The article is accurate; inasmuch as it highlights what is important to those who decide our elections? You know that small minded large minority that know little or nothing about economics, political issues, policy development, or big picture future vision.
These are, I believe, the so-called aspirational voter, who see individualism and satisfying personal greed ahead of everything the nation really needs. They are the ones who see tax breaks as far better than upping our infrastructure roll out, which currently is around 80 billion behind where it should be and endlessly massively contributes to gridlock and export bottle necks.
These thoughtless voters are, it seems, the same people who see and bellyache about a 0.7% increase in the cost of living as their personal share of applying a carbon tax, as a huge and unbearable impost.
Why? Because an honest as the day is long polly told them so.
Politics is trivialized and or bastardised, because some very insightful if incredibly short sighted pollies, pardon the pun/juxtaposition, see that tack as achieving success or desirable outcomes.
I mean, some people will vote for or against, depending on whether or not the representative has a nasty nasal quality or whether or not her backside is big. [In parts of our world either attribute, would be seen as very desirable or even sexy.] This even though our parliaments have had a fair share of obese waddling males, like the minister for everything; some of who seem to have slept through most sittings?
It is a sad but true truism, pardon the phraseology, that we get the parliaments we deserve, and will continue to do so as long as the media barons and shock jocks continue to focus the smallest minds on the most mean, unimportant, unintelligent or trivalent issue.
Sadly, if this particular and, I believe, quite massively manipulated audience ever starts to think for itself; the burning smell would be discernible from Tassie to Timbuktu; as previously unused cerebral circuits kick in and start to operate, perhaps for the very first time? Rhrosty.

Hi Jo,

Thanks for the invitation.

I'd like to mention the QandA which featured Dawkins and Pell. I thought it a wonderful opportunity to discuss in depth the coming/current crisis in our society. ie the loss of hope and a concentration on the short term expectation of 'immediate satisfaction'. ie Atheism vs faith

It turned out as I expected. A discussion between an intellectual and a populist semi-informed 'expert', moderated by an, eventually exposed, limited and sidelined moderator.

I have, unusually, discussed the programme with a couple of acquaintances. I wasn't surprised by the depth of the examination of the content of the discussion by my acquaintances. We all agreed we enjoyed the discussion and particularly Pell's intellectual display and his both modest manner and good-natured humour.

We all agreed his display of demanding respect from the audience, when the moderator failled to stop hecking and derision was a display of steelly authority.

I felt it was impressive the audience continued to adhere to his demand.

My mates would best be described as working men.

That Dawkins was eventually reduced to excusing his performance, or lack of one, to 'jet-lag' and the moderator politely and sublimely admonished for his lack of understanding of simple Catholic beliefs pretty well summed up the program.

Pell as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church is one of the Pillars of that Church, I'm totally shocked the ABC and Tony Jones did not understand what that mean't.

If only our Politicians would expose or were compelled to expose their intellects to us in such fashion. We have an in depth discussion between a PM with a Law Degree and an Opposition leader with Law and Economics degrees and as A Rhodes Scholar with Masters of Arts in Politics and Philosophy. Jones could moderate but I think he'd be sidelined again.

Now wouldn't that be grand. After such we wouldn't be discussing the largeness of Julia's intellect, we'd be admiring the broadness of Tony's.

Kevin,

I substituted the editor of your article. I'm so sorry..

"It turned out as I expected. A discussion between an intellectual and a populist semi-informed 'expert', moderated by an, eventually exposed, limited and sidelined moderator."

If, as you seem to infer 'Nutter' me thinks you are extremely confused. The only intellectual in the room was Dawkins and Pell remained in his little fantasy land blathering non-sensical rubbish which one can only attribute to his naive belief tenet.

Jones as usual is the puff piece and continues to do a poor job of moderating anything.

And as for "Pell as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church is one of the Pillars of that Church" clearly demonstrates why the Catholic Church is becoming more and more irrelevant in today's society. If he is a pillar, heaven forbid those that be the cement and sand below his bedrock of loftiness!

And then there is this cracker "After such we wouldn't be discussing the largeness of Julia's intellect, we'd be admiring the broadness of Tony's."

This is even funnier, Tony might have an intellect, its just such a pity he is corrupted and biased by his blind faith to a fairy tale quasi religious dogma......No hope once he is elected, but then again I don't think Labour have anything worth putting forward either.

Jo, how about Policy on Energy at a transparent level, this would blow out all the mumbo jumbo that is economics, finance, agriculture, manufacturing, trade etc etc.....as small start but one that is seriously needed.

imajulianutter,

"....particularly Pell's intellectual display....."

I presume you were viewing the "debate" from a parallel universe, because nowhere on offer was "Pell's intellectual display" Naively, I was waiting to be impressed by the "cardinal" - and instead I came away feeling as if he had been addressing a five year-old's Sunday School lesson. His manner was pious and arrogant and his recourse to humour was merely part of his well-rehearsed repertoire.

In any case, Q & A is not a forum for serious in-depth debate IMO.

I have to agree with imajulianutter.

Although I admire Dawkins immensely, and am philosophically closer to him than Pell. In all fairness it has to be said that Cardinal Pell gave a good account of himself. He seemed on the most part better prepared that Dawkins. Being able to quote chapter and verse from Darwin’s autobiography to refute one of Dawkin’s assertions. And seeming to know more about “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss, despite Dawkins having supplied an afterword to the book. And I couldn’t for the life of me understand why a seasoned debater like Dawkins would make comments like “a nice unbias audience you’ve chosen here” which plays into the hands of his opponents (just image what some of the street-fighting debaters on OLO [names withheld] would make of that!)

Agree with Poroit’s last point: “In any case, Q & A is not a forum for serious in-depth debate” --But would add: like most(all?) other “forums” on the ABC(& SBS).