Wednesday 19 September 2012

Welcome to Australia 2012 Labor style



From: g87
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:34 AM
Subject: Welcome to Australia 2012 Labor style

Welcome to Australia 2012 Labor style


We are assured that multiculturalism still works - as we see the hatred in the faces of youth who should be glad we have given them and their parents a home.

All excused under the usual waffle about vast majorities - majorities who plainly allow and teach their youth, toddlers and fellow travellers to so hate our democracy.
Plainly, for no valid reason – just hate of freedom.

Then we have the finance minister Penny Wong railing against rational economics: job cuts needed because their fellow former Labor state governments of decimated incompetents in QLD and NSW wrecked their economies.

Never mind Penny Wong: your mob will also soon hold opposition meetings in telephone boxes when the electorate realizes that Labor can never learn!

Sympathy votes gleaned from the absense of Gilllard due to the death of the PM’s father makes one wonder what other political rabbit she must soon conjour: a contract may already be out on her mother!

She will plainly do anything! Just look at what she has not done yet.....
If the above is sick – make a comparison!!



Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Gr
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299

Friday 14 September 2012

Rhiannon: Buts, butts and bullocks



From: g87
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:00 PM
Subject: Rhiannon: Buts, butts and bullocks
Rhiannon: Buts, butts and bullocks

For years Lee Rhiannon has been using the calumnous of Buts, butts and bullocks excuse in attempting to defend herself for being herself.

Her rationale for being involved with the so - called truthers is predicated on the classical 'but' based excuse.

13/9
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rhiannon-under-fire-for-truthers/story-fn59niix-1226472980462


'Senator Rhiannon did not deny she had met Mr Bursill or other members of Truth Action Australia although she distanced herself from the truther movement.'
"I meet regularly with a wide range of constituents but I do not support the ideas of Truth Action," Senator Rhiannon told The Australian.
Then in her letter of 14/9
I condemn false accusations of anti-Semitism designed to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli government abuse of Palestinian human rights.

What chutzpah: claiming enemies are trying to victimize / silence her distortions!
Yet the Senator organizes arguably illegal primary / secondary boycotts against Australian / Jewish businesses - never protesting / boycotting any entity in any Islamic country. With the ostensible blessing of the ACCC. All Israel’s enemies in the ME are totalitarian regimes of course. No problem for Rhiannon.

It is a Palestinian victimhood - the raison d'etre of the extreme left that she champions.
Under the aegis of her self - claimed multicultural views.

Her favourite moniker for inexplicable anti Israel bias is the pathetic claim her views are all about ''fair criticism of Israel''
No. it is not. It never was and does not pass any reasonable test and can be seen for what it is. Unfair and demonstrating an irrational hatred of Jews. The simple meaning of AS.

Furthermore it this claim of insisting that her's is merely simple political debate under the aegis of ''fair criticism of Israel'' that has to be called for what it is.

I think Martin Luther King said it very well
:http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-022-Martin-Luther-King-Zionism.html
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Gr
East St Kida 3183
03 9525 9299



##################################################################################################################################################################
Letter The Australian 14/9

Arthur Sinodinos's attempt to link me with anti-Semitism is another example of his use of false suggestions that have become his trademark ("Rhiannon under fire for truthers", 13/9). I reject such implications. The Greens have a track record of opposing racism and supporting multicultural issues. I condemn false accusations of anti-Semitism designed to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli government abuse of Palestinian human rights.
Lee Rhiannon, Senator for NSW
##################################################################################################################################################################
Rhiannon under fire for truthers



