bullies are rarely brave; dragged to the depths of moral bankruptcy by John Howard; we are morally impoverished
My selection from today's papers
Remember when the Man of Steel tried his hand at writing a preamble to the constitution? How he managed to go right to the heart of essential Australianness?
Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.
It is true that there is a want of poetry here. And how we laughed at the time at this feeble attempt to define the true spirit of Ozness. But one has had reason to take another look at Mr Howard's words these past few days and one has spotted a semantic error in the juxtaposed qualities a dinkum Aussie must keep in tension. We understand that excellence and fairness are euphemisms for profit on the one hand and a damn good thrashing if you ask for a decent wage on the other. And we understand that independence and mateship are code words for well-deserved wealth over dole bludging.
However, the opposite of mateship is not independence - it is paranoia. And if there's one thing the Man of Steel is good at, it is paranoia. Not only has he elevated it to the status of a virtue but he has almost succeeded in wiping out the last vestiges of the good old bush socialism we think of when we hear the word mateship.
The essence of mateship, as a universal virtue, is that it is an impulse to help strangers, assuming the best of them until they prove themselves unworthy of an altruistic helping hand. Mateship is a shorthand way of describing a system of social organisation based on the moral imperative of doing one for others without calculating that one day you may need them to do one for you. It is a sort of bucolic golden rule that even affects social interaction in the cities.
It is, of course, the very socialistic weakness of spirit that the Man of Steel and his cronies so despise. Here is what set me thinking along these lines. Last week, the Spouse took one of her occasional trips to Adelaide and before embarking in Melbourne she was gone over with the explosives sniffing device. This is the third time that this has happened to her at Melbourne airport. Now she is a cruel woman, but you would never know that from just looking at her. So why is she singled out for the explosives treatment?
In Adelaide, she has a small accident. A water bottle in her bag leaks and items in the bag get wet. She asks a shop assistant for a plastic bag into which to separate the wet from the dry. She is told that she can't have a plastic bag because she will use it to steal merchandise. She asks another assistant. And another. Same response. (Harris Scarfe, in case you're wondering.) Then she misses her bus and a stranger, seeing her distress, tells her to hop in his car and he will take her to the next stop. Who is this man, ready to help a terrorist shoplifter in distress? A white-slaver? A mate?
When the Prime Minister reads the parable of the Good Samaritan, he probably despises the Samaritan as a sentimental fool and cheers the priest and the Levite who had the good sense to pass by on the other side.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the depths of moral bankruptcy by John Howard in this and so many other issues where justice is jeopardised?
We are prepared to take up arms for whales, trees, "abused" sheep and chooks but when the issue is one of simple justice for a fellow human being, our silence is deafening! Does our silence imply our consent for what Howard is doing to our country?
Fight or flight?
Now that the electoral commission's written distribution proposals are out, making the Prime Minister's seat of Bennelong a 3 per cent marginal seat, the big question is: will John Howard "cut and run" or stand like a man and face the people? He should not resile but confront his constituents so they can pass judgement on his damaging industrial relations legislation and a litany of untruths.
It is one thing to slap our brave, departing soldiers as they head off to Iraq to risk life and limb for the Howard Government's Iraqi wheat deals, to grossly mislead all of us on his mythical weapons of mass destruction for crude, political purposes, create racist divisions amongst us, and peddle lies on children overboard. It will be another thing for him to stand a fight. My belief is he will cut and run.
Now that the electoral commission's written distribution proposals are out, making the Prime Minister's seat of Bennelong a 3 per cent marginal seat, the big question is: will John Howard "cut and run" or stand like a man and face the people? He should not resile but confront his constituents so they can pass judgement on his damaging industrial relations legislation and a litany of untruths.
It is one thing to slap our brave, departing soldiers as they head off to Iraq to risk life and limb for the Howard Government's Iraqi wheat deals, to grossly mislead all of us on his mythical weapons of mass destruction for crude, political purposes, create racist divisions amongst us, and peddle lies on children overboard. It will be another thing for him to stand a fight. My belief is he will cut and run.
