I flatter myself that I read a wide variety of material from both the left and the right. I try to seek out thought-provoking pieces from both sides and attempt to sort quality analysis from partisan point-scoring. The question is: how do you tell them apart?

To my way of thinking, to be taken seriously, you should acknowledge that neither side of an argument is intrinsically better. You need to take the arguments of both sides with a grain of salt and if you're genuine, you criticize both.

Consider the current Australian political climate. Most believe that both parties are failing us, to a lesser or greater extent depending on personal preferences.

However, those who focus entirely on the negative (or positive, but that's rarer) aspects of just one side can rightfully be dismissed as partisan shills when it's very clear that there are failings on both sides.

I also think that negotiation isn't a dirty word and realists acknowledge this.

As examples - on the right side of the spectrum, I consider Christopher Hitchens, Tom Switzer, occasionally Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan write decent pieces. I think that for the most part, Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen trade on ridiculous tirades and attention seeking rhetoric, but I can admit that on rare occasions they make a decent point.

On the other hand, I consider Piers Ackerman, Alan Jones, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to be partisan shills, incapable of holding their personal grudges aside long enough for any meaningful analysis.

On the left, I've no time for Mike Carlton, John Passant, Germaine Greer or anyone who takes PETA seriously.

On the other hand, on social issues Mike Steketee and George Megalogenis lean a little to the left and are fantastic journalists.

This is crucial, because I fear that our political climate is descending into the kind of partisan sparring that's characterized the US political climate recently. Those accelerating this draw-no-quarter-never-negotiate attitude tend to be those who can't analyse with rational objectivity. That impairs the function of our political system and accentuates divisions in the populace.

Reasonable assertion? Your thoughts?

Partisan ranting seems to be the political modus operandi, some of the worst offenders you have mentioned already.

I think the more hysterical rants are made in the hope that some of the 'mud sticks' and the hope that people won't analyse more deeply the face-value commentary. We are more educated than ever before but less clever or able to distinguish politicking from content. Or so it seems.

Lindsay Tanner makes mention of similar in his book Sideshow as regards the entertainment emphasis in reporting to the detriment of more honest, fact checking and ethical approaches to discussion around issues. I know this is not exactly what you are referring TRTL but it contributes to the standard of debate. It is a global disease in the West and the negative impacts on the democratic process is being felt more while politicians attempt to appear to be doing 'stuff' than actually doing stuff.

Let's face it, Left and Right commentators are mainly preaching to the converted. Bolt is particularly bad and doesn't attempt to hide the lack of analysis particularly on his new show on Ch10. Bolt demonstrates some of the worst interview skills and his attempts to put words in the mouth of his guests with constant interruptions are cringeworthy. I recently watched the episode around the Carbon Tax and while I do not support the tax, I found Bolt's approach more damaging to that position.

Maybe this partisan rant style is contrived for the sake of ratings. Alan Jones seems unbelievably to have a large audience so who is at fault. The punter that buy into the 'perpetually outraged' phenomena or the media for fuelling it?

We all hold biases, it is only human but the mindless nitpicking, dishonesty and inanity in some political discourse is disheartening. My pet hate is the 'socialist' or 'watermelon' tag which is applied too liberally as a method of disagreement without any rational argument. It is as if the mention of 'reds under the bed' absolves the need for any further discussion.

turner...you ask how to tell the difference
when clealy there is no difference...

party loyalists...owe the party
only serve 'the voter'...when the squeeky wheel forces them to act

they are owing their second loyalty to the press
that has become so centralised...radicals can reach near all australia via re transmitting stations...now running biased programing
[with only tokanistic attention to local issues]

i guess i draw the line..in them serving the media
and party line
over representing..the intrests of the voters

my cure would be to mandate media to fully report the issues
with actually them printing or reading the proposed legislation

that goes to the people...
that validates their PROPOSED changes[or rejects them]

not hearing them say later
'i allways believed that'
[but thats not why we voted for you
and not what you said...when asked pre election]

we hear in hindsight...that mates get mates rates
like the 2 1/2 million given to a solar farm

and bailouts...
[or fed mandated state subsidies for solar..'input's'..]
that saw elect-ricity rise 9% last year alone

or such things as state land for one dollar
[as reported on 7' currenty affairs only last week]

noted juliar visited the murdoc press
today...[so the press boys-club influences..needs to be dimminished]

recieved the handout..re spinning global carbon trading
if business wants to trade carbon..let the market set the price
not mandate it near double that everyone else has set its values at

we hear on insight tonight..that the cost of solar has halved
and that soon it will be cheaper[but dont add cause the cost will double]..

