Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Fipe's column >>

FIPE

Summertime, and the livin' is easy...
Articles Posted: 6  Links Seeded: 197
Member Since: 9/2006  Last Seen: 6/17/2011

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

An introduction to Australian politics

Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:13 PM EST
world-news, politics, australia, introduction, australian-politics
By Fipe
advertisement

Someone asked me a bit ago to write a brief introduction to Australian politics to allow overseas readers to have the faintest clue what is going on. So, here we go...

A bit of history

Australia was originally inhabited by Aborigines, who lived in a tribal culture was anywhere up to 40000 years before white settlement. A few voyages of exploration reached the continent before official British settlement in Sydney in 1788. Australia was divided into various colonies which eventually became roughly equivalent to today's states.

In 1901, Australian became an independent nation. It is organised as a federation like the USA or Germany - there are two levels of government in our constitution - federal (national) and state. There are six states as well as two internal territories (organised along the lines of the District of Columbia).

The system

The states do administration of a lot of government functions, like primary and high schools, hospitals, police, water, roads, public transport and so on. In fact, they handle anything not specifically assigned to the Federal government in the constitution. The federal government handles things like trade, customs, the national healthcare system (called Medicare, although it's far more inclusive that America's Medicare, covering all Australians), universities, foreign affairs, defence, media and so on.

Each state organises its own local government system consisting of local (elected) councils which organise things like rubbish collection, minor roads, parks, libraries and so on. Councils are also in charge of overseeing building in their areas and ensuring that development does not overly harm the area.

I'm not going to go into state politics because each state has a different system. The Head of State of Australia is the Queen (or King) of the United Kingdom - rather like Canada - represented by the Governor-General. The Governor-General signs bills into law on behalf of the Queen, but he does not wield real executive power like the US President. He is mainly a figurehead.

At the federal level, there are as in America and Britain three arms of government - executive, legislative and judicial. The judicial is a normal system of courts based on a common law system.

The legislature is the Australian parliament, based in the capital Canberra. It has two houses, the House of Representatives (Green) and the Senate (Red). As in America, the House has districts (called electorates or seats) based on population and represented by one member. They are elected to three-year terms. Each state has 12 Senators (internal territories have two) elected to six-year terms, with half the Senate usually elected at each election.

The government is formed by whichever party can gain a majority in the House of Representatives - currently 76 out of 150 seats. The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister - who holds the real power in the government. The PM appoints his ministers from his party's MPs and Senators.

The ministers and Prime Minister form the Cabinet, which holds executive power. This is the most obvious distinction between the US and Australian systems - executive power is held by people who are also in the legislative branch.

As in most parliamentary democracies, bills must pass both houses of parliament to become law. Usually, the government will not have a majority in the Senate and will have to negotiate with either the Opposition or the minor parties (like the Greens, the Democrats or Family First) to get their bills through. Currently, however, the government has a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

The parties

The biggest parties in Australia are the Liberal Party (which is not liberal as would be seen in America - it is best described as economically liberal but socially conservative) and the Australian Labor Party, or ALP. From the 1940s or so they have been the only parties to form government, the Liberals in coalition with the National party, which represented a mainly country/bush constituency.

The Liberals are currently in government under Prime Minister John Howard, with the ALP in Opposition under Kim Beazley. There is an election due in late 2007, which contrary to popular belief either party could win.

The most important minor parties are the Australian Greens (leftist socially and economically), the Democrats (centrist, traditionally interested in making sure the Senate fulfils its oversight role - they are currently in decline) and Family First (an emerging party with links to the religious right, which has had a swing vote on a number of important issues).

The issues

The perennial issues in Australian federal politics are education and health. The Liberals tend to take a more user-pays approach - in health they have been encouraging private health insurance to partially replace the governmental Medicare scheme, in (higher) education they have been encouraging students to pay a greater proportion of university fees. Labor tends to believe that it is part of government's role to fund these sectors to ensure equal access for all.

In the last half-decade or so, immigration has become an issue, no more so than in 2001 when John Howard's tough line on asylum seekers won him re-election. The centrepiece of his policy was mandatory detention of refugees arriving on boats while their claims were assessed - this was criticised because of the large amounts of time refugees would spend in detention centres like Woomera (in the middle of the desert) while being assessed. Asylum seekers have been arriving less lately, and the issue has fallen off the political radar somewhat.

