A few days ago I watched the Julia Gillard episode of Q and A.
There were moments where I liked her and felt regret for being on Team Kevin.
She can be witty and often did well at answering Tom Jones' annoying sensationalist questions. Really. I love that show; and Tom Jones is cute. But I get this feeling that he's getting texts from the producer. Stop. She's talking too much about policy. Get back on track! Get back to a scandal....any scandal!
Anyway.....
One thing I noticed is that I was more charmed by Gillard's responses to a question when I was less passionate and knowledgeable about a subject. I'd have that, OH-yeah-okay-that-makes-sense attitude.
I was less charmed when it came to her answers about Naplan/education and gay marriage. Those subjects are closer to my heart than other subjects.
As an unschooling mom, my feelings about education are on a whole different path than Gillard's. But I won't go into that now.
Instead I'll talk about the gay marriage thing.
She's still not giving a rational answer to why she's against gay marriage.
We don't always need to have rational reasons for our actions and beliefs.
I eat dairy products. I avoid eating products with chicken eggs. Do I have a rational reason for this? No. I'm being nice to chickens but not cows. Why?
I feel like it. That's why.
I have enough morals and motivation to go part way but not enough to go all the way.
I think people have a right to their silliness sometimes. We don't always need to have a reason for it. We don't always owe people an explanation.
But maybe it should be different for a political leader? Maybe if they have an opinion that's affecting lives and legislation, they should be able to explain the reasoning behind it.
Otherwise it sounds suspicious.
It sounds like Julia Gillard is being blackmailed.
People on soap operas act very strange when they're been blackmailed. Of course the other characters are too slow to notice, so the storyline can last for several months....or years.
If Gillard's not being blackmailed, then WHY does she believe marriage needs to be between a man and a woman? Is it because of tradition and history? Is that it?
If that's the case; then shouldn't we keep up the tradition of MALE Aussie Prime Ministers?
And shouldn't Gillard keep up the tradition of boyfriends and girlfriends turning themselves into husbands and wives?
And shouldn't Gillard keep up the tradition of believing in God?
At least twice on Q and A, Gillard mentioned that other people from the Labor Party aren't on her side when it comes to gay marriage. My gut feeling is she won't be too upset if they win. I have a hard time believing she's truly against gay marriage.
There were moments where I liked her and felt regret for being on Team Kevin.
She can be witty and often did well at answering Tom Jones' annoying sensationalist questions. Really. I love that show; and Tom Jones is cute. But I get this feeling that he's getting texts from the producer. Stop. She's talking too much about policy. Get back on track! Get back to a scandal....any scandal!
Anyway.....
One thing I noticed is that I was more charmed by Gillard's responses to a question when I was less passionate and knowledgeable about a subject. I'd have that, OH-yeah-okay-that-makes-sense attitude.
I was less charmed when it came to her answers about Naplan/education and gay marriage. Those subjects are closer to my heart than other subjects.
As an unschooling mom, my feelings about education are on a whole different path than Gillard's. But I won't go into that now.
Instead I'll talk about the gay marriage thing.
She's still not giving a rational answer to why she's against gay marriage.
We don't always need to have rational reasons for our actions and beliefs.
I eat dairy products. I avoid eating products with chicken eggs. Do I have a rational reason for this? No. I'm being nice to chickens but not cows. Why?
I feel like it. That's why.
I have enough morals and motivation to go part way but not enough to go all the way.
I think people have a right to their silliness sometimes. We don't always need to have a reason for it. We don't always owe people an explanation.
But maybe it should be different for a political leader? Maybe if they have an opinion that's affecting lives and legislation, they should be able to explain the reasoning behind it.
Otherwise it sounds suspicious.
It sounds like Julia Gillard is being blackmailed.
People on soap operas act very strange when they're been blackmailed. Of course the other characters are too slow to notice, so the storyline can last for several months....or years.
If Gillard's not being blackmailed, then WHY does she believe marriage needs to be between a man and a woman? Is it because of tradition and history? Is that it?
If that's the case; then shouldn't we keep up the tradition of MALE Aussie Prime Ministers?
And shouldn't Gillard keep up the tradition of boyfriends and girlfriends turning themselves into husbands and wives?
And shouldn't Gillard keep up the tradition of believing in God?
At least twice on Q and A, Gillard mentioned that other people from the Labor Party aren't on her side when it comes to gay marriage. My gut feeling is she won't be too upset if they win. I have a hard time believing she's truly against gay marriage.
Gillard being against gay marriage seems to go against everything she stands for. I don't believe she is against gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't have to explain yourself, unless people are genuinely interested in which case the explanation is voluntary. Sometimes when I'm tempted to explain myself a voice inside my head starts chanting 'only an idiot argues with an idiot'. You're a little wiser than me, I think, by deciding we don't have to be rational, either. Thanks for letting me off the hook.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I believe every animal is entitled to a good life and a clean death. Cows live a relatively better life than chooks. I try to do the free range thing, but admit I'm inconsistent.
As for Julia, I'd like to think it's all a soap opera and in a way it is, but instead of Days of Our Lives it should be called Plays With Our Lives. That makes it a moral issue.
I'm not sure someone who takes a stand that goes against what she stands for can claim to stand for anything.
And I still don't believe the accent is anything but a cheap trick.
Andrew: Yeah. It's hard to believe. Something fishy is going on.
ReplyDeleteFruitcake: Interesting theory about the accent.
And yeah...Good title. Plays With Our Lives.
Gillard doesn't make herself look very trustworthy. Not that there's really ever a good reason for discrimination. But I think if she was religious and had old-fashioned morals, I'd be a bit more sympathetic. I'd still expect and want her to change her mind, but I'd be more patient, perhaps.