then we got the lobby/gren industry saying spin..like we need infastructure..that meets peak demand...[after the sun goes off..

when those with daytime solar credits...get their peak demand
paid in full..by the mugs...paying double its true worth
for base power]

or that 'other' infastructure...[ie paying to put in gas lines for monsanto..to export frakking gas to gladstone]

or how about when qld govt bailed out the gladstione magnesium plant
[that never got built]..for half a billion EACH from beaty..and howard

the siogns are all there
the people have odious debt burden[70 billion for qld alone]
thrust upon them by acts of treason...by the two party patsies

[the media silence is clear
collective complacent guilt]

thus govt should seize the media
and print the true facts

charge the watchers to watch govt..not report police spin
[im sick of the demonic media broadcasting murder/cop/cooking shows]

shooting is too good for them
take away their abusive instruments
then cast them out of these lands...bannish them

send them *home..to their masters...
who's adgenda they are ALL really serving
bnefore they steal all the wealth...and soon our health
[noting gmo infertility issues..dont show till the 3 rd generation]

by then the treasonous creeps will be long gone
and their loot [booty]..well spent
or safe in some familie trust

Thanks Turn Right Then Left, a discussion worth haveing.
I am told I am partisan, do not truly think it is true.
No side,at least once, had all the answers, my views held today would have made me a Liberal if held in 1975.
I fear, yes true meaning of that word, our future is being tainted even turned by the nature of political debate here and in America.
Look at these subjects, find any balance if you can,find any attempt to just find out what is true.
Global warming
World refugees
Starvation in the world.
OUG you must tell us, what do you think, taking human nature as it is in to account, is the replacement for party politics.
And too, as so very few support this view how can you get people to go that path.
Assuredly my Friend as you think I am blind on this subject I think that of you on it.

belly..""what do you think,
taking human nature as it is in to account,
is the replacement for party politics.""

skills based talent..
trained to specific minesterial oversight over specific roles
that is mainly overseeing budgetry expenditure over their portfolo areas..[ie auditing what others 'selected']

where we vote..[nominate]..who gets the training...
then the best [who passes the tests]..gets the specific job

the govener general would need qualifications
in international law..constitutional civil and statue law

a minester for agriculture would need experteaze in agriculture
foreign affairs need diplomatic experience[and the party whip be expected to actually do the whipping

i want truth in politics
where there is continual oversight
to prevent lands minesters giving away govt lands

or finance minesters bailing out mates
or party hacks getting all the seats

the elect-ion proces..
should elect from the elect in their field
we should have full acces to their 'skills base details'
not pick a pig in a blind poke

lawyers will make law[just as they do today]
but knowing that an expert ]minester's dept]..is studying the books
holding those to account..not meeting a part of the press in private
[after publicly putting them on notice]

how rotten is that stinking
the press should not have 'private acces..
to those who can make or break them....seems they all have done it
well time to end that deception..

[no minester is to meet in private with anyone]..
a public official MUST meet/greet in public

all lobby is..MUST BE..
"on the record*

no special deals for mates
yiour here to serve the people

keep the bar-stards honest

those serving other other adgendas
must go to jail..no pension..
no power..no special terms

or special deals/titles or honours
able to be held fully to account...long after their 'power' ends

even their children/family name honour..
should be able to be held to account..

