I won’t berate you with examples (no, I’ll hit you with that later in the article), and I’m not here to bitch about celebrities (well, not entirely here to bitch about celebrities) – rather, the point of this article is to encourage people to err on the side of caution, to ask themselves a series of questions before every tweet.

Before you tweet, ask yourself: “Should I really post this?” “Is it really necessary?” “Will I be giving something to the world? Or really just adding another useless 140 characters to the pig-sty that is the internet?”

These questions can be confusing and difficult to confront. In the fast-paced digital age, a simple formula is needed for people to test their tweets and make sure they are legal.

A preliminary model for a tweet-law could be based on German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s famous moral law, the ‘categorical imperative’. It stated:

“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

Now, converting this into a tweet-law, I propose:

“Tweet only in accordance with that tweet through which you can at the same time see being humorous, wise or helpful to someone other than yourself.”

Here are a few examples from someone who I believe tweets in accordance with this tweet-law:

While he may have been in some horrible movies recently, Steve Martin has certainly not lost his endearing absurd humor most visible in his trademark film, The Jerk. The man is a genius, and his tweets certainly reflect that. The majority of them have been intricately labored in a way designed to be humorous, wise, or helpful to someone other than himself. For example, on the 14th of February he wrote:

“I ca’nt find my galssses.”

Only to be followed up with:

“I found my glasses in my Twitter photo, but I can’t get them out”.

The first tweet is funny enough, but the second tweet is enough for a sustained 5 to 10 second chuckle, which is about as much of a laugh as you can ask for in 140 characters.

These tweets can be seen as being in accordance to the tweet-law, as they are most certainly humorous to someone other than Steve Martin. They may also be helpful, most likely to someone who was having a rubbish day and needed some comic relief.

Sure, Martin’s tweets may not be wise, but as you may remember, your tweet only needs to pass one out of the three requirements of the tweet-law for it to be legal.

Unfortunately though, many tweeps are not of Steve Martin’s ilk and set about breaking the tweet-law anyway they can. One of the most prominent outlaws is Lara Bingle. Here’s an example of why Bingle may not become Laura Bingle AO for ‘services to twitter’ any time soon. On the 16th of February she wrote:

“London is freezing today.”

Now if we test this tweet against the tweet-law, we can pretty easily see it is not a legal tweet. It is certainly not humorous to anyone, and I’m sure no one believes it is terribly wise. Also telling is the use of the world “today”, London England is cold MOST of the time, so to say “it’s cold today” implies there is some break from the norm. This one is most definitely a violation of tweet law, and good old fashioned common sense.

However we have to give Bingle some credit, it may be helpful to someone. It could be helpful:

a) For people who do not have a TV, radio, or access to any other internet sites with weather news other than twitter.

b) For those who live in a deceivingly well air-conditioned house and refuse to look or step foot outside to contemplate the temperature.

c) For people who have never experienced winter in England before, have never heard anything about England and thus could rationally assume anything other than it being cold outside.

d) If there were an isolated tribe living in a village located so far underground they never felt the effects of cold and were planning to migrate above ground to London. If by some miracle this tribe had access to twitter, could understand English and were also following Lara Bingle – then maybe they would consider taking a jacket after reading Bingle’s tweet that it is rather nippy outside.

But on further analysis, I am thinking the ways in which this tweet could be helpful are a little far-fetched. So maybe it would be fair to say that Bingle has bungled it on this occasion, and her tweet is not legal.

I encourage all readers though, please do what few have ever done and learn something from Lara Bingle. Learn from her example, learn of the dangers of breaking the tweet-law, and try from this moment on not be a follower of tweet-law outlaws.

For those not familiar with the Wonkleys, they are like the Walkleys – except without the prestige, glamour and cash prize.

The awards are voted for by you the consumer because it is your opinions that matter more than any other (certainly more than ours).

As an impartial news and opinion source, we would never want to influence your vote… but if you were to vote for us, we would never turn down the opportunity to bask in the loving embrace of our readers – being the ego-maniacal-fame-whores that we are.

