The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mobs driven by sentimentalism > Comments

Mobs driven by sentimentalism : Comments

By Paul Comrie-Thomson, published 26/7/2005

Paul Comrie-Thomson argues the conspicuous compassion of symbolic sorrow is self-righteous and self-deceiving.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Excellent article. The confusion of sentimentality with morality, and of heartfelt good intentions with achievable and effective policy, is more likely to cause poverty than to cure it.

However, I'd raise two provisos.

Firstly, deeply-felt compassion can be a spur to effective and rational action. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the world placing high priority on effective measures to reduce poverty without both the sense that this is a moral issue, and some emotional spur of empathy for the plight of the poor. This need not degenerate into the narcissistic urge to feel good about oneself that seems to motivate many of the live 8 groupies – or, as Paul perceptively point out, the more perverse romantic gratification in self-loathing, guilt and angst at the scale of the problem and our failure to eradicate it that drives some of its leading lights.

Secondly, critics of the emotionalism and naïveté of the protesters can tend to fall into the opposite vices of callousness and cynicism. The protesters deserve to be sneered at for their “exquisite silliness”, but this should not detract from the seriousness of the cause they seek to address. Poverty is far more complex and difficult to solve that the protesters admit, but this does not mean that nothing at all can be done. The Howard view of practical compassion, which Paul quotes approvingly, places considerable emphasis on effective action – not only disdaining vainglorious emotionalism, but also doing things that actually work.

Maybe in a future article Paul could outline his view of an authentic ethical framework for addressing global poverty, and his agenda for what practical compassion might entail in this instance.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 1:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I can say is ABOUT TIME someone (besides myself) made this socially crucial point !
If only some of the 'bleeding heart' mob could see that they are often experiencing blood loss over people and ideas which will destroy the way of life they have come to know.

While one picks up the bruised and battered traveller, and dresses his wounds, and pays the inkeeper to look after his welfare in the short term, you don't neccessarily invite him to run your foreign policy or your immigration department :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 4:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too found this to be a very good article. I'd be curious to know if Paul felt this way when he was working at Rolling Stone which I imagine to be at the leading edge of the wave of narcicissism.

I suggest though that whilst John Howard has sucessfully identified mob sentimentality in reconcilliation and green issues, he has fanned it in other areas, in particular Gallipoli. Australian deaths at Gallipoli accounted for less than a tenth of the total in the Dardanelles; the French and British lost 7 times as many men as we did, and about 7 times more Australians died on the Western Front. Despite this, the mass outpouring of solemnity at the site looms larger every year and Mr Howard seems to be at its centre. I fear that the conspicuous compassion associated with Gallipoli is distorting the public image of the rest of WW1, thereby undermining the whole point of the Rememberance process.

PS: For those that found the article interesting I can thoroughly recommend "Culture of Narcissism" by Christopher Lasch. First published in 1979 this book fortold much of what has since changed in public and private life and morality.
Posted by AndrewM, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 8:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good call BD :) Immigration and welfare – might see you in that thread sometime!
Posted by hutlen, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 9:08:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul Comrie-Thomson article is interesting and quite frankly I agree with his "sentiments". (or should we call it something else?).

The symbolic gestures of reconciliation offered to Indigenous peoples did nothing to ameliorate significant disadvantages in communities right across the nation.

The planting of thousands of plastic hands looked pretty in parks; the walking across bridges was an impressive spectacle as well.

But it came to nothing.

But hang on. Comrie Thomson doesn't put forward solutions to these world and domestic problems either. Yes he identifies a cultural phenomenon, but for what other than ‘self righteous’ cultural critique?

It’s easy enough to describe the pathology of self deceit, but for what reason other than to say they are wrong?

Yes, there are self righteous and self deceiving amongst bridge walkers. But there are also people who truly believe that social justice for Indigenous people must be attended to in practical ways.

And this is where you'll see the critics nervously looking for the exit as more often than not, practical things require good symbolic representations.

I too found the Geldorf rock concert ridiculously trite and plastic.

But on the other hand, I doubt whether your average 18-30 year old is going to learn about world poverty by doing individual research.

So many social issues are piggy backed in popular culture and especially popular song. It’s what the sixties delivered.

