A positive twist on exposing one's goolies

**Ms Piggy** · 21st May 2005, 14:40

Speaking from the point of view of a "Labour Party feminists"

I think it's really an important issue but...I HATE everything the Act party stands for. I also believe part of the reason that, tragically, many more men die of prostrate cancer then women of breast & cervical cancer is that men are more prone to not go to the Doctor until something is really, really bad, of course in saying that death stats for women being lower could be partly b/c breast & cervical cancer issues are promoted far more widely in the community. Although I do agree that it seems very unfair that women get our bits looked at for free (however painful & embarrassing it might be sometimes) and men don't...I don't want to appear to support the Act party and definitely NOT Muriel 'I'm a success so every solo parent should be exactly like me' Newman I think I'll sign b/c it's important.

**Hitcher** · 21st May 2005, 16:19

Originally Posted by Celtic_Sea_lily

I HATE everything the Act party stands for.

Such as small government, lower taxes and the right of the individual to choose?

**James Deuce** · 21st May 2005, 16:22

Originally Posted by Celtic_Sea_lily

Speaking from the point of view of a "Labour Party feminists"

I think it's really an important issue but...I HATE everything the Act party stands for. I also believe part of the reason that, tragically, many more men die of prostrate cancer then women of breast & cervical cancer is that men are more prone to not go to the Doctor until something is really, really bad, of course in saying that death stats for women being lower could be partly b/c breast & cervical cancer issues are promoted far more widely in the community. Although I do agree that it seems very unfair that women get our bits looked at for free (however painful & embarrassing it might be sometimes) and men don't...I don't want to appear to support the Act party and definitely NOT Muriel 'I'm a success so every solo parent should be exactly like me' Newman I think I'll sign b/c it's important.

How is Helen Clark's desire to get more women into the workforce at the expense of the long term emotional health of their children any different to Muriel Newman's views on women in the workplace?

**thehollowmen** · 21st May 2005, 17:34

aw damn I've got enough work with the cervicals to start doing more FNAs and prostate biopsies / chippings ... I'll never get home at night.

On the other hand, this is needed, too many people die from prostate cancer. The PSA is a good help but it isn't that useful until you're in trouble.

*ponders job security*

**Jamezo** · 22nd May 2005, 15:47

ah, the tender sight of a young ACT party tirade in its natural habitat...

it's a good idea though, suprised it isn't instituted already. maybe a chicken-and-egg problem where it wouldn't be recieved well due to the attached stigma etc.

we need the ACT party around to keep everyone else honest, and shit stir when they feel like it. the fact they actually appeal to some isn't hard to see. how can "small government, lower taxes and the right of the individual to choose" ever be a bad thing?

tradgedy that such nice rhetoric, when translated into the running (or lack thereof, as the case may be) of a modern society is a recipe for more or less an 'every man for himself' rat race to oblivion.

most that study free-market-low-government-no-rules policy conclude that a society that was sufficiently motivated to install such a form of government would implode apon itself in approximately 0.16549 seconds (give or take). and if it didn't? what on earth do you think is going to fill the power vacuum? I believe it starts with 'C' and ends with 'orporate Interests'

political posting is fun fun fun for the whole family!

**Hitcher** · 22nd May 2005, 16:05

Anarchy has much to commend it. At $500,000 per MP per year, just look at the costs we'd save on political representation for a starter...

Or how about "no representation without taxation". If beneficiaries didn't get to vote, then that should stop governments getting elected on the basis of giving more money to beneficiaries...

**Virago** · 22nd May 2005, 16:27

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Anarchy has much to commend it. At $500,000 per MP per year, just look at the costs we'd save on political representation for a starter...

Or how about "no representation without taxation". If beneficiaries didn't get to vote, then that should stop governments getting elected on the basis of giving more money to beneficiaries...

Or let's go the whole hog, and give voters proportional voting based on bank balance......

No need to bash the beneficiaries now, wait until the after the election and then slam them.

Jenny Shipley

**Jamezo** · 22nd May 2005, 16:30

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Anarchy has much to commend it. At $500,000 per MP per year, just look at the costs we'd save on political representation for a starter...

Or how about "no representation without taxation". If beneficiaries didn't get to vote, then that should stop governments getting elected on the basis of giving more money to beneficiaries...

NRWT intruiges me. though I was under the impression that NZ beneficiaries did not exactly get an inordinate amount. bar their obviously skewed attitude towards social welfare, on reflection I don't think their say on the running of this country on other matters is any less valid.

I'm more tantalised by the prospects of socialist anarchism (anarchism in the older, somewhat forgotten sense of the term, which has come to be confused with anarchy)

**John** · 22nd May 2005, 16:35

Lets all drink vodka, become commies and live happy?

**Virago** · 22nd May 2005, 16:36

Originally Posted by John

Lets all drink vodka, become commies and live happy?

Two out of three aint bad.....

**Ms Piggy** · 24th May 2005, 08:15

Originally Posted by Jim2

How is Helen Clark's desire to get more women into the workforce at the expense of the long term emotional health of their children any different to Muriel Newman's views on women in the workplace?

It's not. I think it sux.

**Ms Piggy** · 24th May 2005, 08:20

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Such as small government, lower taxes and the right of the individual to choose?

Just their neo-liberal ideologies.

**James Deuce** · 24th May 2005, 08:35

Originally Posted by Celtic_Sea_lily

It's not. I think it sux.

Phew - I hate taking an opposing POV to you because I like you, you lefty socialist you.

**ManDownUnder** · 24th May 2005, 11:19

well hjere's an interesting perspective for you - how about we take the ISSUE and focus on IT?

Q - who can best promote this issue such that something gets done? I think we all agree it's worthy of attention?

Q2 - how do we push that button?

At the mome t ACT has made a channel available (upon which they can do some grandstanding etc of course).

If that's not a mechanism that's acceptable to us - where is one that is.

I think we could have a lot of fun bitching and moaning about various political ideologies (it's been a while for me... but I'd really like to get back into that debate)... but when it's time to actually do something about it, reducing this thread to one about intent, ideology and the nature and state of government isn't going to help a whole lot.

As Nike says - JUST DO IT.

Who do we talk to, to raise this effectively?

[edit] there is of course an option by which we can resolve our political differences, and promote the common health issue... raise it with the health minister of ALL the parties.

None of them has the "advantage" then and the message starts coming from all directions... I don't see a downside to that!

MDU