If you were, hypothetically, looking for a qualified recommendation on who to vote for here are some other intelligent funny people and blogs who deserve your votes more than we do:

Ben Pobjie has been nominated in the category of best political journalist.

Kim Powell in the category of best amateur political blogger.

News with Nipples for the best amateur political blog category.

Ash Ghebranious has been nominated in the best political blogger category.

Julie Posetti has been nominated in the category of best journalist on twitter.

And Phony Tony Jones has been nominated as one of the best fake twitter accounts.

These are just a few of many talented people who have been nominated, so if you’re not going to vote for Social Scapegoat, then you should vote for any of these fine people. We are honoured (and slightly ashamed) to even be on the same list as these clearly superior minds.

Voting is now open for this year’s award categories, you can cast your vote here.

Voting closes on Sunday the 12^th of December.

The disgruntled malcontents at Social Scapegoat want to thank every person who nominated us for a Wonkley. We don’t know who you are, but if we did, we would deliver beer and chocolate covered strawberries to your door for a week. (We’re classy like that).

Seriously, it’s wonderful to be receiving such positive feedback from our readers and we appreciate your support. We love hearing from you – in emails and the comments section and we’re taking on board all the feedback we receive.

I want to express a huge thank you to all my fellow Scapegoats for their hard work over these last three years: Roxanne Bauer, Myles Harris, Preston Towers, Chase Stevens, Evan Hughes, Nick Porter, Michael Brull, Boganette, Lazy American Correspondent, Micah McGown, Helen Davidson, Ian Rakowski, Paul Christiansen and Will Jameson. All of these people work hard to create insightful and original content and are dedicated to  increasing the standard of debate. Without you, this couldn’t have been possible.

To our readers – you may have noticed there has been an article drought these last few days. After a long and busy year we are taking a much needed break for a few days. We promise more content will be online shortly.

Thank you again to all our readers for your support, your RTs, your banter, and your involvement.

You make it worth it.

- Claire Connelly
Founder and Editor of Social Scapegoat

Every time there is a changing of the guard in American politics, the winning party acts like they have a mandate, that the American people have spoken and embraced the platform of [insert party name here]. And every time, they’re wrong. There are no mandates. There is no embracing. At most, it’s just a market fluctuation. For the most part, Americans are split down the middle. Sometimes one side will win, and other times the other will win. It has always been like this. And yet, any time a party wins some seats, gains some control, they act like I did when I got my first fake ID. Drunk with a feeling of invincibility (and booze), I tried to use it all over town, and inevitably got busted and had it taken away. This is exactly how control in American politics works, all the way down to the booze part.  WHY DON’T THEY REALIZE THIS?

If Republicans are smart (big ‘if’), then they’ll pick a couple key issues to go after and try to compromise with Obama to come to a mutually agreed-upon solution. If Obama is smart (another big ‘if’) then he’ll throw the GOP a few bones, and also realize that he overstepped his bounds and didn’t actually have a mandate in 2008, and govern more from the center. If (third big ‘if’ of this analysis) both of these things happen, then maybe, just maybe, some progress will be made in the next few years. Bill Clinton was smart enough to do it, and it won him a second term. It remains to be seen if Obama will follow that path.

It would be a dramatic understatement to say that voter enthusiasm is way, way down from the last time I voted, in 2008. That year, I woke up at 6am to get to the polls when they opened. I didn’t want to do this because I was excited to vote, mind you; I just wanted to avoid waiting in line. I got to my polling place at 6:15 and to my dismay, there was already a line. As I waited, an older black woman came out after voting with tears in her eyes. “If only my daddy had lived to see this day,” she said, to no one in particular. I wasn’t sure why she was so emotional, until I got in to cast my ballot. After voting “Yes” on Issue 4, authorizing the township to rezone a vacant lot into commercial space, I got a little misty eyed myself. I knew what that woman was feeling. Issue 4 united us all.