Is Paul Comrie-Thomson suggesting we should only listen to Kylie Minogue pulp-songs and not get too sentimental and self righteous listening to Marley, REM, Dylan, Paul Kelly singing about real life situations?
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 10:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are apparently not able to hold views other than those sanctioned by the conservative right. The green movement has been given in a previous post as an example of conspicuous sentimentality. Environmentalists have been arguing about degradation of habitat for many, many years ( 35 plus years) prior to concerns being addressed to a small extent by the Coalition Government. Governments usually don’t involve themselves in issues that have little currency in the electorate, it took years of hard work for the environment to be seen as an issue. Conspicuous sentimentality is a good term coined by those with a nihilist view. By any measure the current Coalition Government has, or has had the meanest set of politicians assembled? Peter Reith with his rottweillers, Ruddock and Vanstone with their incarceration of children.

It has been suggested in some newspaper articles that branch stacking occurs in the Liberal Party to weed out anybody with a social conscience.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 7:57:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree totally ant,

This 'hard love' approach to everything and everyone is a worry.

Economic imperatives and policies have taken over from policies that unite families, communities and regions around issues of environmentalism and human connectivity. The Greens appear to be the only party that sees the connections between economy and human communities. Both major parties appear to be fighting over how to describe the corporate factory and workers. Its so much more than this.

And this is where Mr Comrie-Thomson falls flat on his face. I think he's been reading too much cultural theory, or not enough. He's deconstructed himself into a corner. That he does remember something from the 1960's is also a worry!

I'd rather be a soppy sentimentalist that believes in something because as the old saying goes - if you don't believe in something than you'll fall for anything.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 9:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

This is precisely the kind of romantic, make-believe sentimental drivel that Paul takes to task. When, exactly, was this past Eden when families, communities and regions were united around issues of environmentalism and human connectivity, before economic imperatives so rudely interrupted?. Do you seriously believe that past communities were so idyllic? or that today’s poverty can be tackled without hard-headed and effective economic policies?

Of course, you are entitled to your ideals and your feelings. So am I, and the fact that they differ from yours make them no less legitimate or worthy. What Paul points out, however, is that the key issue is not how we feel or what we believe, but what we do about our ideas and how effective those actions are.

The egocentric focus of your ideology – “I'd rather be a soppy sentimentalist that believes in something” – demonstrates precisely one of his key points, the modern delusion that a private affect is a moral act.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 1:42:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANT

special for you again.

There is something I'm picking up in your posts which shows something of where you are coming from.

Let me give you a classic example:

"Peter Wreiths Rotweilers" (The Waterfront/MUA problem)

"Ruddock and Vanstones incarceration of Children" (Asslyum seekers)

Now. on the first issue. Here is what you did.

-Chose a side and determined the outcome without reference to the goings on in the MUA.
-You portrayed Peter Wrieth as some kind of storm trooper.

You totally ignored the 'SIN' and the evil and the incestuous job protection/pass on from generation to generation closed labor shop, discrimination/ use of pure power to advance the conditions of waterfront workers WAYYYYYY ahead of anyone with similar training in the community, not to mention the strong connection to THUGGERY of the MUA and former Painters and Dockers.

In other words, you demonstrated a level of blindness which would probably equal the sum total of the blind of Victoria, and a bias of extrordinary proportions, and yet, you along with others of your ilk, have the temerity to attack the 'bad christians' etc in regard to responsible social policy.

Now. as for Peter Wrieth, ok. sure, they used 'tough' methods, to get rid of the cancer which was strangling our national competitiveness, and they are not without 'sin' (you like that word), in fact, if you look closely at their lives, I'm sure you might find a whole HOST of bad behavior and knee jerkism and power plays. I can see that and I also see the 'other' side. Can you ?
I condemn evil in ANY political party or movement, do you ? Are Greens or labor or democrats 'sinless' ? (or not violent towards women ?)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 2:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David_Boaz, the view of conspicuous sentimentality is a device used by conservatives to try and debunk those who hold a more liberal view. Over thirty years ago I had the view that the earth’s resources were being used in an unsustainable manner; but then I suppose that was a conspicuous sentimental view to hold. David I have noticed that in your posts you constantly quote from scripture;that is, you also write from a particular viewpoint, a conservative one

The waterfront has been an issue for numerous years, those working on the waterfront in earlier years were monstrously ripped off. The captains of industry didn’t like it when the tables were turned. David you are right in suggesting that at times Unions have abused their power; however, overall they have done and do good work also. In service areas, Unions can be useful in ensuring patients/clients obtain better services.

David your post intimates that the end justifies the means in relation to Reith. You also seem to suggest that it is fine to have children placed in prison.
Could you please quote the text from the Bible that suggests that in any situation the means justifies the end.

