of the people who couldn't figure it out got a bit more of an understanding of what I was getting at when they saw his response to the GST legislation about 18 months later. (ah, the GST – now there's another story to be told.)

It does have some echoes for me now (only echoes, not a total replica) with some of the reactions I've been getting about Family First. Whilst clearly I made some pre-election decisions which in hindsight were mistakes, there is a reminiscence about criticisms of FF on the same sort of moral issues that also concern people (including me) about Brian Harradine being extended to assert that therefore they are beyond the pale in toto. I've written way more than enough on that general topic, but I guess it shows that I still misread some of the things that generate strong feelings in people.

That might be another thing I inherited from my parents – too much emphasis on the literal, rational interpretation of words and not enough on the undercurrents and on what one might call (if you're wanting to sound like a pretentious tosser) the hermeneutics, or (if you're wanting to sound more human and probably more accurate) the vibe.



posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Permalink
|
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
 
The front page of the weekend's Sunday Telegraph had a photograph of NSW Judge Jeff Shaw outside his home and was headlined "Judge Shaw on $1200 a day sick leave"

The story opened with the following few sentences:
"NSW Supreme Court judge Jeff Shaw earns $1200 a day while he seeks treatment for a drinking problem that had become obvious to his colleagues years ago. The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that Justice Shaw continues to earn his $6000 weekly salary while on sick leave, which he began on Monday."

No doubt my irritation is amplified by my own experience, but this sort of media really infuriates me. The implication in the article is that alcohol related illnesses aren't really a sickness at all and therefore don't deserve sick leave. And by using the weasel-word "reveal", the paper gets to imply there is something secret and sordid that they've managed to uncover (without quite saying it of course). At the same time, the patronising opprobrium is laid on as thick as possible. Every report of a drink the guy was ever seen having carries the tinge of a binge.

Any person who does have a drinking problem and was considering admitting it and doing something about it will read media coverage like this and decide there is no way they are going to open themselves up to this sort of public criticism. The risk of being permanently stuck with all the negative stereotypes and ignorant labels that go along with admitting a drinking problem is not something many people are willing to take unless the health consequences become so serious or immediate they have little choice.

I only use this particular story by way of example - this latest feeding frenzy that Jeff Shaw has got caught up in is not much different from all the other lazy media attacks, apart from the use on this occasion of the cheap and easy device of 'revealing' that he gets paid sick leave (a device which is regularly used whenever one of these media pack assaults are underway.)

Are they really suggesting that someone should be unpaid while they are on sick leave? I know some workers - especially casuals and self-employed people - are in this situation, but that just reinforces the fact that people are much less likely to seek treatment for medical problems - alcohol related or otherwise - if they do not receive sick leave.

If people think Judges are paid too much then argue about that, but to suggest because they receive a high income they should not have sick leave - or sick leave is somehow inappropriate because the illness is alcohol related - is pathetic. It is a typical piece of two-bob each way hypocrisy.

As a footnote, I don't think anyone should be paid $6000 per week, but I refrain from criticising Judges regarding this as I am reliably informed that most of them can earn more money if they stay in private practice - and having good Judges is surely vital.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 09, 2004
|
 
There's been a fair bit of commentary lately on the alleged growing influence of religion on the Australian political scene. I am rather dubious about this - firstly because it's been there for quite some time in various forms and secondly because a lot of it seems to be focused around a heavily overstated assessment of the popularity of Family First.

As regular readers of this blog would know, I'm less convinced than many others this party deserves labels like Fascists First or the Christian Taliban. The picture that's been painted of them as far-right extremists is at best based on fairly thin evidence, whilst ignoring plenty of evidence to the contrary and their level of support and influence (so far) has been grossly overstated. Getting a Senator elected this time was basically a fluke and they were outpolled in the Senate on primary votes nationally by the Democrats and gained just a few votes more than One Nation.

A fair bit of the publicity they have received has been (a) from a media looking for a fresh character to insert in the soap opera story line that passes for most political reporting and (b) from a stoush between the Greens and Family First with both trying to exaggerate the extremism of the other to assist in more clearly defining themselves. I have a much stronger concern about the potential changing role and impact of religion in the major parties and in political debate. The focus on Family First is a symptom of this to some extent, whilst also serving to draw attention away from the bigger risk.