[and certainly any family trust
should be on the line..if bad people do bad things]

to whom much is given
much more was only to be expected

insider crime is the worst form of crime

must have actually had succes in the field
as well as the court etc..if the expect the right to make law

""And too, as so very few support this view
how can you get people to go that path.""

the media is expert at turning peoples heads
its time they stopped reporting petty crime..and police policing petty crime...they should be watching the watchers[law makers..gift takers]

""Assuredly my Friend as you think
I am blind on this subject..I think that of you on it.""

of course mr bell
you love a party
i hate them all

but mate i dont get disappointed..
when each reveals..they TOO got feet of clay
its time you believed them..when they say..that party is corrupt

cause they all are
its the nature of the power game
absolute power corrupts absolutly..

wether its media power..
or power to make gifts subsidies..
grants or favourable terms..to mates

party on
soon the party line will be crossed out completly
hung on their own petard..seen as the only real present danger it allways was

Dear TRTL,

Excellent thread. I think your goal of getting
information from more than one source is excellent. I can't
listen to Andrew Bolt for example - and therefore I miss out
on any good points he may have raised. I simply found that they're
too few and far between to waste my time on him. I enjoy
watching programs like "Q and A," and "Media Watch," because
they're reasonable indicators to various opinions. However,
although television does bring a flood of information into the
home, much of it is highly selective or distorted. News programs,
for example, tend to feature the visually exciting or
emotionally moving stories that draw large viewing audiences -
even if this means omitting issues that are more sober but
perhaps more significant also.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality that
everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no
disagreement among observers. But the truth of the matter is that
what we see or read is not determined by what exists "out there."
It's shaped by what our past experience
has prepared us to see and by what we consciously
or unconsciously want to see. Knowledge and
beliefs do not exist in a vacuum;
they're social products whose content
depends on the context in which they are produced.

The same I guess is inevitably true of journalists, writers, political
analysists et cetera, whose outlook is also influenced by their
background, training, and prior experiences, including the political
leanings of their newspaper and or Owner/Editor. Many journalists for
example are well-educated, urban, white, middle-class, and male,
and they naturally tend to interpret reality differently from people
who don't share those characteristics. Their background and interests,
for example may make them significantly either more liberal/or
conservative than people in other disciplines. Inevitably, then, they,
like anyone else, will be guilty of some measure of bias - the
tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts according to one's own values.

Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve, therefore -
getting information from a variety of sources is probably the best
way to go.

Wow TRTL, if I had the time to read the rantings, er… I mean, writings of all those characters to the extent of being able to analyse their leanings and legitimacy and brand them as shills, sophists or sensible commentators, I um…. wouldn’t!

I’d be off doing much more enjoyable things. Ahh… which is exactly what I do. I’m always going bush, studying plants, rocks and birds, and taking huge shirtloads of photos.

Stuff reading the rabblings of Bolt, Jones or Sheridan. Beeyurck!! The thought of it almost makes me puke!

However, even though I am nowhere near as well read as you with respect to this sort of stuff, I think I have a pretty good handle on current affairs and important issues, and a good sense of what is fair comment or foul crapload!

I think that if you’re interested in the issues that these people write about, or even a small portion of the subject matter, you can pick the deft performers from the dill-pickles pretty easily.

And hey, if you are interested, you don’t stop at one piece of commentary, you explore several. And with the likes of Q & A and Media Watch, as Lexi says, along with all manner of online information and OLO and a plethora of other fora, one can both gain a realistic understanding of an issue and a good appreciation of others’ views quite easily.

So I don’t think it really matters if Bolt bolts off to a cave in Alaska or hangs around and annoys us for the next thirty years!!

Or better yet, instead of assuming there are even two 'sides' of an argument at all, you could simply analyze the argument and decide what is the better outcome for each alone, instead of cheering from what 'side' one thinks they belong to because they are incapable of individual thought.

Of course, the humorous scorn you get from more sheeplike people accusing you of being a socialist or a 'right wing' person because you aren't arguing along with them gets annoying- though it is mildly funny.

Well put Hazza. There are more than 'two' sides to most debates and often that gets lost in favour of historical allegiances.

