Dear Leigh,

There was no "Viva Sancho," from me (That was another
poster).

I'll take on board what you said about me.

However, with you being so much older and presumably
wiser, shouldn't you be a better role model for
us "youngsters?"

Perhaps then you'll rate a "Bravo Leigh,"
as well.

I admire the stance taken by Debus and Evans not to be stampeded into premature comment on the cause of the explosion. Trouble for them is that even the ABC is quoting unnamed 'senior govt. sources' on the source of the explosion. Talk about leaky boats!

Rudds hysterical over reaction re people smugglers has fuelled the fire. Especially in light of Age reports that people smugglers were not involved in this incident.

The smartest thing the govt could do now is to release the facts (which could be gotten quickly from the navy). Evans is starting to sound silly with his 'I know nuttink' mantra.

Foxy,

Right. You did not make the "Viva Sancho" comment (if that's what it was). It was made by Wobbles, whose screen persona speaks volumes about him or her. You did make the other silly comment, so I shan't apologize in this instance.

As for the 'role model' crack, it all depends on what you look for in a role model. Given what you think of my opions, it is highly unlikely that you would ever regard me as a role model. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse: role models (if they wish to be such things)traditionally pass on their experience, ideas and beliefs to younger people (if they want them). You seem to have the idea that you find an old fart you agree with and say, "I'll have him or her for a role model".

We old farts do not suddenly change our opinions to be anyone's role model. Perhaps that's something else you need to think about.

Not that it matters, but I have never intentionally tried to be a role model. My two daughters, now approaching middle-age, received my opinions only when they asked for them (except when they were little of course). My wife has always done the "unfemine" things she wanted to, and has clashed with many a pig-headed male over it. But, not once have I criticised her; she has always had my support.

You don't have to model yourself on anyone. You have to learn for yourself, which, I suppose, you are doing in your own way. Just remember, the world is grey, not black and white.

>>Of the small minority of those who seek asylum in Australia who come here in leaky boats, one has to wonder why they don't just fly here. Given that most of them are eventually found to be legitimate refugees who are entitled to Australia's protection under longstanding treaty obligations, why on earth would they undertake such a dangerous and uncomfortable journey?<<

On the more legitimate side of the ledger, I'd guess there'd be plenty of reasons for refugees/asylum seekers to preferentially choose to come here by leaky boat – eg,

• not having the government infrastructure in place in their home country (eg passport office, advisory website, etc);
• taking the path of least resistance (eg knowing a friend of a friend who knows someone who can help get them to Oz etc);
• being in personal strife but knowing that Australia does not favour a particular type of refugee/asylum seeker (or knowing that intermediate countries have their problems as well); and
• not being aware of the laws and customs of Australia.

All pretty straightforward and mundane reasons.

>>What's the big deal about a few hundred 'boat people'?<<

The trouble is that a few hundred here ends up with a few tens of thousands there. Once the refugees are let in easily, the green light goes out to the human sea transport business that they are in play. Once you go down that road, where does it stop?

The contradictory nature of the situation when one gets right into the detail shows why the refugee/asylum seeker aspect of immigration is such a diabolical problem.

There's nothing like a handful of desperate refugees to bring the ugly Australians out from under their rocks, is there?

As an examplar of that ignorant and hateful demographic, few posters here can match the offerings from Leigh. Leigh chastises others for not reading "all shades of opinion", but proceeds to parrot exclusively from the lunar right - persisting in erroneously labelling asylum seekers as the pejorative "illegals".

Leigh should practise what he preaches. On Saturday I posted a link to a comprehensive article at Crikey that provides many of the salient facts about refugees, boat people, asylum seekers and how insignificant they are as a proportion of Australia's total immigrant intake - and indeed how insignificant is Australia's intake of refugees when compared with other developed countries. The article provides links drawn from a wide range of sources, including many that could hardly be described as left-leaning or of the 'bleeding heart' persuasion.

I bet Leigh didn't bother to read it. Here's the link again in case he or anybody else really wants to sort out the facts from the dog whistles: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090417-A-Crikey-index-Refugees-the-real-story.html

Many thanks to Foxy for the lovely compliment, and may I add my welcome back to the inimitable Ginx, whose presence at OLO has been sorely missed.

And Viva Sancho!

To be fair, CJ, Leigh says he see things in shades of grey, when in fact the world is multicoloured. The spectrum of light even stretches out to beyond the limits of human perception. Those frequencies of light, I guess some might call "black" (as they cannot be seen by humans), even though they are on opposite sides of the visible spectrum.

Funny old world innit?