Anyone who has been listening would be aware that religion-based moralising is already strongly alive and prospering in the Coalition, with an even stronger boost gained from the election. It is also far from absent in the Labor party. The fact is religion has been heavily intwined with politics in Australia for many years. The connections between the Labor Party and the Catholic church are well known and continue in some Unions and factions today. The influence of Protestant churches was also very strong in the Coalition parties and still has some echoes.

I remember regularly being told that Mike Ahern would never be allowed to be Leader of the National Party in Qld because he was a Catholic (1980s Qld politics for all of you young folk & non-Queenslanders out there) - I don't know for sure that that's true, but the fact that it could be seriously suggested speaks for itself. It seems strange that people are getting themselves into a lather about Family First having some links to the Assemblies of God as if this sort of thing has never happened before. Particularly given that the structure of the Assemblies of God is far less hierarchical than the Catholic or major Protestant churches, so there is far less prospect of any meaningful organisational linkages beyond the parish level. That doesn't mean that there might not be heaps of people who go to Assembly of God churches who are in Family First, in the same way that there used to be heaps of Catholics in the ALP and later the DLP.

I don't believe in or follow any sort of organised religion myself and I'm usually fairly antipathetic to religion in general in the context of politics. I do NOT mean that I believe people who are religious should not be involved in politics. What I mean is that using religious belief as the sole or predominant ground to justify a policy is something I am not comfortable with. My view has grown over time, but has particularly been driven by the repeated wave of abusive letters and emails I get whenever I speak in support of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. Almost all of these sorts of letters are (a) extremely abusive and filled with what could only be called hate, and (b) quote the Bible to justify these views.

It is the absence of any rationally based argument that concerns me in this context, rather than religion itself. It is why I am equally antipathetic to fundamentalism of a non-religious kind, where people just keep parroting a view regardless of the evidence or the arguments. Sadly, I'm feeling more and more like this is where politics is now at in Australia, which is difficult to know how to deal with. Either I can ignore reality and continue to try to espouse rational debate and reasoned acknowledgement of a variety of views (and continue to receive media contempt and zero votes) or I can mindlessly parrot the shibboleths of whichever group seems most suited to me.

It worries me, if it becomes accepted wisdom that religion is supposedly newly influential in Australian politics, that everyone will start trying to use it to define their political message (including the negative sense). Kevin Rudd was on television last weekend saying "we will not for one moment stand idly by while either the Liberals, the Nationals or the Family First assert that God has somehow become some wholly-owned subsidiary of political conservatism in this country." Whilst it may not be what Kevin Rudd means, it looks to me like we may start to see a bidding war for God - each major party vying to be more appealing to the 'Christian folk' - defined according to whatever psychographic the focus group pollsters have finessed this year.

The concerns I have over this are:

  1. It will create another divide through which to define people as 'in' or 'out' (by both sides) - meaning people in politics will go more out of their way to be overt about their supposed beliefs and more inclined to feel the need to manufacture or embellish some, and the media will feel it is now appropriate and relevant to report and comment on such things;
  2. It will distort policy debates and decisions by forcing it through a prism of 'values' that will be used more and more with the implication that it is synonymous with Christian values;
  3. It will make it even more difficult for those of other religions or beliefs (or with none) - particularly Muslims I suspect, who will more and more be implied as less proper or right(eous). There is already a risk that terrorism is being defined as everything else other than Christianity, especially with some of the 'us and them' rhetoric used to describe the 'threat'.
  4. It will put a big torpedo right through the middle of successful multiculturalism in Australia.
I want to make it clear that I am not accusing people with religious beliefs of doing anything wrong here. I am expressing concern about a potential change in what is considered as appropriate and relevant factors in political debate.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 09, 2004
|
Monday, November 08, 2004
 
I was reading some items elsewhere on the Web and got briefly inspired, a feeling almost inevitably followed up with a sense of despondency.

For a minute I felt what we need in politics is more imagination and less ugliness. But then I figured imagination, vision and other such grand sounding things are probably just the sort of big-picture, high-falutin' fancy pants stuff that will get dismissed or ignored these days. Look at what wins votes (let alone elections) and media coverage these days. Imagination, openness of heart and mind, exploration of different ideas and different approaches - they aren't too welcome round these here parts no more (if they ever were).

