Does anyone care anymore? Considering the awful mess, we allies have made with the Iraqi campaign, possibly we are safe in the knowledge that the US always wins in the end, as proven in Vietnam where the old enemy now invites us and the Americans in for a holiday.

None really care about GWB being shown re-making wornout plans with his sacked Defence Minister, Donald Rumsfeld, the victorious democratic Congress now not so victorious as one of its key members needs to be replaced with authority from the Republican White House.

No real care about democracies we are taught to look up to, ruining their reputations through Supreme or High Court decisions decided by persons whose politics take first place over ethics or morals.

About America, where at times we get media flashes of people in high places whom in normal life you would not give the time of day.

Blair trying to regain political pride trying to save people in Sudanese Africa. Who cares? Tony's last rushed statement about being good for the future, making one wonder whether it was for the future of neo-colonial Western intrusion still going on down there, or really to save dying women and kids, which we get sick of seeing pictures of, and nothing done.All the billions so far that have been wasted in Iraq, could have saved not only the women and kids in the Sudan, but also all desperate bodies right across Africa. This also includes all those negroes starving while our corporates take out trillions in oil.

As Bill Clinton said so many times, don't you know, its the economy that counts. And as most people in our cities and their precincts, especially in WA, could be called happy consumers with such cheap Chinese clothing, as well as electrical appliances and general hardware items.

So why worry about anything else, the global situation even brightened with Condoleeza Rice playing luvey-duv with Alexander Downer, saying how much America now depended on Australia.

That should get us worrying somewhat about the future. But surely America has not lost that many friends?

Most of my 60 odd years I wondered how decent Germans stood by and let Hitler and the nazis carry on as they did.
Since Australia joined the 'coalition of the willing', supporting the destruction of a functioning state, and then saw Australians reelect the Howard government, changing Australia's status from simply having a rogue government to being a rogue state, I have had my answer.
People simply do not care about others.
This I believe fails both the moral and the self interest test. Short sighted greed won the day.
Everyone will, I am sure have seen that Blair stopped an investigation into payments to Saudis --- saying that national interest came before the rule of law.
So Britain too, can be bought, the only question is the price!
If this continues it is going to be a very ugly world!

Morality based agendas must be regarded with scepticism and suspicion. Communism, Fascist and Theologian regimes are morality based regimes. Hitler’s master race ideals were assumptions that Arians intrinsically held moral superiority. The Soviet Union censored sex and pioneered the cures for homosexuality that is used by Christians in the U.S today. Theocratic regimes indulged in multiple century long cleansing bloodbaths cleaning the dirty world of witchcraft and blasphemy. Morality mixed with politics is the path to persecution, then if successful ethnic cleansing then genocide.

I would not argue that Howard or Bush are not moral men. Bush is Pentecostal and so may believe Pentecostal Prophecies that the rapture follows a great defeat of Islam, the Jews rejoice and in gratitude convert to Christ and then Christians (except Catholics as many Pentecostals have told me Catholics are not Christians) are lifted into Heaven. Everybody else burns in hell because everybody else is morally inferior.

Howard’s discourse is that of moral superiority. Howard claims the authority to determine Australian culture and values regardless of the fact that he appears completely ignorant of actual Australian culture and values.

Not that Howard is trusted or taken seriously outside of his supporting media. Howard’s complete career is a total exercise in political survival. It is doubtful if in a more sane position Howard would even agree with himself as he appears to unthoughtfully respond to one self generated crisis after another.

It is not that Morality is suffering to a growing self-ism. It is that Australians are both non-analytical and politically lazy. Morality itself is a form of self-ism. Morality after all is a social contract; if it is wrong to stab you in the back it is wrong for you to stab me in the Back. Morality in its organic form is a mutual survival tool until it is hijacked by a political or religious agenda then it becomes a weapon.

Good points West, would you agree then that morality becomes a problem when crystalised/solidified into institutional positions, or is centralised control & co-opting of a malleable morality the crux of the problem? Its hard to resist talking to morality-focused people in terms they immediately understand, but yes there are real dangers there.

RobbyH, i'm not sure forming another group or network is the answer; instead why not take the mounting evidence of democratic failure to the networks you are already part of and work thru them, or failing that join the nearest-to-best already existing. Proliferation sometimes just increases fragmentation.

Petere, we do increasingly resemble fascisms Good Germans, but not all Germans behaved, and they had an impact on the length of the war (see also campaigns in Aus against the Vietnam war, and against conscription in WW1). Australians nauseated by militarist RightThink have a world full of allies.

I think it is both Liam but certainly theocracies, communism and fascism is institutionalised morality.

The discourse of morality is difficult because on one level we should indivudually choose what is good and bad. Morals could be judged as those which have positive impacts on individuals and those which have negative imapcts on individuals.

This level is not often the one pursued by (often self claimed) moralists , especially concerned with religion. Spiritual moralism or moralism based on dogma tends to be an articulation of individual preferences , ie I disapprove of homosexuality so therefore homosexuality is immoral. Where in real impact terms this position is the immoral position because the exclusionism it creates polarises individuals and leads to social entropy.

Liam may I refer you to browse the Islamic moralist movement developing in Bande Ache where people are being caned and flogged for kissing in public and or not wearing appropriate Islamic clothing?

Hey Liam,

That would be good, that is if existing networks actually worked or more of us actually joined in instead of offering steadfast opinions often with little knowledge of the topic(s). I do that too of course but want more than the satisfaction of writing my own point of view.

I guess, much like here, most people are not uniting, simply arguing and disagreeing with the author or each other. That's natural of course but it strikes me that to keep criticising from the sidelines is simply accepting the current governments as they are. Again I include myself despite several years of involvement which has resulted in nothing. But if you don't try then nothing can change. Right?

As to accepting the nearest to best. What one would you suggest? Coalition or Labor? They are the only options as a government under today's systems are they not? Plus they are so close in nearly every supposed policy that I'm struggling to tell the difference between a Federal Coalition and a State Labor government on their actions. I choose neither but know any vote I make will force me to choose one of them unless I happened to be in one of those few lucky electoarates wheer an independent has a chance or is already sitting. Which I'm not, drovers dog country here.

In the end my decision has been to vote against any incumbent in the hope they don't become extremists, or more so really. That's not a choice is it?