In the 2004 campaign, John Howard used a scare campaign about interest rates to cement his chances - arguing that under Labor's previous government (1983-96) interest rates had been high, and that this would happen under a new Labor government. His party's slogan for that election was 'Keeping Interest Rates Low'. As interest rates have risen 4 times since that election, it is unlikely that he will rely on it as a centrepiece of his next campaign - Labor has just released billboards attacking Howard for the rate rises, playing on a popular perception of Howard as untrustworthy.

Both parties take a similar line on trade, supporting free trade but tending to keep tariffs if it will protect constituencies of Australian workers. They will kick up a fuss, however, if the EU (for instance) raises tariffs on Australian products like sugar.

Iraq is something of an issue. The Liberals joined the invasion in 2003, and there is a small contingent of Australian troops in Iraq (and in Afghanistan). The Liberals have mainly adopted a 'stay-the-course' policy, while Labor argues for a pullout (possibly not an immediate one, but certainly a plan).

If anyone can think of any other major issues - I've probably forgotten something crucial - please post them below.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Fipe's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Australian Politics
  • Regions: Australia
  • Public Discussion (23)
Fosnez

There are a few things you may want to correct in your article.

There are three levels of government in Australia. Federal, State and local (Town/City/Shire Council)

The Queen's title is actually the Queen of Australia. It is entirely possible that we have a different monarch than that of England. ()

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:41 PM EST
Fipe

Good point on local government. I said that there are only two levels in the constitution, which is true - I was intending to put a bit about local government in, but I forgot. I'll do it now.

It's possibly to have a different monarch to England? I'm not sure if that's the case: the constitution says "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". The title, I agree, is technically the Queen of Australia.

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:50 PM EST
Tim Stanton

Also, a small but important point: Australia's voted to remain a monarchy through a referendum held in 1999. Although there was a lot of talk around Australia becoming a Republic during that time, the issue has more or less been out of the public mind since.

Either way, the Australia Act of 1986 relegated the British Monarchy to the status of a figurehead (as the monarchy is in England) and formally severed all ties to British rule and British parliament. The difference between Australia as a Republic or under a Monarchy is materially very little.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:13 AM EST
Fipe

That's true. Australia is, functionally but not symbolically, a fully independent state. The republic movement, for those taking notes, is linked partially to the movement to change the flag to something without the union jack in the top left.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:25 AM EST
Fosnez

Greetings :-)

Have a read of the below, It basically means that when the next monarch is crowned (Say for instance Prince Charles). Australia could (but won't) reject his coronation because of that whole, married/divorced/married thing. This is because the the bill that will be passed in the U.K. to bring Prince Charles onto the thrown is not going to necessarily be passed in Australia. It is entirely possible, however unlikely, that Australia instead crowns Prince Phillip as King.

Australia Act 1986 (No.142, 1985)

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act only affected the laws of the Commonwealth, and the laws of the United Kingdom continued to apply in the States. In 1986, the passage of this Commonwealth Act ended the applicability of laws of the United Kingdom in all States of Australia, and rationalised Commonwealth and State powers inherited from the United Kingdom. This Act also repealed parts of the Statute of Westminster, including a Section adopted in 1942, insofar as they applied to Australia.

  • 2 votes
#1.4 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:14 AM EST
Tim Stanton

The republic movement, for those taking notes, is linked partially to the movement to change the flag to something without the union jack in the top left.

Sadly, this issue got caught up in the '99 referendum and may have gone a long way to striking the proposal down.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:15 AM EST
Reply
ozroan

I'd probably include a little more on the Nationals as it's an interesting relationship and not always a happy one.

While traditionally there have been areas of substantial difference, over the past 15 years the two have become close knit. But there are still gaps on what the Nats want on trade compared to the Libs, and of course the ever popular "country" vote (Telstra, transport etc). The Nationals claim they are the voice of country Australia, but there are actually more Liberal MPs in regional Australia. The Nationals are crucial to the coalition taking power in either state or federal simply because of numbers, but the 'tail of the dog' has been losing popularity and seats over the past two or three elections.

And isn't it interesting how our local govts are not included in the constitution. That's part of why they find it so hard to get funding at both state and federal levels.

Top effort Fipe!

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:33 AM EST
Bozzor

The new big issues in the next election will be water management and the drought, but good article for everyone to get a solid idea about what politics in Australia is all about.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:02 AM EST
Gideon Polya

Unfortunately this Introduction left a lot out - rather like giving an introduction to Germany and not mentioning the Jewish Holocaust (6 million victims) or the invasion and occupation of Poland (6 million victims) and Russia (20 million victims).