Yes, David I do have particular attitudes to things, another fundamental premise I base my views on is that violence whether bureaucratic (children in prison), threatened (Peter Reith’s rotweilers), or physical (terrorist bombers) is taboo. Some of our Labor leaders in the past have been thug like (Paul Keating); thuggery has reached new levels currently. Even former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser expresses disquiet about our current Prime Minister.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 9:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANT
conservative yes, 'hyper funda' no :)
Environment, unsustainable use of resources ? I totally agree with you, and that is without doubt one of the major failings of unrestrained capitalism. This is why I do quote from scripture, I give what I believe to be a 'prophetic' approach, in the sense that the prophets called the 'capitalist' kings back to reality and righteousness.
But then, King Hezekiah, was a 'bleeding heart' :) who trusted the Babylonians a tad too much, he even showed them the treasures of the Temple with glowing pride, one of the Prophets came to him "You are an all time IDIOT, now they are going to come and TAKE all that, but as for you, you will die soon, then it will happen" Hezekiahs pathetic response "OH.. not in my lifetime eh ? ok.. no worries mate"

Yep, thats a paraphrase but the meaning is accurate.

It also has significance to our 'open borders' mob who don't see the other political/social side of that coin.

On issues that you raised, there is always the 'other side', for example on the 'incarcerating children' I see that as 'keeping families together'. To my mind, separting children from their parents in an unfamiliar land and culture is rather dehumanizing. Speaking of 'Jailing Children' might be good 'emotive politics' :) but its not quite the full story.

You well highlighted the issue of 'Them/Us' on the waterfront, and this is what we should seek to avoid. Thats why I refer to scriptural principle rather than say the Coalition. My politics is more Family First oriented at present.

Labor's free dental was a great thing. The coalitions reliance on the 'productivity commission' is an appalling attack on small Business in that it is used to effectivly CULL business's which don't fit the 'lets sell lots of wheat to China no matter the cost to our industrial sector' model.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 28 July 2005 8:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

Yes, Paul Comrie-Thomson has attempted to deride how humans care, feel compassion, and are moved by the plight of their fellow human beings. I took the stance in my previous posts that this was useless exercise if one does come up with solutions as well.
By just standing on the sidelines and pathologising sentiment and applying this on a grand scale to all mass social movements is just a bit of usless spectator sport.

In my nearly thirty years of activism and working in communities, I don’t think I could have done what I have without others reminding me (through our relationships) that what I was doing was right, honorable and just. And shock horror, feel sentimentality for what we were doing.

In my own life time I’ve seen my own small town taken over by big corporations and a sense of community die. And did you know that “Australians are three times richer than their parents and grandparents were in the 1950’s, but they are no happier”, why is this so? See this http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net/

I teach for a living and I’m engaged in a wide range of community activities so when it’s easy to spot people like Comrie Thomson who obviously have lost touch, dropped out, and now spend their time trying to theorise and justify their own isolation.

Writing for the hedonistic Rolling Stones magazine must have been fun for Mr PCT, but this is the real world where all sorts of human emotions contribute to good things happening. Sentimentality is one of them.
"Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late" - Bob Dylan; Jimi Hendrix, All Along the Watchtowe
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 28 July 2005 9:22:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In today’s Mercury, there is a small article on page three about how the former Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson is highly critical of the Howard Government on the basis of appointing very conservative High Court Judges and going over the top in relation to anti-terror laws. Does that mean that he is now being conspicuously sentimental? I think not but believe other posters may believe it to be the case.

Boaz_David in his last post has stated that I was being political in my choice of language and I’d fully agree that is the case. My language has changed in what I write about politics since John Howard has become Prime Minister. I honestly believe there has been a hard hearted/mean attitude and conniving secrecy that has evolved and continues to evolve by the current Coalition Government. There were a number of deceptions in relation to the last election. Promises about Medicare being but one example of deceptiveness

Through people voicing their opinions in the media issues are raised; those voicing their opinion are not always in situations where they can physically or administratively do anything about an issue. However, by voicing an opinion chances are some thought might be give to particular problems and decisions made. We need to voice our opinion also to keep democracy in as good a shape as possible. Currently, we do not have a viable opposition in the Labor Party; Mr Beasley does not seem to have a “ticker”.

As suggested elsewhere the notion of conspicuous sentimentality is a good device to try and strangle opposition. To suggest that people can only hold an opinion if they are in a position to do something about a situation, is vacuous.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 28 July 2005 10:09:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

I don’t think it was Paul’s intention to deride compassion or moral sentiments; it certainly isn’t mine (see 1st post on this thread).