The reason is very simple: bullies are rarely brave.KEITH REMINGTON, Ascot Vale
------------------------------------------------------------------
The sound of silence
In writing about the David Hicks case (Sunday Age, 2/7), Michelle Grattan quotes former High Court chief justice Gerard Brennan as saying that, "we are morally impoverished". We have accepted - and Brennan refers to it as "supine acceptance" - the imprisonment, without trial, of David Hicks by the Bush regime in the Guantanamo concentration camp. What a sad indictment this is of us Australians, who take pride in the fact that we are always prepared to give others a fair go.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the depths of moral bankruptcy by John Howard in this and so many other issues where justice is jeopardised?
We are prepared to take up arms for whales, trees, "abused" sheep and chooks but when the issue is one of simple justice for a fellow human being, our silence is deafening! Does our silence imply our consent for what Howard is doing to our country?
In writing about the David Hicks case (Sunday Age, 2/7), Michelle Grattan quotes former High Court chief justice Gerard Brennan as saying that, "we are morally impoverished". We have accepted - and Brennan refers to it as "supine acceptance" - the imprisonment, without trial, of David Hicks by the Bush regime in the Guantanamo concentration camp. What a sad indictment this is of us Australians, who take pride in the fact that we are always prepared to give others a fair go.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the depths of moral bankruptcy by John Howard in this and so many other issues where justice is jeopardised?
We are prepared to take up arms for whales, trees, "abused" sheep and chooks but when the issue is one of simple justice for a fellow human being, our silence is deafening! Does our silence imply our consent for what Howard is doing to our country?
ELWYN BOURBON, Mulgrave
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate, no such thing as a fair go
PerspectiveBy Terry LaneJuly 9, 2006
PerspectiveBy Terry LaneJuly 9, 2006
Remember when the Man of Steel tried his hand at writing a preamble to the constitution? How he managed to go right to the heart of essential Australianness?
Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue their hopes and ideals. We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.
It is true that there is a want of poetry here. And how we laughed at the time at this feeble attempt to define the true spirit of Ozness. But one has had reason to take another look at Mr Howard's words these past few days and one has spotted a semantic error in the juxtaposed qualities a dinkum Aussie must keep in tension. We understand that excellence and fairness are euphemisms for profit on the one hand and a damn good thrashing if you ask for a decent wage on the other. And we understand that independence and mateship are code words for well-deserved wealth over dole bludging.
However, the opposite of mateship is not independence - it is paranoia. And if there's one thing the Man of Steel is good at, it is paranoia. Not only has he elevated it to the status of a virtue but he has almost succeeded in wiping out the last vestiges of the good old bush socialism we think of when we hear the word mateship.
The essence of mateship, as a universal virtue, is that it is an impulse to help strangers, assuming the best of them until they prove themselves unworthy of an altruistic helping hand. Mateship is a shorthand way of describing a system of social organisation based on the moral imperative of doing one for others without calculating that one day you may need them to do one for you. It is a sort of bucolic golden rule that even affects social interaction in the cities.
It is, of course, the very socialistic weakness of spirit that the Man of Steel and his cronies so despise. Here is what set me thinking along these lines. Last week, the Spouse took one of her occasional trips to Adelaide and before embarking in Melbourne she was gone over with the explosives sniffing device. This is the third time that this has happened to her at Melbourne airport. Now she is a cruel woman, but you would never know that from just looking at her. So why is she singled out for the explosives treatment?
In Adelaide, she has a small accident. A water bottle in her bag leaks and items in the bag get wet. She asks a shop assistant for a plastic bag into which to separate the wet from the dry. She is told that she can't have a plastic bag because she will use it to steal merchandise. She asks another assistant. And another. Same response. (Harris Scarfe, in case you're wondering.) Then she misses her bus and a stranger, seeing her distress, tells her to hop in his car and he will take her to the next stop. Who is this man, ready to help a terrorist shoplifter in distress? A white-slaver? A mate?
When the Prime Minister reads the parable of the Good Samaritan, he probably despises the Samaritan as a sentimental fool and cheers the priest and the Levite who had the good sense to pass by on the other side.
Why have we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the depths of moral bankruptcy by John Howard in this and so many other issues where justice is jeopardised?
We are prepared to take up arms for whales, trees, "abused" sheep and chooks but when the issue is one of simple justice for a fellow human being, our silence is deafening! Does our silence imply our consent for what Howard is doing to our country?
posted by tetmupco2 | 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home