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.