LIBERAL senator Arthur Sinodinos has taken aim at Greens counterpart Lee Rhiannon, accusing her of offering support for September 11 "truthers" and saying anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have infiltrated her party.
In a blistering parliamentary attack, John Howard's former chief of staff linked the NSW Greens senator to the group Truth Action Australia, which denies Islamic terrorists were responsible for the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Senator Sinodinos quoted internet postings by John Bursill, a self-described aircraft engineer and member of the Illawarra Greens, in which he referred to meetings with Senator Rhiannon.
One on the 911 Truth Now forum from 2008, when Senator Rhiannon was a member of the NSW Legislative Council, read: "Today on May 11th at a Greens public forum at their Erskineville (Sydney) head office, Truth Action Australia was in attendance in strength.
"We had a very interesting time and made some real ground with the staffers and elected members present including the formidable Lee Rhiannon NSW MP who has agreed to view the DVDs given to her and she said 'she will be in touch'.
"She was fully conversant with 'false flag terrorism' and was really genuinely interested! Numerous people within our movement and the Greens have been working on this issue for two years now and maybe it is now paying off?"
Senator Sinodinos referenced a second posting from August 6 that year on the 911oz Forum from Mr Bursill stating: "We have now met 'officially' with Lee Rhiannon at the NSW parliament a few weeks back. These discussions were very successful and we are hopeful of a breakthrough."
Senator Sinodinos reminded senators of footage of former Greens leader Bob Brown addressing a 2003 rally outside Parliament House in front of a banner reading "Why? -- whatreallyhappened.com".
"This banner promotes a particularly repugnant, conspiracist, anti-Semitic website that argues that the September 11 terrorist attacks were a US-Israeli conspiracy," he said.
Senator Sinodinos also pointed to comments by the Greens candidate for the seat of Flinders at the 2010 federal election, Robert Brown, who told a local newspaper: "The 9/11 commission was not conclusive that al-Qa'ida was responsible . . . There are huge questions that need to be answered."
Senator Sinodinos said it appeared Senator Rhiannon had "flirted with, given comfort to and aided the wacky, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the truthers. The common thread with her previous support for the old-style Soviet Union, for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, campaign, and for the Truthers is their extremely hostile positions on Israel."
Senator Sinodinos warned that the Greens risked being "a magnet for all sorts of loopy fringe groups on the Left who think that they are a convenient vehicle which they can reach for broader power."
Senator Rhiannon did not deny she had met Mr Bursill or other members of Truth Action Australia although she distanced herself from the truther movement.
"I meet regularly with a wide range of constituents but I do not support the ideas of Truth Action," Senator Rhiannon told The Australian.
Her colleague Peter Whish-Wilson, a former New York-based investment banker, also attacked the senator's speech. "Senator Sinodinos, as someone who's worked in the World Trade Centre . . . in that context I find your words very disturbing today, as do all my Greens colleagues."

Thursday 13 September 2012

PATHETIC ABC DISTORTS OR MERE LIES RE LEUNIG!!!

PATHETIC ABC DISTORTS: or mere lies!!

I am not sure which entity deserves the greater opprobrium: Media Watch - the ABC's so - called [socialst] media watchdog or David Marr that organ's then  editor / appendage.

These are the facts:



  1. The original programme of 19/5/03 had David Marr feigning outrage that The Age's Jewish Editor Gawenda refused to publish Leunig's obscene cartoon.
  2. Proudly Marr announced that the cartoon could be viewed on his Media Watch website. Marr's comments were astonishing and sick.
  3. It seems the miserable cartoon has been taken down by the ABC. BELATEDLY!!
  4. A close look at the below link will show it: I find no other record of it....other than rubenstein  blog.  I cut and past it below from this blog.
  5. HOWEVER - THE ABC / MEDIA WATCH have made some odious comparisons with Bill Leak's harmless cartoon - see below Take a look »
  6. This cryptic analysis is surely inadequate - but it will do!
I list a few links for interest, herein,
Geoff Seidner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>







#######################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/re-leunighttpmattrubinsteinp91.html

Leunig.jpg
##################################################################################################################################################################################################################################################


Back to Mediawatch
Stories in 2003

 Another lost Leunig :: 19/05/2003
How interesting. George Bush has called the Prime Minister a man of steel and Mark Latham has called him a suckhole…

The truth is always somewhere in between…He’s a suckhole of steel.
- Leunig cartoon
Take a look »


Another Leunig that did not appear in the Age – after being pulled by editor in chief Michael Gawenda.