Still, in amongst my readings I've been going through the speech given by Arundhati Roy in her City of Sydney peace prize lecture. I've read it a couple of times. There are parts I agree with and parts I don't but it is good food for thought, and it might even provide some inspiration (hopefully without the despondency).

Have a look at it http://www.safecom.org.au/2004/11/arundhati-roy-peace-new-corporate.htm One line I especially like from it - "No battle is irrelevant. No victory is too small." I'm still not sure I agree with it, but I like it none the less.

(For your info, the Project Safecom site is run by a person who has played a big role in keeping information and energy flowing to assist refugees deal with their ongoing Government inflicted suffering. Well worth supporting. As he says in his blog heading, our democracy needs fixing)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, November 08, 2004
|
 
Given some of the attacks I've copped on this Blog about preferences, it is worth giving some further analysis about the actual impact of those preference decisions on the results.

I do this not just to address some of the myths floating around but also to highlight what I think is more important, which is that the overall progressive minor party vote has now dropped so low that it can no longer be assumed that a Senate seat in each state is a probability. That reality has to be acknowledged by all those who feel that reducing the dominance of the two major parties is a key part of strengthening our democracy and Parliaments.

NSW is the most complex, so it is worth more explanation. I should note that I am contradicting Antony Green here, which I do with some trepidation, but Vie studied these figures fairly closely (in part using his ABC website for validation). Antony says that Had Democrat preferences flown to the Greens rather than Liberals for Forests and the Christian Democrats, then the final vacancy would have been won by the Greens. I don't think this is correct. It is true that if Democrat preferences had gone to the Greens earlier, it would have prevented them dropping out at the last count, with the Christian Democrats Party being excluded instead. However, out of all the other parties whose preferences rested with the CDP, only those from the Liberals, No GST and Group K Independents would have gone to the Greens rather than the ALP. 9 other parties (including the CDP) would have flowed to Labor, putting them well over the quota.

Despite the complaints about Liberals For Forests soaking up preferences it is also worth noting that LFF had been excluded from the count before the Greens and so any preferences that were going to the Greens did get to them anyway. LFF had preferences from 16 other parties (which is quite extraordinary) before they got excluded. Of the 17 preference tickets distributed (16 + LFFs own ticket) only 2 went to the Greens, 8 went to CDP and 6 went to the ALP, plus Hemp's ticket which was split two-thirds to Greens and one-third to Labor. Of the 8 that then went to the CDP, only two (the Democrats and no GST) would have flowed on to the Greens ahead of Labor.

In Victoria, the Family First victory in place of the Greens rested almost solely with the preference decision of the ALP to preference Family First first. Whilst the ALP has copped some flack for this, Id have to say it is unprecedented for someone with a primary vote of under 2% to get elected in a half-Senate election. The lowest previously was The Greens win in NSW in 2001 on a bit over 4%. Both the Democrats and the DLP outpolled Family First on primary votes in Victoria.

In Queensland, Democrat preferences ended up with the Greens, as did preferences from the Socialist Alliance, Group G Independents, the Great Australians, HEMP, Citizens Electoral Council, Australian Progressive Alliance, Hetty Johnston and the ALP surplus. They were still 33 000 votes short of a quota.

In SA, the seat went to Labor instead of the Greens as a result of the Democrats preference decision.

In WA the Greens won the seat with the help of Democrat preferences. The Greens would not have won the seat without these preferences.

In Tasmania the Greens won the seat. The large below the line vote (common in Tasmania) favouring the Greens over Family First enabled them to win the seat.

Having said all this, I believe the Senate Group Voting Ticket should be scrapped. The proliferation of micro parties and the inability of the Electoral Act to ensure these are genuine political parties have started to deliver perverse results. The Democrats have had cause for complaint more than once over the years and 2001 saw it getting worse. However, when people start getting elected with less than 2 per cent of the primary vote, it is beyond a joke. (That is no reflection on the person who was elected, but just on the system itself.)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, November 08, 2004
|
Friday, November 05, 2004
 
For a different view worthy of consideration, try http://enmorestation.up.to/

Perhaps it is indeed time to stop being so reasonable and get out there and really raise heck.