I tend to read widely but find myself generally falling back to my principles but hopefully keeping an open mind. There is no reason why political systems cannot mix the ideas from both Left and Right (if we stick to those two aspects for purposes of debate).

Australia is a perfect example of a Social Democracy or a mixed economy, where the benefits of collectivism, individualism and private enterprise are albeity forever changing in delicate balancing act. For my two pennies worth I think this balance is shifting too far away from the collective good in some areas and in other ways too much government control in affairs best left to individuals.

Too often though I see people being manipulated into thinking a certain way especially if the trends are global without much scrutiny, analysis or investigation into the possible long term consequences. Sometimes compromise is vital such as in Obama's backdown on raising taxes for the wealthy while decreasing social security, in lieu of reaching an agreement around debt. The American culture and values are very different around wage disparity and wealth concentration.

Sometimes it is just about doing what works best and for the right reasons. Party allegiances sometimes stymie those sorts of more open and bipartisan discussions which is a shame. That is why I lean more to greater democratic participation by citizens. This, if nothing else, ensures a wider distribution of power.

Dear King Hazza,

Full agree. Their sole purpose seems
to be to desperately try to offend.
Silly us for responding.

While I have not taken a big roll in this thread I watch it closely.
I think it is one of the most important ones we ever had here.
Add the current well thought out one about climate change.
I am so very often classified as LABOR/UNION and seen as blind, by the truly blind!
This thread talks to me,in words I have valued all my life.
Every issue deserves turning on its head over and again, look at it from every angle.
Now no doubt, in doing that we will see things put up that are not a problem but may delay results.
But open minds open discussions lead to better results.
BUT in America, and Australia, we have lost the ability to distance our selves, to say things that are not based on what the party politics of our choice is saying.
Without review, without consideration of every issue constant improvement dies.
After the impending fall, it will be so, of Labor, this country will not be a peace filled calm Paradise, it will still be one at war with its self.
No one is served by that.

Good point King Hazza and I agree totally, but I guess my point is that partisan pieces often contain good points and information - you just need to separate it from the source, and compare it to other sources.

Essentially, all information is relative and relying on single sources of information, or even information sources that just lean a single way, leaves us open to being misled - not directly, usually, but misleading information can take on many subtle forms.

I've found that I usually learn the most when I disagree with a commentator's point, but they put it forward politely and cogently without resorting to name calling or denigration. You usually see some flaws in your own preconceptions.

These pieces are rare, but they tend to be quite illuminating. Much more so then simply reading a piece with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Ludwig, it's true that sometimes they make the blood boil, but that's usually because their arguments are ham-fisted. When you do come across a decent argument by them, it either enrages you more or makes you stop and think for a minute. I try to opt for the latter, but it's tough sometimes.

Good points Pelican, but here's something to consider - the US system is predicated on an intense distrust of the Executive (the exception being the array of acronyms that make up their national security apparatus CIA,NSA,FEMA etc).
I think that in the US, Private Industry, the Legislature, The Judiciary and The Press all are quite strong institutions, but the executive is very weak - they don't like independent commissions as they simply don't trust people who weren't elected democratically.

This aversion to using anyone who isn't democratically elected is harming them I think - the President appoints reserve bank governors and they don't have an independent electoral commission like we do.

Wouldn't it be fair to argue that this system is becoming more dysfunctional than ours, ironically because of 'more' not 'less' democratic participation by citizens?

TRTL

>> I've found that I usually learn the most when I disagree with a commentator's point, but they put it forward politely and cogently without resorting to name calling or denigration. You usually see some flaws in your own preconceptions. <<

Some of the best and most stimulating discussions I have had here on OLO has been a courteous exchange of ideas - it can happen. But not often. Usually those who disagree stoop to ad hominem attacks and I just tire from that infantile mentality.

Your topic is excellent, although I'm with Pelican in that I cannot listen to Bolt for more than about 1 minute. I do recall I agreed with something he said once, it was on the 7PM Project - oddly I can't remember what it was, but that did suggest maybe there is a human being under the deliberate negativity. However, that does not excuse him from the misinformation he and others like Marohasy have done to muddy debate and consequently slow action on transitioning to sustainable practices.

