Slashdot Mirror

I think you are thinking of the greens from more than a decade ago. The Greens haven't stood for that for a long time. They are basically part of labor and push for policies for short term rather than taking consideration of the long term effects or goals.

Here is the Greens policy platform.

Tell us about which parts bother you.

The greens having power would probably do more damage to human decency and DEFINITELY more damage to the environment and the prospects of a sustainable future (if you destroy business you can't head to sustainability, you head towards being a 3rd world country or Greece).

Yes, obviously they'd do far more damage than the "growth at all costs", "destroy the middle classes" pro-oligopoly parties.

:D :D :D

Well, you can still order
* mango and bean sprouts salad (but don't mix seafood into, it may become explosive!) with or without a side of feta
* shipwreck stew or...
* even Ecuadorian sitting duck

Besides, the last election showed a change in the added spices and... yes, not to be missed... we've seen some Queenslander's eggs being powdered in the process (and now being reconstituted), so nobody can deny it was interesting.
As the patrons pay only if they do not order, the change in the served dishes will happen if enough patrons ask for a it.

At least part of the problem is that our Australian Green party doesn't believe in backburning, and actively try and prevent it. The CSIRO (Australia's main scientific institute) recommended that 10% of public land be burned annually to clear fuel (dread brush and the like that accumulates quickly in Australia's hot, dry climate). The public policy produced by that report dropped the recommendation to 5%. Tasmania, in which the Greens hold the balance of power, burned 1%.

The third Australian political party The Greens opposed it http://greens.org.au/content/data-retention-scheme-lunge-vast-surveillance-powers-0. Unlike the US voting system with preferential voting, your vote for the Greens means either they win or your vote goes to the next party you least dislike, either way a message is sent to all sitting politicians that their jobs are under threat if they continue to support police state policies that turn all Australians into suspects.

They have no interest in maintaining the openness of the internet in Australia. They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.

The Australian Green Party do not support internet censorship, and in fact are opposed to internet censorship. Do you have a reason for your opinion - or are you perhaps you're thinking of the Laboural Party of Australia? They seem to love censorship.

Their policy manifesto would make Kim Jong Ill proud.

Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?

They have no interest in maintaining the openness of the internet in Australia. They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.

The Australian Green Party do not support internet censorship, and in fact are opposed to internet censorship. Do you have a reason for your opinion - or are you perhaps you're thinking of the Laboural Party of Australia? They seem to love censorship.

Their policy manifesto would make Kim Jong Ill proud.

Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?

They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.

Really? Wikipedia and the Greens website both say they oppose censorship.

I'd stay away from the Australian Greens if I were you, they're not at all like the European Greens.

Australian Greens (source: http://greens.org.au/policies/media-arts-science/arts- )
"introduce legislation to protect intellectual and artistic property rights."

European Greens (source: http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Policy_papers/Creation_and_copyright_in_the_digital_era_EN.pdf )
"We want to shorten the protection time to something that is reasonable from both society’s and an investor’s point of view, and propose 20 years from publication."

What?

Not convinced yet?

OK. Let me put the final nail in the Australian Green's 1880s era coffin:
The pre-decision draft (PDF) of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has drawn praise from the Greens, but the party says the devil may be in the fine print.

Pirate Party Australia has decried the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Australians. You decide what future you want... but at least DO something!

Or become a member of the party mentioned in the article. You know, the one actually calling this out. Not the "I want to be able to infringe copyright" party.

The Greens nuclear policy's, are ridiculous especially if they want to reach the goals described here.

The Greens nuclear policy's, are ridiculous especially if they want to reach the goals described here.

Why is Slashdot so pro Sex Party and not greens? They have around 15% of the primary vote, compared to the 1% or so of the Sex Party, and have very similar, left leaning policies.

http://greens.org.au/policies

Probably because its funny. The greens are pretty mundane sounding by comparison. In the senate I am going to put both ahead of labour and the libs.