Again, though, you demonstrate an example of what Paul is talking about – the inability to accept the sincerity and legitimacy of an alternative point of view, or to evaluate competing interpretations of an issue by reference to reason and evidence, rather than your own emotions and ideology. So you dismiss “ people like Comrie Thomson who obviously have lost touch”, misrepresent his view as deriding compassion, and assert that only those who share your worldview understand or even care about the world’s problems – “The Greens appear to be the only party that sees the connections between economy and human communities”.

Your critique is almost entirely self-referential. As the article says:

“In this narcissistic stew what feels right for me is right. What feels ethically wrong for me is wrong. What I have grievous feelings about is worthy of grief. It follows that if you don’t share my feelings then you are anathema. Such sentimentalism is dangerous.”
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 28 July 2005 11:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhain,

Anyone that quotes John Howard's attempt at face saving for the nearly ten years of absolute irresponsibility in Indigenous affairs deservers a cynical appraisal of their views.

(Sorry, "I'm" being sentimental now).

Out here, on the ground, such belated sentiment and ideological critique of what went wrong with "early approaches to reconciliation is a dud argument".

I don't expect you to believe me and this is not a personal judgment on your views, but it’s still a dud argument.

I don't apologize for self referentials. Life experiences cannot be ignored simply to indulge in some kind of false neutrality.

I'm sure PCT is sincere about his views and "I" accept this.
I just think he is wrong. What so hard to understand about this?

Do you think subjective and apposing views should pretend to be 'objective' just for the sake of keeping those like PCT comfortable with having an alternative view?

And for that matter, what I don't see in his article are his own views on social issues? Does he have any? Or is this just a slag off at those who do and are passionate about them?

Here's an example of PCT's false dichotomy of reason.

"Jo Bloggs thinks XYZ, therefore he does not respect alternative views (even though I have not expressed one myself).

Say What?

It’s very existential and sexy, but it’s a joke.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 28 July 2005 7:02:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

Your position seems to have hardened since your first post, which said that you agree with Paul’s "sentiments", and said that “the symbolic gestures of reconciliation offered to Indigenous peoples did nothing to ameliorate significant disadvantages in communities right across the nation.”

Apply for a moment your “Jo Bloggs” logic test to your own text:

Jo Bloggs is not sincere in his representations of his motives for advocating policy on XYZ, and anyone who supports Bloggs’ opinion deserves a cynical appraisal of their views

This displays the logical fallacies of guilt by association, appeal to motive, and ad hominem attack.

When I accused you of being self-referential, I was not attempting to denigrate your life experiences – which are of course vital to understanding and interpreting the world – nor to say that you should pretend some unattainable neutrality separated from your values and opinions. Rather, my point was that when you use your own feelings and ideology as the sole basis to determine your judgements about others’ motives and opinions, you operate in a self-contained frame of reference that makes meaningful discourse virtually impossible.
Actually, I suspect we’re not entirely at odds on the insufficiency of sentiment in shaping policy – I agree, for example, that “there are also people who truly believe that social justice for Indigenous people must be attended to in practical ways.”
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 28 July 2005 9:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R said “use your my feelings and ideology as the sole basis to determine your judgments about others’ motives and opinions”,

I don’t know how you can lock these away in making judgments about anything and everyone. This isn’t narcissistic, its just how all humans think and articulate what they ‘believe’.

This is not anarrow mindedness and a blinkered approach at all times. It means people develop their ideas from life experiences and interactions with similar ideas and counter expressions to their own.

I don’t have to think twice when I see or hear a bigot espousing bigoted and racist ideas. Been there, done that.

I does not mean that I won’t take the time (as tedious boring as it can be) to engage with this persons thinking. According to you and PCT I'm hearing what this person is saying the wrong way because I’m so emotionally guided? Please!

As for ‘practical reconciliation’ (example again) I would argue that a Treaty be struck with Indigenous people as a practical [and belated ] measure to developing a civil approach to Indigenous affairs. But I sense you and PCT would counter this by calling this an emotional and ideologically driven proposition just because you can.

In sum, the rationale you and PCT propose purports to be unemotive and non-ideological. To argue as you have for the right to be contrary to is for me a furphy.

Pathologising me as an ideologue by using some old hat social psychology mixed up with some conservative non-position taking isn’t new. John Howard uses this strategy all the time.
If you and PCT want to be curiously contrary I’m not standing in your way. Go for it! but be warned, you may have to come up with something more than simply being contrary for the sake of it.