(Although the Greens didn't preference Hanson ahead of the Dems, but they put her ahead of Family First. and they did put Non Custodial Parents ahead of the Dems, etc, but we've been through all that stuff back in the October blogs.)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, November 05, 2004
|
 
I'm sure readers of this blog are dying to know if I dropped into Big Star records for more CD buying while I was in Adelaide for our Party Room meeting. I did indeed do so and got trapped buying more than I intended (which was actually zero).

First up - continuing on with my usual wasteful habit of keeping up with the latest by buying CDs I already have on vinyl from 20 years ago - I bought the 2 best Bruce Springsteen albums, Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town (from 1975 and 1978 respectively). The 2nd one of these has so many echoes of my growing up years that it can be a bit off-putting. It contains some songs that were my favourites for many years.

Then I just happened to see that the new Leonard Cohen album was out - a bit earlier than I'd anticipated but a necessary purchase. I finally managed to listen to it a couple of times last night and I don't care if you all think it's just sad-bastard music, I think it's sublime. While I was standing at the counter to buy these, my eye landed on kd lang's latest - Hymns of the 49th Parallel - which is a bunch of covers of Canadian singers, including a couple of Leonard Cohen songs - Bird on the Wire and Hallelujah (a song previously discussed in the entry of 30th Sept).

I was just handing over my money when a cheap compilation of The Stone Roses also caught my eye - more easy listening music from the city that spawned Joy Division. By this time, I figured I should just keep staring straight ahead or I'd end up having to extend my mortgage to pay for any more purchases.

Just when you thought there couldn't be any more positive things to say about Leonard Cohen, I finally got details today of a once in a lifetime event. Nick Cave (and a bunch of other people) performing Leonard Cohen songs in concert in Sydney early next year as part of the Sydney Festival. I've already got my ticket, so I'll share the details with the world now - go to http://premier.ticketek.com.au/shows/show.aspx?sh=CAMESOFA05 for more details.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, November 05, 2004
|
 

Whilst its been clear for a while what the end result would be, the official Senate numbers (and names) are now finalised. In amongst all the claims and counter-claims, there are a few straightforward facts.

After all the claims about preferences, a few points should be made:

  • Pre-election warnings about the Government's chances of winning control of the Senate proved to be true. If the Greens had swapped preferences with Family First ahead of the Coalition, as the Democrats did, then the Coalition would not have won four seats in Queensland and would not have gained control of the Senate.
  • Family First won their Victorian seat on Labor's preferences. The Democrats preferences did not impact on the result. This is easily the lowest ever-primary vote to successfully win a Senate seat in a half-Senate election. The previous lowest was the Greens 4.3% in NSW in 2001.
  • Below the line votes affected the outcome in Tasmania, putting the Greens ahead of Family First and Queensland, where high numbers of votes for Pauline Hanson meant One Nation was eliminated earlier in the count, guaranteeing a win for the National Party.

In hindsight, nothing could have been done with preference decisions to stop the Coalition winning half the Senate seats, as they got well over 3 quotas in every state. Their lowest primary vote was in Tasmania, which still saw them get 3.2 quotas, and along with WA getting the highest gain in primary votes of over 7% (and easily their highest Tasmania Senate vote since 1977).

Tallying up who won and lost seats is made a bit more complicated by the fact two seats were lost by people who had been elected for one party but had subsequently quit the party to run on their own (i.e. Meg Lees originally elected as a Democrat in SA and Shayne Murphy originally elected as Labor in Tasmania).

Taking this into account as to whose seats they really were, the following points can be made about the results:

  • Labor lost 1 seat in total – losing Shayne Murphy's seat in Tasmania to the Greens and Jacinta Collins seat in Victoria to Family First, but gaining the Democrats' Meg Lees seat in SA.
  • The Democrats lost 4 seats in total – losing John Cherry's seat in Qld to the Liberals, Aden Ridgeway's seat in NSW to the Liberals, Brian Greig's seat in WA to the Greens and Meg Lees' seat in SA to Labor.
  • The Greens gained 2 seats – one off the Democrats in WA (Brian Greig) and one off Labor in Tas (Shayne Murphy)
  • The Coalition gained 4 seats in total – picking up Brian Harradine's vacant seat in Tas, winning the Democrats' NSW seat (Ridgeway), the Democrats' Qld seat (Cherry) and the Nationals winning back the seat One Nation won off them in 1998.
  • One Nation lost their only seat – in Qld – to the Nationals.
  • Family First gained their first seat, winning Labor's seat in Victoria off the back of Labor preferences.