Welcome to Media Watch. I’m David Marr.

Leunig was not consulted before The Age put in its place this wistful 30 year old sketch from one of his books.

Leunig told Media Watch he and Gawenda have since had words.

I was quite annoyed and we had a fairly heated discussion but Michael saw my point and was apologetic. He offered to run it [the next day] but I said no, the world has changed.
- Leunig statement to Media Watch


Those who think joking about this sort of thing is ‘just not funny’, should remember that Bill Leak won a Walkley last year for his take on the same subject.

Help the war effort
National brown nose day.
- Leak cartoon, The Weekend Australian
Take a look »


So should the people of Melbourne have been protected from Leunig’s suckhole of steel cartoon? Have a look and judge for yourself at abc.net.au/mediawatch.
Next Story »
Back to the stories index »




http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s858018.htm


Those who think joking about this sort of thing is ‘just not funny’, should remember that Bill Leak won a Walkley last year for his take on the same subject. 

Help the war effort
National brown nose day.
- Leak cartoon, The Weekend Australian
Take a look »

David Marr on Arbeit Mach Frei




From: g87
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:38 AM
Subject: David Marr on Arbeit Mach FreiEssay on David Marr?
David Marr on Arbeit Mach Frei

Pam Swirski Last Post 13/9 waits for someone to write an essay on David Marr.
Perhaps the basis for same will be Marr’s lamentable support for the [sick??] 2003 Leunig cartoon Arbeit Mach Frei!
As editor of the ABC's Media Watch Marr lamented the censuring of this ultimate obscenity of a cartoon by the Age editor.
Marr vouchsafed an effective comparison of Israel with the Nazis at Auschwitz!
It will be indeed 'scabrous].
Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Gr East St Kida 3183
03 9525 9299

########################################################################################################################################################
Letters The Australian Sept 13, 2012
''Greg Sheridan used "scabrous propaganda" to describe David Marr's Quarterly Essay. What a beautifully succinct and apt description.
Neil Bradley, Auldana, SA''
I'm waiting for someone to write an essay on David Marr.
Pam Swirski, Berwick, Vic


www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s858018.htmShare
19 May 2003 – Another Leunig that did not appear in the Age – after being pulled by editor in chief Michael Gawenda. Welcome to Media Watch. I'm David ...


scab·rous/ˈskabrÉ™s/

Adjective:
  1. Rough and covered with, or as if with, scabs.
  2. Indecent; salacious: "scabrous publications".
Synonyms:rough - coarse - rugged - harsh
#################################################################################################################################################################




Wednesday 12 September 2012


Once upon a time governments were proud of their efforts and would defend critiques in the media.
There have been 20 devastating indictments of this miserable government in the pages of The Australian over the past week - with ne'er an excuse in sight.
Henry Ergas' article on Monday is simply brilliantly incisive: plainly unanswerable as usual.
Ross Fitzgerald's item is of similar quality. [Saturday Inquirer 8 /9/12

We are living in interesting times: I am moved to make a tasteless comment. 
It is without foundation and in very poor taste.
##############################################################################################################################################

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/julia-gillards-desperate-announcements-are-in-aid-of-her-own-survival-not-her-partys/story-e6frg7eo-1226466672851

Julia Gillard's desperate announcements are in aid of her own survival, not her party's



  • From:The Australian 
  • September 08, 2012 12:00AM

  • IN a desperate effort to hold off a leadership challenge from Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard has combined her ruthless disregard for the long-term future of the Labor Party with her ferocious desire for self-preservation, the now familiar hallmarks of her leadership.
    The Prime Minister has demonstrated that she is prepared to break solemn promises, walk away from long-held principles and policies, do "whatever it takes" to cling to her job and thereby prevent a Rudd return.
    There have been rumours for months that Rudd and his supporters have been making the case for his return some time this month or next. That included floating the policy changes he would make to win the public approval denied Gillard since her now notorious broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax.
    Rudd is said to have promised changes to the carbon tax should he be returned to the leadership, including scrapping the floor price for the carbon tax that was to take effect in 2015.