Anyway, there were no early wake up calls for me this year. I decided to vote on my way to work. I figured it would give me a good excuse to show up late. My polling place is at a church in my neighborhood. Yes, at a church. But what about separation of church and state, you ask? To that I say, shut up, you whiny liberal. It’s convenient and nearby, and there is ample parking. I once had to vote at a public library that was located on a busy street with no public parking. People voting there either had to pay to park in a city lot, or walk. Since I am Jewish and lazy, this was not a good setup for me. The church is a much better option. And all I have to do to cast my ballot there is accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. No big deal.

I arrive at the church and park. It’s not very busy. A couple of campaigners are standing their designated 50 feet away from the door, holding up signs in a vain attempt to garner a few last minute votes from the (idiot) undecideds. There was some worry on the part of professional worriers that Tea Party representatives might use voter intimidation tactics to intimidate voters, but the Tea Party guy standing outside my precinct was a little wiener, whose ass I could easily have kicked. They must have sent out their tough guys to the more liberal parts of town.

I go inside, and after getting baptized, I am handed a ballot. In the US, there is no standard ballot format. Some places use punch cards, some places use machines, some places have an arcane procedure that uses a Ouija board and tarot cards. My place uses a good old fashioned pen and paper, where I fill in a box next to the candidate I want to vote for. But don’t go outside the lines, or your vote won’t be counted! In this digital age, my vote is cast with a glorified coloring book.

After five minutes of coloring inside the lines, my voice had been heard. All said, it’s pretty anti-climactic. I voted for governor, senator, congressman, a few local races, and finally, a bond issue to renovate the high school gymnasium. I will admit, that last one made me a little misty eyed. I have a soft spot for gym renovations.

And now, we sit back and wait for the results. I’ll have a recap and analysis for you later this week.

The people you think are hipsters don’t call themselves that, which is different from most other fashion/lifestyle movements.

Punks call themselves punks, and for a time even Emos called themselves Emos. In fact no one ever admits to being a hipster, making hipsters the most talked about technically-non-existent clique in history.

But for argument’s sake let’s acknowledge this much maligned group of “inner city trendies taking over small bars, laneways and cafe / bookstores everywhere”. Because if I don’t acknowledge it I can’t argue it.*

I’m kind of getting over seeing people waste valuable space ranting about Hipsters and how annoying they are (even though you can write what you want on the net because the net is limitless, despite what this guy says). It’s a fashion. It’s like lots of other fashions. Granted, this one started from an anti-fashion stance but still. It’s a fad.

Yes, there are the hipster kids who do it because they want to be cool and anti-establishment, and seem really intelligent by quoting Sartre and other writers, poets and philosophers that were most recently popular when women wore hoops under their skirts.

Yes, they have the $200 haircut to look like they never cut their hair. And the glasses. But don’t get me started on the glasses. (There is always a current trend for specs. When I was 11 I had giant lenses in a tortoise shell frame because that’s what everybody else had, but no one wrote articles about it). Yes, they want people to know that they Don’t Give A Hoot about low-brow, crass, commercial crap, and definitely knew about That Band years before you did.

These people do annoy me a bit. But only in a bemused, sympathetic kind of way, because I just think that they probably started with a few of the ‘hipster’ interests, but didn’t feel like they were hardcore enough and so went all out on some sort of insecure self-improvement bender. I do get this because I like reading Shakespeare, and I like indie bands, but I don’t like poetry. I enjoy dance festivals, and I also have an active interest in politics and world-y stuff. I’m pretty happy in my interests. But when I hang out with full-on hipster dudes I feel so very very straight-laced. But then I go home and realise that I can read a bit of Hamlet, but if I get bored I can turn on the TV and watch the Biggest Loser without having intellectual guilt pangs.

The thing that gets me with all this bitching and moaning is that it’s being treated as though it’s some special social phenomenon, and that every single one of these kids is a try-hard fake. There are people that actually DO like to read Satre. They DO like to write poetry and wear black-framed specs. They DO like listening to the Animal Collective (or whoever it is this week) because they find the music quite enjoyable and pleasing to the ear. But nobody believes them because it’s (ironically) becoming cool to jump on the anti-hipster bandwagon.

It’s exactly the same as every other trend ever in the history of everything. Ever. There are people that follow a trend because they want to project a certain image. There are those that do it because they want to be cool. Then there are those that just enjoy the things that happen to be fashionable.