Why is Slashdot so pro Sex Party and not greens? They have around 15% of the primary vote, compared to the 1% or so of the Sex Party, and have very similar, left leaning policies. http://greens.org.au/policies

Not recognition of the irony of linking to belowtheline.org while recommending voting above the line? Use the site to examine the parties, examine the preferences and exercise your right to direct your preferences as to your actual personal preference.

Also, that linked video hardly offers any argument other than "vote for the greens otherwise the right-wing religious wingnuts are going to get in." Give a coherent argument in favour of them, or even just listing Green policies if you want to influence votes.

The Greens advocate for easier access to PC-based filters for those that want them. We will make more announcements on that in the near future

. If you don't believe me, write to your preferred candidate, be it Green or not, and ask for clarifications.

I guess it isn't technically illegal because while the commercial whaling is banned, they use legal loopholes to do it with the whole killing for research for eating. http://greens.org.au/election/policy.php Inform yourself. If you want to dismiss them as crazies afterward, then fine.

Yes I do. Removing all the ridiculous tax breaks for the rich and high polluting industries as they'd plan to do would give them all the cash they need for it. It's a moot point though as their planned target is 25% by 2020 Nuclear power I'm not so worried about but if it's possible and feasible to get all our power from renewable sources I don't think that's a bad ambition. Their other policies on Environmental and Humanitarian issues just make sense as well. Im not deluded enough to think they'd ever get in power but voting for them puts a relatively sane voice in parliament and besides, it makes me feel good about myself.

You realise Australia is a multi-party system? As in any political party as an opportunity to create a majority in the lower House and form government? The Greens and Family First (In addition to the two major parties; Liberal and Labor) both field candidates in every seat, so if enough people vote for them they can form government. Instead of complaining "Oh no The Liberal Party and the Labor Party or both the same, it's not my fault if the country goes downhill" how about you do some research.

Australian Greens Policy on Science and Technology.

#24 encourage government use of open-source software, and require the use of open and publicly documented file formats.

#25 regulate to ensure that network neutrality is maintained on the internet.

The only thing I can find about Family First's policies on the Internet

Family First will work to achieve Government commitment to establish a Mandatory Filtering Scheme at the ISP Server Level in this country. (These are quotes but I haven't figured out how to use quotes in Slashdot properly yet)

Liberal Party policy platform which has no mention of the word "internet"

Labor Party "Plan for Cyber-saftey"

A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a 'clean feed' internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries. (Mandatory ISP filtering).

I should mention I am a member of The Greens, partly due to their policies in areas of science and technology.

Maybe the nutjob fringe Protests-R-Us mob carry on like that - but the sober, sensible environmentalists seem to think it's a brilliant first start. (Scroll down to "Fusion Energy and ITER"; Google +"ITER" +"<your favourite green group here>" for further examples.)

Mind you, there's also the point that it's no good to just stop producing greenhouse-causing and other toxic emissions now - we also need to either (a) do something to undo the damage of the last 200 or so years, or (b) be prepared to wait for the biosphere to do it for us. We haven't just been concentrating existing carbon compounds in our biosphere in that time - we've actively been increasing them by unleashing carbon that has been isolated for millennia. That's a challenge that will remain for environmental scientists and engineers even after Mr. Fusion Pty Ltd revives the DeLorean brand...

"This would significantly increase Victoria's greenhouse pollution to 27.6 tonnes per person per year - higher than any developed nation in the world. ...

Environment groups - including Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and The Wilderness Society - are making climate change their number one priority in the lead-up to November's state election. We are concerned the Bracks Government may repeat its devastating Hazelwood devision by kow-towing to industry - ignoring the environmental impact on 4 million Victorians. ...

If the Government does allow Alcoa to expand, it must do so without increasing the state's greenhouse emissions.

If the Alcoa expansion was powered by gas instead of traditional brown coal, it would cut its pollution in half. ...