    Significantly, the Prime Minister suddenly dispatched Climate Change Minister Greg Combet to make an embarrassing policy backflip and announce the scrapping of the carbon floor price of $15 a tonne.
    Combet's announcement came just weeks after the introduction of the carbon tax and after months of forceful arguments as to why a floor price was critical. As the floor price was not due to come into effect for another three years, the only logical explanation for the rushed announcement is that Gillard believed Rudd was gaining support for his policy idea and that she was increasingly vulnerable to a challenge.

    The government's "power sharing" partners, the Greens, showed their true colours when leader Christine Milne embraced this policy change even though it could lead to a collapse in the carbon price.
    Milne and her party have long argued for a carbon price exponentially higher than the present level to make renewable energy price competitive with coal, yet she raised no concerns about scrapping the floor price. Combet and Milne both argued that they expected the EU price to be much higher in 2015 than the floor price of $15 a tonne. That prompts the question of why scrap the floor price, if that is in fact their belief?
    The obvious truth is that the government and the Greens expect the EU price to remain low but do not want to be accused of imposing a carbon tax that is so obviously out of step with the small-scale carbon price schemes operating in Europe.
    The Australian business community has been quick to demand an immediate cut to the present tax of $23 a tonne to bring it closer to parity with Europe, where trading has been at less than $10 a tonne. As Europe is in the throes of a financial crisis, there are serious doubts about any significant recovery in the price of carbon.
    This scenario has serious implications for the federal budget, as modelling has been predicated on a price higher than $15 a tonne. If the cost of the compensation outstrips revenue from the carbon tax a yawning budget black hole will appear.
    While the Greens generally show scant regard for potential budget blowouts, there can be no policy justification for this decision as it is likely to lead to a lower price on carbon.
    Perhaps the solution to that minor piece of hypocrisy was revealed the next day when Health Minister Tanya Plibersek announced a $4 billion dental health program, with Greens senator Richard Di Natale standing at her shoulder for the announcement. It seems that to head Rudd off at the pass, the government needed the Greens on side. The Greens extracted their price in the form of the dental program.
    In their haste to make the announcement, the basic details were not worked out and confusion followed over whether any funding had been identified. Plibersek claimed "there is not billions of dollars in the budget for this" and "we need to find a new $4bn".
    Gillard claimed there would be "a large saving" to come from ending a current program that targeted chronic dental health problems. The Health Minister's office then confirmed no funding had been allocated in the budget forward estimates for the axed dental health program and it was therefore not possible to count its closure as savings.
    Given that this presently unfunded dental health program will not begin until 2014, well after the next federal election, the timing of the announcement adds to the air of desperation surrounding Labor. Surely it would have made more sense for the government to hold back until the election campaign.
    The rash of announcements has caused some Coalition strategists to speculate that Rudd's support is at a sufficiently high level for Gillard to be considering an early election.
    The government's response to the Gonski review into school funding has added to the speculation of an early election.
    Schools Minister Peter Garrett declared last weekend that "this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to support the needs of every kid in every classroom in Australia" - words eerily reminiscent of Rudd, who, as prime minister, often overreached in policy pronouncements.
    Such grandiose claims came back to haunt Rudd, as they will Gillard.
    The response to the Gonski review will not be fully implemented until after another three elections and seven budgets, and Gillard knows there is little likelihood of these reforms surviving beyond the next election.
    It is clear Gillard's overriding priority is her short-term survival as Prime Minister, rather than the long-term survival of the government. While any modest rise in the opinion polls may give the Gillard camp renewed hope that she can cling to the leadership, they may need to reconsider their plan.
    Small improvements in the opinion polls could play into Rudd's hands. Rudd supporters argue his return to the leadership would give the party a boost of at least 5 per cent in the primary vote.
    When Labor's primary was hovering at 26 per cent, a Rudd boost to 31 per cent was a moot point. If Rudd as leader were able to provide a lift closer to 40 per cent, that would make Labor competitive. It would be hard for backbenchers to reject such an opportunity.
    Meanwhile, MPs are watching Gillard closely as these big-ticket announcements keep rolling out to shore up her leadership. Come the election, the policy cupboard may well be empty.
    Emeritus professor of history and politics at Griffith University, Ross Fitzgerald is the author of 35 books