1. The Indigenous Australian (Aboriginal) population diminished from about 0.7 million to 0.1 million in the first century after settlement due to violence, dispossession, deprivation and disease. Australia's (and one of the world's) top experts on Genocide, Professor Colin Tatz of a specialist genocide research centre at Sydney's Macquarie University describes what happened as Genocide.

2. White Australia participated in similar devastation of Indigenous people in the South Pacific (Fiji, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands). Australia was involved in slave trading ("Kanaka trade) in the Pacific up to the late 19th century, Thus 40,000 of the 150,000 population of Fiji died in 1875 within a year of introduction of measles from Australia.

3. The Tasmanian Indigenous "full blood" population dropped from 2,000-6,000 in 1803 to zero (0) due to
violence, dispossession, deprivation and disease.

4. The 20th century policy of removing Aboriginal children from their mothers (perhaps 100,000 in total) created the Stolen Generations and only ceased in the 1970s.

5. Indigenous people were only considered as proper citizrns in a Federal sense affter a referendum in 1967 - in some parts of Australia they contijued to be grossly abused. Indeed in some parts of australia they continue to be grossly abused with bipartisan complicity. Thus the 'annual death rate " is presently about 2.2% (Indigenous Australians), 2.4% (Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory) - as compared to 2.5% (pre-drought sheep in paddocks on Australian sheep farms) and 0.7% (White Australia).

6. White Australia Policy (1901-1973) excluded non-Europeans from Australia in a sneaky, cowardly, racist fashion. There is now a sneaky, cowardly, racist New White Australia Policy that enables "Whites" and "Honorary Whites" (of course they are not called as such in "politically correct" White Australia) to get visas electronically in a flash - while making non-Whites and Honorary non-Whites (Eastern Europeans except for Estonians) are put through the hoops.

7. Australia slavishly supported and supports US Asian Wars that have been associated with 18 million excess deaths since 1950. Australia is complicit in post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan that now total 3.0 million - largely due to US Coalition non-provision of life-sustaining requisites demanded by the Geneva Conventions.

8. Apart from tiny Luxembourg (which is seriously attempting to curb CO2 emissions) Australia is the worst per capita greenhouse gas poluter on Earth (followed closely by the US). Yet Australia's Bush-ite sycophant Howard and Bush are both remorseless "greenhouse sceptics" who have both irresponsibly and dishonestly minimized the UK Stern Report (that has been endorsed, for example, by Nobel Laureate and predecessor as top World Bank Economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz) that calls for urgent action against climate change - Bush and Howard are participants in terracide.

9. The Liberal-National Coalition (with some notable decent exceptions such as former PM Fraser and MP Pietro Georgiou) are PC racist, right-wing extremists heavily influenced by the dangerous Religious Right, racist zionism and extreme right wing business groups and think tanks. The ALP is right-wing, poll-driven and cowardly. The Greens are Centrists (not Leftist) as are the Democrats.

10. The nation as a whole has a culture of "looking the other way", self-congratulation, politically correct racism and entrenched egregious racism that has now extended to bipartisan anti-Arab anti-Semitism, xenophobia and Islamophobia that has brought protests from both former Labor PM Gough Whitlam and his old foe Conservative PM Malcolm Fraser (but not from cowardly ALP Parliamentarians or in general from the contemptibly neutral Christian clergy). Current legislatation re free speech, civil liberties and refugees grossly violates international conventions. The Mainstream media are dishonest, cowardly, unethical and intrinsically racist (like the old White Australia Policy) e.g. racist, lying, holocaust-denying Mainstream Australian media simply ignore (or at best minimize) the horrendous civilian deaths associated with White Australia's cowardly, dishonest, racist and contemptible involvement with Bush-ite US in the Middle East and Central Asia.

For detailed documentation and references (I can't refer you to racist, lying, holocaust-denying Mainstream media because they don't document these things) see:
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5004/26/ , http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5004/26/ and
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/10464/42/ ).

And for the record, I am economically and socially conservative humanist scientist - I am simply (like so many others) haunted by the Jewish Holocaust and how it could have happened and destroyed all but a dozen of my tribe.

Racist (or , if you like, "politically correct racist") White Australia with its past horrendous association with racism, violence and genocide and its present asociation with the racism, violence and genocide of UK-US democratic imperialism (democratic Nazism, democratic tyranny or "state terorism" in the words of Australia's foremost expatriate journalist John Pilger) provides a big part of the answer.