Here’s a maths equation for you. Imagine the Red Inanimate Object represents a copy of Satre, or some obscure indie band from Ohio.

Having said that, when someone uses the word ‘bourgeois’ I want to punch them in the eyebrow.

*For the record, I have been called a hipster. Once. But it was by someone who thought “fully sick” was spelt with two o’s and no c.

There’s no point trying to argue. Things have already gotten too heated for a rational debate on climate change.
Whether you’re on the side of climate skeptics or are a bastion of belief in the effect of global warming, getting the two groups in a room to thrash it out will achieve nothing.

These two groups, regardless of the science, have turned the whole debate into a matter of faith. “Do you believe in climate change?” has become the catch cry from journalists and the public alike, and somehow global warming has turned away from test tubes and experiments to becoming a religion, with its fair share of atheists.

The battle royale between climate change evangelist Tim Flannery and the anti-climate devil’s own Jennifer Marohasy on Q&A on Monday night showed that both sides have barbs to throw, and their own kind of “evidence” to prove their point. But, because neither side is willing to listen or back down on their arguments, the debate just turns into a talk-over-the-top-of-each-other slanging match.

While the confrontation was mildly amusing, the only things that came out of it were sore throats and a whole lot of anger.

There’s just no way you’re ever going to get any kind of reasonable outcome from this, and the only way either side will actually “win” is when the Earth is scorched from greenhouse gases, or turns into this utopia where humans can trash around as much as we want without causing environmental havoc.

But, in the midst of all this, the process of making the world a greener place has already begun. Who, 15 years ago, would have thought separating rubbish from recycling would become second-nature for society? Who would have even dreamed of asking for greener electricity, despite it costing slightly more?

Australian society, as a whole, has shown a willingness to change its ways.

For most people, the question of whether we should do more to protect our environment and keep it strong is hardly a question worth asking. There is even consensus in Parliament that something should be done.

And that’s the point. The debate about whether the damn thing is real doesn’t change the fact that we can do things to improve our efficiency and help keep the environment strong for future generations. If climate change turns out to be one big giant hoax, what does it matter?

Already, solar panels and wind farms are becoming viable options while hybrid cars are becoming far more prominent. Let’s give these things a go, and see where they take us. Let’s try and achieve something together.

So, how about we put the science to one side for a moment, take a deep breath, and then come up with ways society can really take our energy production and consumption to the 21st century.

Let’s leave the hot air and anger at the door, where it belongs.

While the actual numbers will likely be a bit lower than that, it is inevitable that The Tea Party will have a number of seats in congress come January.

The prospects of this becoming a reality scares a lot of Democrats, but not me.

I can’t wait.

Yes, the future of America is at stake.

I get that. (Won’t somebody please think of the children?).

But Tea Party people are really, really entertaining.

The way I see it, it’s a win-win.

Either crazy Tea Party candidate goes to Congress, dials down the crazy and just becomes a rank-and-file Republican, which negates any real harm they can do, or they keep up the crazy or even (fingers crosses) become crazier.

Just imagine how much fun Jon Stewart will have if Rand Paul or Sharron Angle gets elected.

Unless they somehow get muzzled by the party leaders (unlikely), they are going to say some epically crazy stuff over the next six years.

It’s a shame that Christine O’Donnell, the anti-masturbation former witch from Delaware isn’t running in a redder state, because she is just amazing.

If the fact that she was able to secure a major party nomination for the Senate doesn’t persuade you of the power of democracy, nothing will.

But in reality, The Tea Party is nothing to be feared.

They’re just a reincarnation of The John Birch Society with a catchier name and the marketing arm of Fox News behind them.

The 2010 elections is not the beginning of The Tea Party, it’s their last stand.

Once they get some people in power, and realize that no one cares about their crazy ideas, the enthusiasm will wane and they’ll fade back into the fringes of society.

So we might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Certain members of the Liberal party are complaining, (wait for it), that the not-so-faceless men and women of the twitter-sphere and blogger-sphere are being mean to them!