A senior figure in the Bracks Government has said that the Hazelwood decision[1,2,3] was the worst the government has made since taking office in 1999.

The Greens Party Energy Policy concurs,

Current energy supply in Australia is heavily dependent upon fossil fuel use. The burning of brown coal in Victoria already accounts for almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions, so proposed new brown coal developments should not proceed. Also, aluminium smelters account for about 20% of our electricity consumption, and there is a proposal for a magnesium smelter in the Latrobe Valley. The consumption of brown coal should be reduced, not increased, but it will be difficult to do this unless energy-intensive industries such as smelting are phased out. The smelters could adopt new technology to reduce their electricity demand by 30%, but they have no incentive to do so because their electricity bill is highly subsidised.

Dr Michael Gunter's submission to the Senate Inquiry into Global Warming noted,

There is no reasonable prospect that Australia can meet its present commitments up to 2008-2012 under the FCCC December 1997 Kyoto Protocol, on any scientifically valid method of calculating or estimating our true emissions. Even if all policies announced to date had been implemented 100% on time with 100% achievement of targets, it is probable that other factors such as land clearing in Queensland, the grossly accelerating combustion of brown coal in Victoria, and the probable construction of four coal-fired generation plants in Queensland would have had ten times the impact - in the opposite direction! ... Our land use policies, with their demand for "differentiation", are a very effective way to sabotage effective global implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: as the world's worst per-capita Annex 1 emitter, we should be not expecting special favours. We should be doing more than any other country, not less. ... Unfortunately the Australian delegation, led by Meg Macdonald was oblivious to common-sense, stuck to Mr Downer's script, and we achieved Mr Howard's pyrrhic Kyoto "victory": Australia's recalcitrant stance has significantly jeopardised the chances of effective outcomes from Kyoto, ... Aluminium smelting should be shut down in Victoria. The public funds presently being squandered on the Portland Smelter Agreements can be used to subsidise the potlines being transplanted to Tasmania. ... A recent economic analysis by the Australia Institute has calculated that this country would be better-off if the heavily subsidised aluminium industry was completely shut down, but if they must stay, then a move to Tasmania would be worth a heap of gree

Yes I imagine all druggies would support the Greens.

Or so I thought with a read of Wikipedia. I did some research instead (because my #1 political party has just ensured they won't get my vote this election, perhaps the following one they won't try to implement draconian laws) and found they actually propose something I can support. The problem of taking drugs and having the responsibility (and isn't that what this whole article is about) to decide for yourself, with the terrible effects it has on yourself and others. Some things I'm not too fond of, other things I support wholeheartedly and am surprised to find a political party say them.

Now if only they too weren't unelectable.

Australian Liberal Party = Republicans (the Liberal Prime Minister's kids even work for Dubya)

Australian Labor Party http://www.alp.org.au/ = US Democrats is pretty correct these days, although the ALP *used* to be a genuine social democrat party like the UK one. Nowadays it's seeming more like a clone of the right-wing Liberal Party (again, much like the UK Labour Party has gone). That said, the Labor Party itself has left and right wing factions, although the latter seem to be holding most of the reigns at present. And I *would* vote for them in preference to the Libs (out of desperation basically).

But there IS a REAL Australian Democrat Party http://www.democrats.org.au/. Politically they are kinda somewhere between the ALP and the Greens (the latter being much like the Greens http://www.greens.org.au/ in Europe and the US). So there is at least the chance to vote Green if you wish (although they suffered badly by conniving preference deals between the parties last election which led to the religious-right Family First party getting seats ahead of the Greens although they had fewer primary votes (Australia has preferential voting)) .

In Australia, the expression "small-l liberal" is used to refer to people who'd be called "liberals" in the US, and "Big-L Liberals" to refer to the members or supporters of the Liberal Party. Apparently the Liberal Party WAS "liberal" compared to its opponents in the earlier days of Australia. Personally, (small l) liberal is not a dirty word if you ask me :).

"AC" in Sydney, Australia.

This graph shows that the Howard economic rhetoric is completely false:
http://www.greens.org.au/blog/ElectionBlog/images/ mikesgraph/

this has become a fucking lynch mob and it's fucking disgusting.

can anyone show ANY proof that cruise.com is a spammer?

i mean "proof". i know that mumma is /calling/ them spammers. but i've yet to see - in all these postings - anyone show that cruise.com has intentionally send unsolicited email, except this ONE SINGLE CASE from which the recipient intends to profit.

imagine - just for a moment - that cruise.com is innocent (i know it's hard for you to do this, but just try). imagine that mumma's address was put on the list by someone else.

remember that mumma NEVER GAVE HIS ADDRESS TO THE LAWYER for removal.

now consider what cruise.com would have to do to protect themselves. what the fuck could they do?

if crusie.com is innocent, then mumma has defamed them (the basis of the lawsuit) and the consequences of this defamation are this fucked-up lynch mob here at /. (and also over at ars). with rabid /. and ars readers ignoring everything except the fucking headline, their business is being ripped apart and their poor staff are being called and abused, their office network has been 0wn3d.

before you assert that "mumma asked to be removed from the list", read the fucking transcript. he NEVER GIVES CRUISE.COM HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, not even on the phone.

as far as i can see you're all blowing hot air out of your collective asses. read the fucking web site, read the transcript, and tell me why cruise.com deserves to be reamed when mumma didn't even attempt to provide his email address for removal. we all know that he could have been added by someone else (mumma, as an ISP, should also know this).

and finally, how the hell is this a SLAPP lawsuit?? mumma is not participating in a public debate, he is privately suing a company. how the hell is that "public participation"? if you want to see a REAL SLAPP lawsuit then check out http://www.greens.org.au/ and search for "gunns".

Your view of "Europe" appears to encompass the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan.

For most of the rest of the "civilised world" (oh boy, watch that one draw some flames), the Democrats are on the more "radical" side of right wing. The Republicans a la 'W' are well and truly into "right wing fundamentalist Christian wacko" territory, which is why the concept of half of the voting public of America considering them a completely reasonable choice scares us so damn much. I mean, if half the freakin' country think he's a reasonable alternative, what the hell do the extremists think !?

Look at it this way - in places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc, the parties considered "mainstream right-wing" _support_ gun control (and that doesn't just mean compulsory licensing, that means restricting what type of guns you can even buy), socialised/universal healthcare, some form of socialised/universal, government-assisted higher education and socialised/universal welfare, to name just a few. Parties like the The Australian Greens are considered *mainstream Left* (or perhaps somewhat "fringe") by the voting public (although many of them haven't really read their policies closely, IMHO). For most Americans, the Greens would be better called "The Reds".

And if you vote for the Australian Democrats, but disagree with Family First be careful, because the Australian Democrats (and all the other parties except the Australian Greens) have preferenced Family First.

To be safe, vote below the line.

More information here: Election 2004 Candidates and Parties

In particular, look under the "Group Voting Ticket" section which contains information on where your preferences will go if you vote above the line.

Family First is most definently a right-wing party with conservative values. They have no chance at holding any power in our house of representatives, however in this coming election they will have a real chance at gaining power in the senate.

The sad reason for this is that we have been sold out by what is normally a left-wing, progressive party (the Democrats) who has chose Family First as the recipient of their first-choice preferences.

We now have only one major, 'progressive' party left - the Australian Greens. They're the only one yet to sell us out, and also have a real chance at gaining significant representation in the senate.

To illustrate just how conservative Family First is - they are opposed to gay and lesbian marriages/adoption, they are anti-abortion, their members are even appointed by the church rather than through a vote.