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:19 AM EST
Tim Stanton

Gideon, I think you could post this as it's own article as a companion to this one.
It's definitely an important part of our history and current culture -- and one that is sadly overlooked inside and out of the country.

Needless to say, parent article should at least reference the issue of the current government's unwillingness to say "Sorry" to the indigenous people of Australia. (Sadly, it doesn't even seem to play in current politics, although it has certainly been a valid issue in the recent past.)

  • 2 votes
#4.1 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:01 AM EST
I SPY

Or how the Police started selling Rum the day they got off the Boat,

Australian Politics 101

If an Australian company proposed to upgrade and relocate Hell to Ethiopia, Sitting ministers would talk of creating jobs and having a constructive dialogue with Satan.

  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:19 AM EST
Fipe

Gideon, the purpose of this article was to explain briefly the Australian political system and the major political issues. I only touched on history as it was necessary to demonstrate why the system is this way - so I mentioned the fact that Australia was colonised by the British to explain why our Head of State is the Queen of Great Britain. Interesting as the study of historical Australian attitudes to race is, it is not really relevant to an article outlining Australia's political system.

Your comparison with "giving an introduction to Germany and not mentioning the Jewish Holocaust" is a totally unfair one. I'm not giving an introduction to Australia, I'm giving an introduction to Australian politics.

  • 3 votes
#4.3 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:09 PM EST
Gideon Polya

Fipe - I totally appreciate your worthy intentions "

"I'm not giving an introduction to Australia, I'm giving an introduction to Australian politics"

and, further, readily concede that my comparison with "giving an introduction to Germany and not mentioning the Jewish Holocaust" could be seen as a bit unfair (especially given the overwhelmingly unethical and racist entrenched denial and ignoring by Australian media, politicans and educators) .

However "history" and "politics" are intimately intertwined. Thus points 1-4 in post #4 are acutely relevant to contemporary politics because the "denier" Conservatives reject what they call the "black arm band view of Australian history", won't say "sorry" and are complicit in exactly the same sorts of awful crimes committed by Racist White Australia over the last 220 years (see points 5-10 which are all acutely about contemporary Australian politics).

The Germans have followed all the elements of the post-Holocaust CAAAA (C4A) protocol in relation to mass murder - Cessation, Acknowledgement of the crime, Apology, Amends and Assertion that they won't do it again. The Conservative representatives of extreme right wing Racist White Australia are up to their arm pits in innocent blood, won't Apologize or do any of the other C4A requirements - and (history ignored yields history repeated) are still doing it (much of it with Opposition complicity e.g. Afghanistan, Aborigines).

If the newly-empowered Democrats decide to go for the kill and throw the war crimes book at Bush, Rumsfeld, Dr Rice (Dr Death) et al, Australia's present Prime Minister might find himself before the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all, Milosevic went before the ICC for complicity in "only" 0.2 million excess deaths - extremist, Bush-ite fanatic Howard has complicity in over 3 million avoidable (excess) deaths.

  • 1 vote
#4.4 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:33 PM EST
Fosnez

Ok, a few points...

We (as in you and me) cannot be blamed for actions taken by our ancestors. Otherwise just as much as Germany would all be accountable for the holocaust, Israel would be responsible for the displacement of the Canaanites.

If there is an official "Sorry" from the government, this would be an admission of guilt, the next logical step would be for someone to sue someone...

Now with regard to your Co2 emissions... we are a very large nation (as in size)... a lot of our C02 is produced from cars, traveling from city to city or withing the one city... I travel 30km to and from work each day. The government is not to blame for this... there have been numerous "clean" technologies that have been developed, bought by a major oil company, and then left on the shelf to rot..

Screaming that we are not following some pie in the sky treaty (that has about as much real world impact and me crying into the ocean) is not going to help matters... I do not claim to have the answer, but what I do know is that Kyoto is not one of them... (Keeping output of CO2 at a certain level while reducing the number of trees on the planet is not going to help matters one iota)

The news media are "info-tainment" they have a product (news) and they sell it... we cannot make them sell a product that will not sell.. (The ABC is different, no-one there wants to get fired for insulting their boss's boss). If you want clean news, read the BBC website, or online... like newsvine :-)

Regarding the holocaust... It was a dark time, but all to often you hear people go "BBBut the Holocaust!!!". How often do you hear the same outrage when one person is killed in Israel, then the Israeli army destroys an APARTMENT BLOCK FULL OF PEOPLE to get one "bad guy"... I wonder how history will reflect on this policy?