Brian Harradine's seat was not recontested and went to the Libs. All the independents have now gone from the Senate, with Harradine retiring and Lees, Murphy and Harris losing. The cross bench has gone from 13 back down to 9, while the Coalition has increased from 35 to 39. Labor has stayed at 28 (although they really have gone back one as Murphy's seat was originally a Labor seat)


posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, November 05, 2004
|
Thursday, November 04, 2004
 
Yesterday, I decided not to renominate for the Leadership of the Democrats. It was not a simple decision, as there were a range of competing arguments. But with the deadline for nominations closing, I had to make a decision one way or another. The party has far more important and significant decisions to make over the next couple of months than who has the title of Leader, so it is good to get that one out of the way and focus on the more important things. The Democrats' members will be able to decide for themselves over the next month or so whether they are happy with keeping the same Leadership Team, with me as Deputy and moving Lyn Allison in to the Leader's spot.

To keep things in perspective about the relevant importance of things, the voters of the USA also decided on their President around the same time. This is way more important and WAY more depressing an outcome. I wouldn't want to overstate the positives of John Kerry, but George Bush has clearly shown himself to be dangerous and divisive. This is not a good thing at the best of times, but when you're in charge of a nation that is by far the most militarily powerful in history, surround yourself with key advisors and Ministers who have ideologies and records that favour increased Govt power and military expansion and reduced human rights AND your own record already shows a clear willingness to deceive on major issues and appalling diplomatic and military judgement, then it's hard to see this result as anything other than a disaster.

A sad and distressing day.

Just to add insult to injury, the process used to make this decision that will undoubtedly make the world even less safe is still as laughable as ever. The USA has so much to be proud of in building such a strong nation on a foundation of individual freedom and in showing some the many potential virtues of democracy. To have 'The Pursuit Of Happiness' listed as a goal in your Declaration of Independence, along side things like an acknowledgement that all people are created equal, is a wonderful thing. But it constantly astounds me that a country that is seen as the pinnacle of prosperity and democracy not only deliberately disenfranchises so many of its citizens and has such enormous degrees of inequality of wealth, but also has an electoral system that would be flattered by the description of stone age.

As one newspaper aptly noted, they can enable an encrypted, electronically transmitted vote to be cast by an astronaut in space, but they still can't deal with a moderately higher than normal turnout or with ensuring people are fairly enrolled. Most obvious is the anachronism of the Electoral College mechanism and the nineteenth century, barely-democratic first past the post voting system. Less well known but even more absurd is the labyrinth of differing voting rules, varying eligibility and mechanisms across 50 different states - and even between different counties.

Add to that the total domination of money, and it does make it a bit easier to understand (while still being highly undesirable) why so many people don't even bother to vote. As someone once said (might have been Churchill), democracy is a terrible system save only for the fact that it is better than any other so far devised. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for not trying to make much needed improvements to it.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Thursday, November 04, 2004
|
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
 
I've just re-read The Lives of Animals by J.M Coetzee. A friend of mine gave it to me about 4 years ago. It's a bad habit of mine to half read books and then leave them lying around somewhere and not find them again for ages, and it was by accident I saw this one peeking out from beneath a pile of old magazines at home.
It's a very slim book - only 110 sparsely printed pages – so it can easily be lost, but it is also easy to read in the space of a couple of hours. Mind you it is a bit thought provoking, so a few pauses for pondering don't go astray. The 'story' is fairly thin, although poignant enough in its own way, but it is basically a mechanism to conduct a dialogue about animal rights and vegetarianism.

It touches on a minor quandary I've occasionally had as a vegetarian, but it's just as applicable for anyone who has a strongly held belief about a topic. If you believe some action is seriously wrong, how do you deal with people who regularly act in that way. If you're in a minority in society with your beliefs, you just have to wear it and if you're in the majority, then you should also respect minority beliefs. But how far that principle should extend is open to question.