Yes, the Liberal Party are more concerned about arguing on the internet than coming up with viable alternatives to leadership LIKE HOW TO BETTER RUN THE COUNTRY!

First journalists and now the internet?

The internet.

Really?

I’ve seen where this path leads, and let me tell you – it ain’t pretty.

Is it just that we’re in the middle of a fairly righteous post-election hangover?

Or is it that the Liberal party have nothing to do because Tony still thinks he’s on the campaign trail?

Yesterday, @JoeHockey tweeted “I admit I am losing faith in Twitter (& BLOGS) because the anonymous commentary is often banal,nasty and meaningless….” (yes, much like the things said in Parliament) , “no name =cowardice.”

Today @ScottMorrisonMP tweeted “RT @ScottMorrisonMP: @latikambourke people know who I am – If they want to attack my policies they should be up front about who they are.”

Talk about a bunch of whingers!

First of all, I hate to get all pedantic but the people on twitter / facebook / blogs are not nameless.

The majority of twitterites tweet under their own names, and even if they don’t, they have bios explaining who they are, what they do, where they blog, and often their political persuasion. Blogs do this as well.

Who are these so-called “faceless people” they’re talking about?

Besides, a point well made is a point well made – just because it doesn’t have a byline attached to it doesn’t make the opinion of said person irrelevant.

I don’t know what frustrates me more, the fact that their proposition is factually incorrect, or the fact that the whole thing is so petty.

Over the years, we have heard a certain politician say that Australia is being swamped by Asians.

A whole sector of the population have been told they aren’t allowed to marry  because their sexual preferences don’t meet the  personal / religious tastes of the people elected to represent their best interests.

Women have been told they are betraying their gender by choosing not to marry and for seeking income equality, and they’ve been told they’re betraying their children by going back to work after having a child.

Fatally ill Australians have heard they will have to suffer long agonising, painful, deaths because the politicians elected to represent their health and welfare seem to be more concerned with their eternal salvation.

We have had to put up with asylum seekers who have suffered poverty, famine, civil war, and political persecution being labeled as terrorists, dole-bludgers, and job-stealers who are all secretly conspiring to convert every single Australia to Islam and make them live under Sharia law.

And we have to tolerate Bob Katter saying he “would walk to Bourke backwards if the poof population of North Queensland is any more than 0.001 per cent.”

If we want to complain about mean, vindictive, banal, nasty things being said about people we should be pointing the finger squarely at Parliament and yelling “hypocrites!” at the top of our lungs!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

After all the mud that was slung by both parties during the election, they’ve set the yardstick of bad behavior impossibly high!

If Tony Windsor can call Barnaby Joyce “a bloody idiot” on national television – really, why would anyone expect the people of the internet to behave themselves?

I have a suggestion – if our politicians want people to stop making fun of them they could try spending more time doing a good job and less time complaining on twitter.

Short of that they could start by setting a good example for everyone by conducting themselves professionally, even in opposition.

I get the feeling that petty arguments such as these are being used to fuel a conversation about politician’s right to privacy, even though I’m pretty sure they forfeited that right the day they entered the public sphere.

But why now, all of a sudden are our politicians crying foul?

People have always said nasty things about politicians (mainly because politicians are pretty nasty people), but until now, they weren’t around at the time to hear them.

With the invention of the internet and sites such as twitter – people can direct their complaints / abuse directly to the person they are complaining about.

I suspect this backlash is a product of the social media revolution that our politicians have been flung into head-first, kicking and screaming without first applying a filter and a bit of common sense.

Much like online journalists long ago learned not to read the comments section, it took print journalists a while to learn it’s probably best not to get into a sparring match with trolls who can’t spell, let alone string a proper sentence together – when their papers made the leap into the online universe.

So too our politicians need to harden up and learn a little common sense.

And so, I have put together a comprehensive list of “how to deal with copping abuse on the Internet”:

Rule one: If they can’t spell, don’t yell. Seriously, if the not-so-faceless-person hasn’t bothered to run a spell check past a 140 character tweet, it’s not worth replying to.

Rule two: Don’t even bother replying to any tweets that don’t directly address your policies. You’ve cut out about 1000 tweets right there.