    ##############################################################################################################################################

    The government subverts the cost benefit analysis of its legislation


    BAD government is no excuse for bad governance. Yet an interim report just released by the Productivity Commission highlights the damage this government has done to a key element in the integrity of public decision-making: the process of scrutinising proposed regulations.
    In fact, so dire is the situation that in what must be a first the government is on the record as refusing to answer questions put to it by the commission in the course of an inquiry. That inquiry examines how effectively the commonwealth, states and territories analyse the costs and benefits of proposed regulations.
    As part of its inquiry, the commission surveyed jurisdictions about the procedures by which those analyses (known as Regulation Impact Statements) are prepared and reviewed. Alone among the jurisdictions surveyed, the commonwealth refused to answer a host of questions related to the RIS process.
    That those questions would embarrass the government is hardly puzzling. For, since coming to office, Labor has done whatever it can to undermine regulation review. This is not to suggest the system Labor inherited was perfect - far from it. Yes, an appraisal of that system undertaken by the OECD on the basis of the Howard government's RIS guidelines gave it high marks. In reality, however, there was plenty of room for improvement, as the Banks review of regulation in 2006 showed.

    But, rather than improvements, Labor changed the system for the worse. The Office of Best Practice Regulation, responsible for designing and enforcing the regulation review guidelines, was transferred from the Productivity Commission to the Department of Finance. That done, Labor took the guidelines the OECD had endorsed and trashed them.
    In a move the PC describes as "at odds with the Regulatory Impact Assessment framework", ministers were allowed to select the alternative options considered in a RIS and to retrospectively modify a RIS after a decision had been taken. Nor was there any obligation to disclose that had been done. And, to make matters worse, the 

    government dropped the requirement that of the options considered in a RIS the option with the highest net benefits to the community be the one recommended.
    But it did not end there. Rather, an unprecedented number of important new regulations were exempted from the requirement for a RIS. And, though more than 70 exempted regulations should have been subjected to post-implementation reviews, only nine such reviews have been completed.
    The unsurprising result is that the quality of Regulation Impact Statements has reached an all-time low. Exemplary of the problems is the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill, which has just cleared the House of Representatives.
    The legislation itself is nothing to be proud of. It imposes on businesses that import timber or timber products an obligation to verify that the timber has been legally logged, with up to five years' imprisonment for failing to do so. Although no more than 10 per cent of Australia's timber imports are at risk of being illegally logged, the legislation will increase prices for all timber products by 3 per cent or more. That slug on consumers is championed by the Greens, who having done their best to destroy the Australian timber industry are now determined to cripple imports. And the promise of import restrictions has won the Greens the support of beleaguered domestic producers and of the unions, resulting in an unholy coalition of victims and tormentors.
    So as to help prepare the RIS for this depressing venture, the department responsible for the legislation commissioned modelling from the Centre for International Economics.
    To its credit, the CIE concluded the costs of the government's policy were up to 10 times greater than the benefits. Far from preventing illegal logging, the legislation would simply divert illegal timber to other markets while harming Australian consumers. Domestic producers would be better off, but few environmental gains, if any, would be achieved.
    The department, however, was not so easily discouraged. Instead, it commissioned a new round of modelling from within government, and in its modelling instructions slashed the CIE's estimates of compliance costs. Indeed, doubtless by coincidence, its adjustments to the CIE's methodology proved exactly sufficient to bring the estimated benefits of the government's preferred option into line with the costs. To get the proposal over the line, the department pointed to additional "intangible" benefits that it had never clearly specified, much less quantified - ignoring the CIE's finding that there was "no reason to believe" inclusion of intangibles "will change the conclusion that the benefit to cost ratio is very low".
    The outcome is a RIS that heartily endorses the government's position. Even the most superficial reading of that RIS suggests it is half-baked; it takes only a moment's closer examination to reveal it has never been put in the oven. But the mere fact that the ratio of benefits to costs had been increased tenfold plainly did not arouse suspicion in the Department of Finance. Rather, the RIS received the good housekeeping seal as fully compliant with RIS quality requirements.
    Unfortunately, the Climate Change Department's RIS supporting the recent backflip on the floor price for the emissions trading scheme shows that is no isolated incident. This RIS must have involved considerable difficulty, as only months earlier the same department concluded that, on balance, a floor price was desirable. But displaying the agility usually reserved for eels slithering into the mud, the new RIS asserts both that future carbon prices would be "significantly higher" without the legislative amendments than with them, and that future carbon prices (and notably those in the budget) would not be changed by the legislative amendments.
    One might have expected seeing assertions thus locked in mortal combat to trouble the Department of Finance; instead, yet another questionable RIS obtained its tick of approval.
    Little wonder the Commission concludes that "a degree of cynicism is pervading the regulatory landscape in response to the perceived lack of integrity in regulation decision-making". And little wonder we are drowning in ill-conceived regulation, with all the harm it does to productivity.
    That is not to claim the RIS process could ever suffice to prevent regulatory creep. The reality is that from time to time governments will take poor decisions.
    But while poor decisions are inevitable, poor processes are not. And by undermining transparency and accountability, poor processes make poor decisions more likely and more durable.
    Labor therefore knew what it was doing when it neutered the regulation review process: it was allowing truly shocking measures, such as the illegal logging bill, to get a free kick. It is now up to the Coalition to show it is serious about doing better.
    Additional material at http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/henryergas/