Issues like murder or infanticide or female circumcision, are matters which we condemn because we believe a basic right is being violated. Because the attitude of our society and culture towards animals is so different than our attitudes towards other humans, causing suffering to animals is accepted. Indeed multi-billion dollar industries are built around institutionalised cruelty, enslavement and slaughter of animals.

The comparison is sometimes made between the societal blind spot in the modern day towards animals of a different species to our own, and the racial blind spot of nineteenth century society towards humans of a different race to their own which made them feel that human slavery was acceptable. Whilst it is an analogy that is easy to understand, I'm not so sure that it is attitude that will readily develop.

Use and abuse of animals is so deeply ingrained in societies around the world that it is far harder to see such a total shift in thinking and attitudes. However, that doesn't make it a bad idea to seek to raise awareness and change attitudes, however gradual and incremental the change might be as a result.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, November 03, 2004 Permalink
|
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
 
I'm back in Adelaide again for a meeting of the Senate team. It's the first time we've met face to face since the election, as we wanted to wait until the Senate results were all finalised. It will also be the start of the long haul back for the party and we'll have to put in place the first few bricks of that path.

I might try to get a spare half hour to drop into Big Star records again. I've mentioned this place before, but it's definitely worth looking at if you're into alternative music. I'm trying to spend some more time listening to music to help sooth my soul and this is a good place to go – even poking around shops like this without buying anything brings back good memories for me. It's got a good second hand section downstairs and a wide range of new material upstairs.

It seems to me that there used to be a few more places like these around 10 years ago – I don't know if it's the impact of the large chain stores like Sanity and HMV, or if it's just me getting older and more out of touch. Last time I was in Adelaide I had a bit of a browse – there's always a few different (older) artists I look for just in case there's something I haven't got. I saw the new one from Marianne Faithfull. Most of the songs on it are co-written with either PJ Harvey or Nick Cave, so I figured I should buy it. I've had a few listens to it so far and it hasn't grabbed me yet, but it may well at some stage.

I also came across a compilation of stuff by The Scientists. There's one song of theirs I've always loved and never had a copy of – Swampland. I've been looking on and off for this on CD or vinyl for ages and it was wonderful to finally find it. The full disc is called Blood Red River and features a bunch of songs from 1982-84.

Luckily my hotel room had a CD player, so I was able to put it on straight away. There's some other good songs on the CD too that had long since slipped out of my memory, but it's worth it for that song alone. It must be well over 10 years since I've heard that track, but it came rushing back to me like yesterday – in my heart there's a place called Swampland, nine parts water, one part sand.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, November 02, 2004
|
Monday, November 01, 2004
 
Following a suggestion from a reader of this Blog, I've just finished reading "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time". I'm fairly sure this was the book I remember hearing about a little while back that caused some controversy winning a literary award, because some people suggested it was a children's book.

Certainly the author is known for writing children's books and the book could easily be read by young people, but it also deals with 'Adult Themes' (such a great term that - it encompasses so many possible things). In any case, it's thought provoking and I liked it, so I think it was right for it to win whatever award it was that it won (unless my memory is all wrong, in which case ignore most of what I've just written). Of course this may also mean that my literary nous is akin to a 15 year old's – maybe that's why I found it thought provoking.

The book is written from the perspective of a 15 year old autistic boy, but it clearly shows how hard it can be for parents (and their relationship) to raise such a boy. As someone who tends to be more attracted to and comfortable with the rational rather than the emotional, it had a few other echoes for me too.

Conditions like autism (not that I profess to be very knowledgeable about it) and other conditions that affect the mind or the personality are challenging and disturbing to most people. People are just always going to be more uncomfortable and apprehensive about illness and disabilities that are mental than they are about the physical. I guess no one really likes to feel like what seems to be our entire essence is really just dependent on the mix of chemicals in our brains, and it can be fundamentally changed by changing that mix or changing the electrical patterns and pathways in our brain.

Still, every living creature is always something more than just the sum of its components - yet another reason why being more considerate of how we treat animals is so important.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, November 01, 2004
|