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.