The Labor Party way. We should have realised when Peter Beattie handed over the Premier’s reins in Queensland to Anna Bligh just how crook things had become.
It is the established Labor Party way to turn to a woman only when the men have let things get out of control. They gave Joan Kirner the poison chalice in Victoria after the State Government was nearly sent broke under John Cain. In Western Australia Carmen Lawrence inherited the mess discovered by a Royal Commission that sailed into the messy wake of the Brian Burke led corruption.
But in normal circumstances the overwhelming majority of men in a Labor Party Caucus tend to choose one of their own. That Clare Martin was given the job as Opposition Leader in the Northern Territory in 1999 was really no different. The men of Labor might not have been trying to rescue a government about to be thrown out, but their attempt to preserve a disastrously small rump in the parliament was just as desperate. The gratitude of Ms Martin’s male colleagues for her amazing victory at the 2001 election was shown by their incessant backbiting and sniping, which encouraged her to finally resign as Chief Minister when there was a decent majority after a second wonderful win. Rosemary Follett, chosen to be Chief Minister in the very first, and very minority, ACT Government, is the only woman Labor has given the leadership nod to in anything approaching normal circumstances.
For those of us outside of Brisbane with but a passing knowledge of, and interest in, Queensland politics, the retirement of Peter Beattie as Premier appeared almost a routine action of a sensible politician who knew that in a proper democracy nine years at the top was enough. If his advocacy of a woman to succeed him was a little surprising, it also seemed a quite admirable departure from the established masculine domination. Only recently has the underlying corruption that the Beattie years kept largely hidden emerged to put the Anna Bligh appointment in the more orthodox Labor Party tradition: when in trouble, go for the feminine touch.
Hoping for First Dog’s support. I am a little diffident about approaching First Dog on the Moon with this request out of fear that the Moon bit in his name has something to do with Moonies. I am a bit of a dog fancier and have been persuaded to take up the cause of the dogs of South Korea by joining a worldwide campaign to get dog meat eating banned. First Dog would appear to be a natural ally, but I presume that the Moonies of that North Asian peninsular are as prone as the rest of the nation to chomping on a cooked dogs leg.
Perhaps this photo from the Seoul Times will persuade him to join the fight with me:
The Stop Killing Dogs petition will be presented to the Korean officials in Seoul by the Korea Animal Rights Advocates when at least or more than 1 million signatures have been collected.
And who knows. First Dog on the Moon might even do a little drawing that we can forward to the South Korean Ambassador to apply some real politiical pressure.
Unless, of course, he is actually a dog meat eating Moonie.
That is a particularly nasty photo of the dog being beaten, especially to any dog lover. But whatever the caption says I don’t believe it has anything to do with tenderizing the dog meat; there is no way in the world that beating the dog, that is bruising the poor bloody animal, would lead to tender meat. I thought it was pretty well known that terrified animals be they cattle or in this case a dog would have tender meat after slaughter – quite the opposite in fact. I strongly suspect that the photo of torture is being used deliberately by the news paper to foster their anti dog meat campaign.
I love dogs and find it abhorrent that anyone would use them as a food; however different cultures have different ideas to Australians, after all the Belgians eat horse meat, which I also find distasteful, the Chinese eat just about anything at all; there is even a tribe in India who use rats as a staple in diet.
“it was pretty well known that terrified animals be they cattle or in this case a dog would NOT have tender meat after slaughter”
The missing NOT from my post completely changes the meaning.