In fact, I consider reading many of the clearly biased articles presented on OLO as a way of remaining informed about the extremists from mostly the right.

I would expand on the 'left/right' debate and how issues and entities drift further and further away from the definitions (or allegiances) they appear to be drifting under in debate circles.

Australia itself is a nation that mixes social welfare, but incredibly low regulation on businesses/accountability, and very little restriction of personal freedoms, and more reduced democratic input.
Compared to many European countries, which have higher social welfare, very high regulations on business, and higher democratic input but slightly higher social restrictions, and compared to America that has lower social welfare, higher business regulation (yes, higher), slightly higher democracy, and about the same (possibly higher) degree of individual freedom (firearm ownership)- how exactly do you rate Australia in a scale- the left/right criteria for each area is completely different.

Add to that, the accusation of Labor as a "Left wing party" because they are the opposition to the Liberals- when they probably mildy 'right wing' in most respects (pro business, anti-regulation), and "One Nation" as far right when they are gigantic advocates of public regulation of economy, businesses, pro-nationalization, etc. If it weren't for the fact that they go on about Asians, Muslims, and multiculturalism (which is "right winged" of them, apparently), they would be accused of being socialists.

Carrying over to debates and how any issue seems to get polarized.
Global Warming somehow seemed to form a left/right divide where somehow the existence of Global Warming as a man-made entity is supposed to be a "Left" issue while the contradictory statement is a "Right" issue.

It's becoming more a case of someone deciding they themselves are "left/right" because they agree more or less with a bunch of issues that the "left/right" social circles took a claim on, and deciding if someone disagrees they must be the opposite group.
In other words, nonsense.

KH

>> America that has lower social welfare, higher business regulation (yes, higher), slightly higher democracy, and about the same (possibly higher) degree of individual freedom (firearm ownership) <<

"Higher business regulation" - could you please expand on this, or are you referring to the minimums placed on bankers post GFC?

But I have learned something: I never thought not owning a gun as a limit on my personal freedom. In fact last time I checked Australians could apply for certain varieties of firearms provided one was approved and had need such as for farmers or for target practice in gun-clubs.

I guess you mean the gun under the car seat type 'freedom'.

Excellent point Hazza. Actually, my choice of OLO moniker way back in the day was to express the futility of left-right labels. Sure, I use them to speed up communication, but I don't really like them and agree they're rather ineffectual.

Ammonite, in regards to Bolt, I've disagree with about 90% of what he's said, but because everything he says is said so forcefully, the 10% I agree with usually resonates pretty strongly. I remember one piece way back in the wake of the Bali bombings where he said that if you really want to oppose terrorism, travel there and boost tourism in the wake of the disaster. Show extremists we're not afraid. Recently, when he was on trial for commentary regarding aboriginal issues, I found myself disgusted by what he'd initially said, but supportive of his arguments in favor of free speech. The old 'I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it' argument.

That's one argument I agree with pretty strongly, and although on social issues I consider myself nominally of that amorphous mass known as 'the left' I find that it's usually those on the Right that are most vociferous in their defence of free speech. A good example of that's here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-job-is-lonelier-than-defending-freedom-of-speech-in-qa-land/story-e6frg6zo-1226107705697

Overall I'd consider my politics more similar to Stephen Mayne but on this occasion I'm in agreement with his opponent.

I guess that I just think the world would be a better place if everybody tried to find an argument that they agree with, which was expressed by somebody they dislike.

I wish we could draw that line.
Take the heat and hate out of debate.
Right now it is early morning, by tonight, about 12 hours we may be in recession even depression.
And need desperate to be united not divided to think not blame.
Every issue could be better considered.

Yes ammonite, they are higher regulated than us (although partly because American consumers don't stand for the kind of prices and services we put up with)- particularly in their consumer standards; Having said that, in America business largely gets a free ride- which reflects quite a lot on Australia really.
Of course, with every area of Australian business, fields, channels, supermarket chains, running under at best, a duopoly, or a monopoly (unlike America where almost every field has a substantial amount of competition)- it might be hard to tell them apart.