Rule three: Set a limit on how much time you spend on twitter. I know it’s addictive, but you’re just setting yourself up for a fall if you spend too much time on social media sites. Only a sadist would do this.

Rule four: Exercise your right-to-reply with caution. Don’t be too aggressive, and don’t (dare I say it) – be liberal, with your replies. Yes, you have the right to reply, but too many replies (even well worded ones that makes sense) tend to make you look like a precious tool who has to have the last word who is more concerned with your reputation than you are with getting the job done. Less is more.

Rule five: Remember, we live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion is completely wrong, moronic, utterly irrational or offensive. Kind of like @Wendy4TheSenate is entitled to say that gay parents raising a child is tantamount to child abuse, or that gay citizens may be equal under the law but not under God. Think about this for a second. Consider that your views are just as offensive as the people bothering you on facebook, take a deep breath, and let. It. Go.

Rule six: If you can’t stand the heat – deactivate your twitter / facebook account. You are a politician. You have an important job to do. Australia is frustrated by the government and they are entitled to let off a little steam. If you’re that much of a narcissist that you can’t cop the odd narky tweet – just don’t use social networking. It’s that easy.

And last, but not least -

Rule seven: Stop complaining about people being mean to you on twitter/ blogs /facebook.

It makes you look like a pansy boy.

Nothing of significance has happened as yet really, (hey, it’s only the future of the nation that’s at stake).

So here’s a quick wrap-up for those who have been sleeping under a rock for the past fortnight.

The Labor party was victorious with Oakeshott, Bandt, Windsor and Wilkie endorsing Julia, while Crook and Katter defected to the Coalition.

But by the time Oakeshott located his point to seal-the-deal-for Gillard the nation ceased to care (thus the abundant lack of articles this fortnight).

Much like the drunk uncle who overstays his welcome at the dinner party, someone forgot to remind Tony that the election was over,  as he continued calling press conferences, TV and radio stations to spruike about Labor’s failures, while offering few alternatives, but no one much seemed to listen.

About five minutes after the new government had been sworn in, Finance Shadow Minister Andrew Robb had a “brain-snap” saying he would challenge Julie Bishop for the deputy leadership. But Robb quickly withdrew his challenge attributing the odd announcement to post- election stress.

Robb’s dreams were quickly quashed, with the party endorsing Tony and Julia as leader and deputy, The Mad-Monk and the Toad-Starer lived to fight another day.

Julia did a reshuffle, appointing her not-so-faceless-men Arbib, Emerson, Shorten, and Combet to key ministerial positions, but continued to play coy about when she would move into the lodge.

Penny Wong was made Finance Minister and Kev was sent packing to an important overseas trip, (to where, nobody bothered asking) much to the surprise of his media department.

Gillard offered Oakeshott a Ministry role in a pause between paragraphs – he politely declined. He promptly presented his thesis on why a regional affairs job could be done by someone with “less thorns”, denying the impending birth of his 15th child had anything to do with decision.

Mr Rabbit also did some refurbishing of his own, appointing Malcolm  as Shadow Communications Minister of Single-Handedly-Dismantling-The-NBN-Whilst-Simultaneously-Ripping-Stephen-(”We’re-Shelving-The-Web-Filter-Just-Kidding”)-Conroy-A-New-One, and generally pissing off the rest of the party by trying to separate anyone that posed a threat to his self-preservation.

Parliament heralded their “revalutionary reform” of putting time limits on Question Time and promising to be very very good when answering questions.

The NSW State Government legalised gay adoption while no one was watching, and Tasmanian Parliament passed a bill in the lower-house recognising overseas-gay-marriage – barely anyone noticed.

With little to write about, (aside from civil wars, flood, drought, famine, disease, and poverty) the media philosophised on the “new-paradigm” which seems an awful lot like the “old-paradigm.”

The Australian got in trouble for favoring Tony Abbott, the Herald got in trouble for having a crush on Joolia.

Meanwhile in a fit of boredom media commentators and politicians worked themselves into a frenzy about the changing role of political reporting . Journos took the wrap for the election result, unemployment, declining popularity polls, boat people and generally making them look bad.