I too abhor the unproductive adversarial political culture that is fostered in the Westminster system, but this does not mean all my beliefs are guided by conventional political ideologies. Some are about advocating basic human rights. Do you have real opinions other than a non-opinionated position?
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 29 July 2005 9:50:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

Look at my first post again - I'm not denying the importance of either emotion or moral sentiment, just their sufficiency in guiding policy discourse.

For what its worth, I am also not convinced by Howard’s approach to practical reconciliation – in this case (unlike, say, Live 8) I believe that symbolical gestures are needed as well as practical actions, in part because the harm inflicted on our aboriginal population is social and psychological as well as material. I also think that some of his proposed solutions are paternalistic and unlikely to work. But I’d agree with Howard that the actions that we’ve taken so far have not worked – a glance at the appalling statistics on aboriginal health and welfare demonstrates this only too clearly http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/w2.2.1!OpenView&Start=1&Count=1000&Expand=13#13).

In the face of such evidence, I’d agree with Howard that it is foolish to continue with more of the same policies that have failed in the past. That’s what I mean by integrating empathetic emotion and moral reasoning with practical actions and evidence-based analysis. It’s not enough to simply feel badly about aborigines’ position in Australia – not that I’m accusing you of that; from your previous posts we’re probably not as far apart on this as you “sensed”. Which just goes to show the dangers of relying on “sense” alone …
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 29 July 2005 3:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier

Surely Jack Beetson is the "best bloke in the business" (Unsung Hero Award 2002 - of only 12 in the world!) when it comes to stupid others of any race, sect, cult, religion etc? If Jack was here he would not mix emotional with rational argument. He'd just say: " Get off with the bulldust and get on with it".
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 29 July 2005 9:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I have other elders/heroes in my family, including my own parents, who never enjoyed the privliges that Jack Beetson did.

Like them I was born on an Aboriginal reserve *the prototype for detention centres* and their life struggles/strategies continue to be an inspiration to me.

Besides suggesting to you that I don't need heroes recognized and anointed by colonizers, I'm also questioning your understanding of what Jack Beetson was all about. From my understanding Jack was very emotive when it came to Rights for Aboriginal people (Koori's) but also knew what was or what was not achievable.

Your suggestion (i assume) is for me and others to adopt a rugged individualism without any calculation or understanding of how power relations and race relations operates in this country. I’d be dead if I did not.

It might look possible from your end, but try walking just one day in my shoes and you'll find it’s not that simple. This does not mean I’m straight jacketed by my emotion. Quite the contrary.

Like my own heroes, who when possible, would always advocate an adherence to self reliance (beyond their own existing self reliance) I’m not guided by emotion alone and I doubt where whether my own heroes (which include many non Indigenous peoples) would or could separate emotion and compassion with rationality. They inform each other.

PCT's argument is for a clinical and unemotive rationale to all things at all times. For me, this is simply a call for an emotional retardation where we should all adopt a ‘big boys don¹t cry syndrome’ -which is interestingly, a big chunk of how conservatives think and express themselves. Where is the love? At the same time I do understand how these emotional responses have been historically appropriated by the Left, repackaged as policy, for no real outcomes.

So for spectators such as PCT (and his protégés) on the sidelines not readily engaged in real power struggles for survival, they can't comprehend what this would be like. This is why they need to simplify it.

Does this answer you question?
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 30 July 2005 2:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Getting back to the Reith/Rottie thingy for an instant. When I first moved to Melbourne in 1997, my partner and I were driving one nice, sunny Sunday morning down St Kilda Road, where we stopped at a red light. This was prior to the MUA dispute. Both my partner and i were working in a prominent union. I, in the passenger seat, looked up to see one Peter Reith (thank goodness there's only one of him), walking across the walk way in front of our red light. I pointed out that it was Peter Reith (right in our cross hairs!) to my partner and urged him to hit the accelerator. To his credit? he restrained himself. After the MUA dispute and Reith's duplicitous and disgusting "symbol" of doing the right thing by workers who are blue collar and earning $70K a year without being in parliament and in control of Telstra, it is one regret we sometimes share. Just thought you'd like this story Rainer. Not that I'm condoning hit and runs against our pollies of course. But for a moment, god, it was tempting!
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 9:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I admire the control you both showed Di. I would have pleaded temporary insanity due to my 'self rightous and self decieving' mentality and would have asked Paul Comrie Thomson to testify as an expert witness on my behalf.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 3 August 2005 7:51:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy