I'm a bit confused by people's reaction to Kevin Rudd. He seems to attract a lot of negativity that people haven't really explained to me. I tried to get it out of one person, but she was highly drunk and spent so long saying "I may just not understand this" every other sentence that all I got out was a bitch about house prices, and I didn't have time to ask the fundamental question "How is this Rudd's fault? He's been in office how long?"
I'm more concerned by his overt Christianity, frankly, but his record on things like RU486 and stem cell research is, although mixed, promising. What gets him massive kudos points for me is something that should never have been necessary, should never have been at question, should never even have been considered in the 20th Century.
Spike Milligan once wrote a letter to a Christian overseas aid organisation, and it is reproduced in his book of letters, which is well worth reading, in which he says, essentially, "I respect the work you do, and I encourage it, but I cannot support it until you change your policy on the single biggest means of helping these countries, which is birth control." Think about it: The last thing you want in a country with not enough food, not enough clean water, housing, medical supplies or professionals, or anything else, is a glut of more people.
I hadn't realised that those draconian, reactionary, 1950s-pining wing-nuts in the previous administration had passed a law stating that Australian overseas aid funds could not be used to aid abortions. Why not refuse to give food to childless couples or singles? Why not just demand that single parents marry before they can receive medical care? What's the betting that no account is taken of pregnancies resulting from rapes, or of pregnancies that threaten the health of the mother?
It was high time we had a change of government in this country. Good luck to Rudd, I say. Which Howard government ministers running the opposition at the moment, I wouldn't trust them to run a compassionate cake stall.