Rob Oakeshott accepted a speakers role, (the nation was glad his acceptance speech had to be kept to four minutes).

The Senate confirmed that Steve “No-Friends” Fielding well and truly lost his seat to Democratic Labor Party candidate John Madigan. Family First went looking for a new logo.

Meanwhile the twitter-sphere realised it had much more important things to talk about like Koran burning and Stephanie Rice’s profound use of the English language.

Something called “The Rum Party” began to gather steam, which is kind of like America’s Tea Party movement except with less logic or historical precedent.

The nation began to wonder “do we really need a government at all?”

Life seemed a lot more fun when no one was in charge.

While Laurie Oakes marvels that the new Julia sounded an awful lot like the old Julia,  Claire Connelly wants to know what on earth they did with Kevin 1.0?

It occurs to me that sometimes being too good can backfire.

Pipe down, before you think I’m growing a big head, I am referring to a one Kevin Rudd and the comments he made today in support of the Labor party (note: not Julia Gillard).

Mr Rudd was ruthless when he addressed the media in Brisbane this afternoon, where he said he honestly believed that Tony Abbott “is not up to the job of being prime minister of Australia”.

He did it all, and it was almost magical.

He gracefully acknowledged his family had been through a tough time, he bowed his head, smiled for the cameras and said he no longer wanted to be “a big ball of anger” and that he was back-on-board to support his party (so long as it didn’t impede his surgical recovery where he had his raging bile duct gallbladder removed) because he “did not want Labor’s legacy to be destroyed by Mr Abbott”.

For the first time since he even took office Kevin Rudd looked Prime Ministerial.

“Why – oh why did it take him this damn long to get into character?”, I thought.

And then – this happened:

“There is a real danger at present because of the rolling political controversy about myself that Mr Abbott is simply able to slide quietly into the office of the prime ministership,” said Rudd.

He had to do it didn’t he? He had to take it a step too far.

This one quote, was re-quoted and replayed for an entire news cycle by countless newspapers, online websites, radio disc jockeys and television presenters, in a story about Kevin Rudd making a last minute comeback, swooping down from his mighty soap box to save the very person responsible for his own demise from defeat because she just couldn’t bloody make it on her own, (fade in Raiders of the Lost Ark theme song).

This (not so well-meaning gesture) ended up doing more harm than good because Kev was too good, too smart, too eloquent -  too sassy.

For a minute everyone stopped wondering what happened to the “new Julia”, and found themselves asking “what the hell happened to Kev 1.0?”

Did the surgeon forget to put his ego back after sucking all the bile out of his system?

When they got in there did they discover that his body had integrated the Little Book of Calm?

Was he still high from the morphine?

The internet was buzzing – and why not?

People were bound to be confused – with Kevin on his game, and Julia so far off her game that she was playing snakes and ladders while the rest of us played chess, it was only a matter of time before people began to question who ought to be leading this party, (again).

It was the come back we’ve been waiting for – and I wanted to believe him.

I wanted to imagine Abbott squirming in his smitedness, and I wanted to praise Rudd’s performance, a little bit arrogant, a little bit mean,  with a subtle knowing under current designed as a silent gesture to his one-time deputy as if to say “this is how the big boys do it” – proudly taking credit for saving the Labor party from an almost inevitable death-by-numbers.

But the only thing that statement made me think of was Julia Gillard’s political thuggery.

It was his choice of words.

The phrase “slide quietly into office” – any other phrase would have done the trick but his language was so deliberate and so easy to interpret.

Rumours abounded the twittersphere about back-room deals and his appointment to the UN being conditional on him campaigning for the taxpayers party that will pay for his lifetime pension.

Online comment trolls scoffed that it was awfully rich of the guy who couldn’t even last a full term telling us that the other guy isn’t worthy of the Prime Ministership – sparking an endless shopping list of every epic Labor fail since the last election.

And without having to do anything at all Tony Abbott got a whole day’s worth of good press by simply doing nothing.

Follow us on twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
http://www.twitter.com/ClaireRConnelly