King Hazza

Just arrived at this thread after reading your highly entertaining and "funny because its true" posts on the left/right bias of the ABC.

With you all the way mate. There is more competition in the USA, but not the choice one would expect as a result. Have you ever lived in the USA? Go into a supermarket there, be overloaded with what appears to be choice, but is really variations of the same, made by the same umbrella companies just in slightly different packages.

I don't agree with you all the time and am aware that sometimes you are very tongue in cheek. Either way keep on doing what you do - I guess one could say you are the thinking person's Houllebecq. I mean that in the nicest possible way - your gags continually evolve, unlike the single gag act of the self appointed OLO jester.

TRTL
"Wouldn't it be fair to argue that this system is becoming more dysfunctional than ours, ironically because of 'more' not 'less' democratic participation by citizens?"

I would argue the US has less participation but it is dysfunctional. My layman's interpretation is ideas of liberty and democracy in the US are heavily tied in with personal freedom (eg. gun ownership) rather than participation in decision making. Which is why the disenfranchised will often vote Conservative even if the policies of the Democrats (such as universal health care) would greatly reduce the hardship of the working classes.

Democracy is not simple (read John Keane's The Life and Death of Democracy). Sometimes the veneer of democracy such as the process of electing Judges in some judicial positions may have the reverse affect by politicising 'justice'.

The US is characterised as having a low voting participation rate albeit the turnout was higher when Obama stood for the presidency.

It is true there is much mistrust of the Executive and it is commonly derided the number of political appointments on Boards and within agencies that are meant to be bipartisan but merely reflect government policy.

There was the whole issue over vote rigging in the Flordia and Ohio elections - which meant the Bush presidency was illegitimate if those claims are valid. Very few American Presidents are ever held accountable for their actions even if verging on the criminal or illegally waging war to protect interests at home.

The Australian referendum on a Republic was also interesting. I had no problem with a Head of State being selected via a bipartisan process given the role is ostensibly a figurehead with some other ceremonial duties yet to be defined. But many Australians thought differently.

Opposing views about religion or politics tend to produce similar reactions. The nature of our 'values' are closely linked with identity and self worth. Perhaps this is why there is a such a mental block when it comes to evaluating or assessing ideas in a more bipartisan way.

Thankyou Ammonite.

Generally yes, you are quite right in that sense about American choice/regulation as well.

(and more importantly, the successes of the US's broader coverage of services is more the fact that it is simply a larger country with more demanding (and diverse) consumers and thus more businesses form.

Of course, you could divide regulation into many sub-categories as well (I didn't previously because the post would drag on too much)- GM standards, labelling laws, quality and hygiene standards, pricing regulation, among a few other things.

Pelican;
I think you will find that many people regard 'progress/functionality' in the national sense as a government being able to push policy ahead without getting snagged by things like a disagreeing public not actually wanting the policy or demanding refinement, getting it sent back to the drawing board.
Hence why 'more democracy' is detrimental, because large disagreeable groups debating and compromising looks a little like "squabbling and not getting things done" when the person only wants to see 'finished' products (policy) coming out the door at regular intervals.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/hit-by-the-debt-boomerang-20110805-1ifh5.html
Surely we need to look at story's like this more often.
Not to produce a halo for our current government.
But the last 4, more, to focus on the fact just how much better we find our selves.
In doing so, we may catch yet another glimpse at how very bad our public debate has become.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nazi-ideology-in-ethics-classes-says-nile-20110805-1ifft.html
This too highlights our desperate need to see debate from all sides.
It is my strongly held view, and evidence exists, even fellow Christian leaders, question our Fred.
He has quite an interesting history.
Other out standing Christian leader have disassociated themselves from him.
Yes Labor is against him.
But if given the chance I think even more than the massive number who voted this conservative party in to power would stand against Fred's madness and miss use of his accidental power.
[It should be noted he has about far less support than he has power]

Belly

For every Nile or Pell, Christians do have a Father Bob Maguire or Fr Bill Kennedy and many other decent priests - thing is decent people tend not to be as vocal, most of them quietly get on with their occupations. Fr Bob Maguire being a significant exception to the rule.

http://www.fatherbob.com.au/

Father Bob combines wit along with compassion - rare combinations in anyone.