It's going to be a scary election - we risk having Liberal voted back in, and if Family First, along with the Liberals hold the balance of power in the senate, we're screwed. The senate will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for our right-wing conservative Government (here, as ironic as it seems, the "Liberal" party is far from liberal in the progressive, libertarian sense of the term - at least on social issues).

Can anyone taste the bile? A good portion of their articles are about how bad the greens and the democrats are, how well they are polling when nobody's ever bloody heard of them and how fast they are growing.

Drugs are bad mmmkay, we like to put the family first.
Abortion is bad mmmkay, we like to put the family first.
homosexuality is bad mmmkay, we like to put the family first.
Euthanasia is bad mmmkay, we like to put the family first.
Prostitution is bad mmmkay, we like to put the family first.

...all from the "Assemblies of God" who brought you Hillsong... How I despise Hillsong. TV Evangelicansim at it's worst. and how about raping the Aria charts.

Family First are trying to rest the balance of power in the senate from the democrats and the greens. They have provided little evidence of where their funding comes from and will most probably have members of the congregations ordered to man polling booths throughout the country.

Try these guysinstead.

Hey, dude, check out our policies rather than relying on FUD.. We hardly want to go back to the stone age.

A great little summary of the Greens policies are available from the 'Policy Snapshot Booklet'. PDF available here

I'm not really sure what policy you are refering to - but, for example, the Greens environmental policy embraces new technology that is environmentally friendly.. We don't expect people to be all riding around in little stone cars that are foot powered like the flindstones.

Then join the Greens. I did. I found it easier to sign up and deal with the differences, and therefore be a member of a political party that gets people elected.

YKMV,

Alister

untill election time..

Now if we only knew when that was....

It's the biggest scam of all: the media keeps asking "when will the election be", the PM dodges all questions, his party knows *EXACTLY* when the elections are but the other parties don't (talk about a fair system!) and the real issues aren't talked about because the only question reporters ask is "when will you call the elections.".

Vote the Greens #1: 2.3 propose fixed terms of Parliament with fixed election dates

Vote out Howard, but don't give Latham & Labor a landslide - give your first vote to left-wing parties such as Socialist Alliance and the Greens, and give your preferences to Labor - send Labor a message that we aren't 100% with them.

Thanks to the preferential voting system this is pretty much how I vote. I give my first preferences to the Greens and Democrats before Labour and the coalition (and then the small nutbag parties). I can do this confident that I'm not "throwing away" my vote. I can vote for the little parties and my lesser-of-two-evils large party at the same time.

Of course the other option is actually put in some effort to demonstrate your opposition to the FTA. The Greens party in Australia have consistently been against the FTA. The Aust. Labour party courts them for directing voting preferences to the ALP. How about supporting them, or writing to your local newspaper, calling your local politician and writing to Latham, leader of the ALP?

Remember, no vote has been cast yet and there are two significant conditions placed on the adoption of the FTA by the ALP before they vote for it, so it's not too late to visit the anti-FTA sites nofta.org and tradewatchoz.or.

The incumbent Liberal party (which is actually very conservative) uses IIS. The opposition Labor party (which is slightly less conservative) uses Apache.

The Greens (progressive) use Apache on Linux for all their websites (including the one I built) and have a pro-F/OSS policy in general.

Yes, this is shameless self-promotion.

The Greens are a real political force in Australia.

They hold the balance of power in the Senate, along with the Democrats and a few "swinging independants". The Greens will not be supporting the FTA, and in particular any DMCA-like provisions.

[Disclaimer: I'm a member and contributed to the Greens IT policy currently under development.]

But with compulsory voting, , strong opposition [yes, I know that the democrats are dead] leading to the upper house hobbling the lower house this isn't going to get very far. Never mind. Thank god for three year terms of office, that's what I say.

Unlike our libertarian friend here the greens have a stated set of ideal not the writings of some anti-green crackpot. Aussie Greens First on the list from Google.

The greens actually have a clue about the world.

The democrats have become nothing more than a tool for Natasha Stott Despoja's ego.