    Monday 10 September 2012

    The Female of the Species / a superior ode to affirmative inanity!

    An ode to the Sufreggettes

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdGrZUnjPbU&feature=related


    Poem of the Week
    PotW.org
    Founded August 1996

    <   PotW #96   >
    This Week's PoemPast Poems...
    ...by Poet
    ...by Title and First Line
    ...by Occasion
    Contact about...
    ...Free Subscription
    ...Submitting a Poem
    ...other Questions
    The Fine Print...
    ...Copyright Information
    ...Page Mission
    ...Privacy Policy
    Links to...
    ...other Poetry Sites


                          Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)                           The Female of the Species
        WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
        He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
        But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
        When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
        He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
        But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
        When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
        They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
        'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
        For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
        Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
        For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
        But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
        The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
        Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
        Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
        Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
        To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
        Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
        To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
        Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
        Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!
        But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
        Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
        And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
        The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
        She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
        May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
        These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
        She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
        She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
        As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
        And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
        Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
        She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
        Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
        He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
        Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
        Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
        Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
        Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
        And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!
        So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
        With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
        Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
        To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.
        And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
        Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
        And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
        That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.


    This poem can be found, for example, in:



  • Kipling, Rudyard. Rudyard Kipling's Verse: Inclusive Edition, 1885-1918. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.
  • Felleman, Hazel, ed. The Best Loved Poems of the American People. Garden City, NY: Garden City Books, 1936.     
  • @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    1. The Female of the Species - Kipling

      www.potw.org/archive/potw96.htmlShare
      Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). The Female of the Species. WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who ...
    2. The Female of the Species (Kipling poem) - Wikipedia, the free ...

      en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Female_of_the_Species_(Kipling_po...
      "The Female of the Species" poem by Rudyard Kipling originally published in ...used as a title for at least three other works (see The Female of the Species).
    3. Kipling, "The Female of the Species" (1911)

      www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/female.html
      The Female of the SpeciesRudyard Kipling 1911. 1 When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, 2 He shouts to scare the monster, who will ...
    4. COMPLETE COLLECTION OF POEMS BY RUDYARD KIPLING

      www.poetryloverspage.com › British/American Poets
      You are here: Home » British/American Poets » Rudyard Kipling. Share | ... OF POEMS BY. Rudyard Kipling Portrait .... The Female of the Species · The Fires ...