Ammonite thanks I believe one of your quoted Ministers was there for the hanging of Ronald Ryan.
Both are well known and excellent people.
I an ex Christian know without doubt such men and women, exist in the Church any Church any religion.
If only they did,what a great world it would be.
I wanted to highlight this bloke has too much power and in fact lives in a world we just do not have, a strange non existent place.
NSW has the Memory's of Ted Noffs, he ran the kings cross Chapel, he was a heart not just a man.
He took the truly down and out in he said these words, I am a Christian a Muslim a Jew, then went on to name every faith.
A man from much more straight edged Christianity yet of the normal folk Rev Moyles, forgive spelling left Fred's group.
I despise with every bit of understanding the unfair laws Conservatives are imposing on my ex members some are ex workmates from my time on roads.
But they won a mandate, it is their right to rule, to think in an effort to stop non Christians learning about right and wrong this grubby man said he may stop them is an assault on majority rule.

Dear Belly,

Ammonite said it very well. Some people have made
the assumption about me that because I criticise
the Catholic Church (being a Catholic) that I'm
against Catholic belief. Nothing could be further
from the truth. What I am against as I've stated
in the past - the the abuse of power by ruthless
and ambitious men in the Church. Men who are the
antithesis of the teachings of Christ - like
Cardinal Pell. The same goes in politics. You're
accused of all sorts of labels - if you try to
point out the failings of certain parties and people
when only a biased - one eyed-view is being presented,
to provide some sort of balance, or when downright
lies and misconceptions are being bandied about. This is
part of my professional training, and ethos. To correct
mis-information. And to direct people to alternative
sources to get a bigger picture. Then I am accused of
"bias," and they don't seem to see their own.

Critical analysis on a public forum like this is so very
rare. But certainly, so very welcome when one encounters it.

Well said Lexi and understood.
Right now I am under the gun, and in truth shooting blanks.
I could more than hold my own in verbal tennis, even the slander type.
Have never reached the levels some play at in every post.
But regard that as a positive.
I know you are a Catholic, and only wish a million /ten million more acted as you do.
Forums are going to bring us weird, wonderful, and strange, together.
This is the best site, but no easy task for GY to police, in truth my views must make his blood boil, his some times make mine.
I would think we could be of help, my intention is to Isolate myself from just two posters right now.
I have said my last words, if we all did that?
I would not want the job of policing the site, think about it, no way.
Lexi do not get me wrong here,I have an advantage, it has been with me every day of my life, served me well.
I am never sure of myself, never sure I could not have done or said better.
That bought me treasure not pain, lifelong friendships with my union members and those I worked for or with as just plain Belly.
I asked on every issue *tell me what you think not what you think I want to hear *
The other type, too much confidence not enough substance make the most noise.

Dear Belly,

As I've stated in the past the art of reasoned
intelligent debate is a skill not easily
acquired. And certainly no one likes or supports
an abusive, illogical debater. A public forum
such as this one will of course attract all types
of people - including trolls who's aim is to
cause offense, as well as the ill-bred and ignorant,
who aren't capable of posting any other way - except
by personal insults and labelling. A good moderator
however will sort these type of people out.

Dear TRTL
Sorry, I have been a little late in responding to your original post.
I couldn't have said anything better. You are right about the Shock Jock so called know it alls, and also the journalists.
I used to enjoy "The Insiders" each Sunday, but now I am faced with some Journalists who think that they know better than the Politicians.
Your choice and rejection of the named Journalists are echoed by myself.
Especially George Megalogenus .
Paul Kelly is the most even handed Commentator in recent times, and one would never know which of the major parties (if any) that he supports.
I like his approach to his comments, despite my political persuasions I at least have learned over the years to see the good/bad proposals by politicians of any persuasions, not because I am one eyed about politics.
Well said my friend.
NSB