  • 1 vote
#4.5 - Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:03 AM EST
Reply
Paranoid Android

A very nice article. Being half-Australian, I ought to know how things work over there, but sadly never invested any time into it. Even though there where a few hints of criticism, the tone of the article is fairly neutral and pleasant to read.

However, I do have a question regarding the passing of new bills. Do bills freshly approved by the legislative branch immediately get checked for inconsistensies with existing laws by the judicial branch, or is the legislative branch a passive organ which only reacts to problems pointed out by a third party?

  • 3 votes
Reply#5 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:17 PM EST
Paranoid Android

Um, I meant to ask wether the judicial branch is a passive organ.

    #5.1 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:18 PM EST
    I SPY

    No we dont have those House of Lords style Executive Appointments that the USA has. All sitting members of Parliment are elected by the People. Not put in place by a Dictatorial system. We also have preferential voting. Somthing that if that if the US wants to look like a Democracy they should adopt. As for the High Court there are many avenues to appeal laws. I am not sure if we can still take matters to the Privy Council, but laws are often Challenged in the High Court. I can not make an accurate comparison for you because the American Political language you have used is unique to America and Does not really have any meaning to Australians. Judicial Branch??? The High Court ???
    Passive Organ ?????: What are these American terms. I wish you would speak the Language or do we need an interpreter for Americans now

    • 3 votes
    #5.2 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:05 PM EST
    Fipe

    New bills aren't automatically checked for inconsistency - it's assumed that the department drafting the bill would make sure that there were no conflicts. If two bills are in conflict a case would have to be brought before the High Court to decide what was going to happen.

    I have no idea what the procedure would be if two federal acts were inconsistent. If a federal and a state act contradict each other, the federal bill takes precedence - unless the federal act is on a topic the federal government is not allowed to legislate on. If an act contravenes the constitution, obviously the constitution takes precedence.

    So to answer your question directly, yes, the judicial branch is passive: it can't act unless a case is brought before it.

    • 2 votes
    #5.3 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:02 PM EST
    FipeDeleted
    I SPY

    I have no idea what the procedure would be if two federal acts were inconsistent. If a federal and a state act contradict each other, the federal bill takes precedence - unless the federal act is on a topic the federal government is not allowed to legislate on. If an act contravenes the constitution, obviously the constitution takes precedence.

    I suppose it depends on the State. NSW is above the Fed, Queensland is not really part of Australia, NT and the ACT are Federal, and the other states would have to give in to the fed if they threatened to block supply.

    • 1 vote
    #5.5 - Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:57 AM EST
    Paranoid Android

    Thank you very much, Fipe.

    I SPY - First of all I'm Dutch, I was taught English by British standards, I do not support the American government and I certainly am not a supporter of the way they organize their democracy. Now; concerning my 'American' political language. Please allow me to translate normal English into plain English, for your benefit. According to the French philosopher Montesquieu, absolute power has to be divided into 3 seperate branches of equal strength. No one in charge of one of these branches is allowed to influence the other. Henceforth, gaining complete control of a nation (as in gaining 'absolute power') is made impossible. This was first put to practice by the French revolutionists, after they decapitated Louis XVI.

    The three branches are the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. The executive branch enforces the laws made by the legislative branch, but is checked by the judicial branch. This system is called the system of checks and balances. The idea is that every branch checks the work of the other branches, so a single branch cannot just cut loose and do silly things. Problem is, this philosophy is also backward-compatible. You see, if you can check another branch, you can excersize control over it through politics. A judge should be impartial and therefore should never ever be chosen because of a political stance. Nowadays in the United States, they are. The reason why the American system is not working is because parties have managed to succeed into getting a majority in the executive, legislative and judicial branch.

    A passive organ is a governing body which does not do anything until it is called upon by a third party.

    I hope you will be able to understand my question now. =)

    • 4 votes
    #5.6 - Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:14 AM EST
    I SPY

    Well the French did lend the US quiet a lot of there Three Tiered Parliamentary Democracy Model, but I think you'll find roots going back to Switzerland and the Papal states particularly the Duchy of Bremen. I do understand what you are saying but can you show me one three Chamber Assembly that is actually a Three Chamber assembly Elected by the People. I cant think of any. Do the Dutch have Proportional Representative voting system ??

    • 1 vote
    #5.7 - Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:32 AM EST
    Reply
    Daily News Rush

    Hey Fipe,

    Thanks for the introduction to Australian politics, quite interesting and informative.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they end up choosing Prince William instead of Prince Charles when the opportunity arises. This just seems to be the trend nowadays, to buck the establishment.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:25 PM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com