How Can You Respect the Opinions of Others, If You Don't Respect Yourself?

I had an interesting dialogue in comments in the Australian today as this relates to same sex marriage. In particular Cricket Australia jumping on the Yes bandwagon. I'm of the opinion sporting bodies should respect all their supporters and not take sides.

A poster, who goes by the name Damon made this comment. "It must be feeling very isolating being a no voter. They are already to some degree but ever increasingly pariahs." Odd wording but that is not the main point.

As I'm sure you will appreciate Damon's comment generated some responses of which some were perhaps unfortunate. But as Damon labelled those who disagreed with him Marxists, it probably didn't help.

My reply was granted pointed but I don't take kindly to being labeled a pariah. I pointed out labelling people pariahs for doing nothing more than not agreeing with him was immature and small-minded.

Damon replied, he was merely pointing out what must be for me a painful fact. He went on to say in years to come I would have to reconcile that I was on the wrong side of history and how embarrassing that would be. Of course Damon has no idea what side of history I'm on. I suggested he probably shouldn't make an ass of himself in jumping to conclusions.

What escapes people like Damon despite me suggesting it, is this. Reasonable people never feel like asses because others don't share their opinions. In fact they value a society where differing opinions are encouraged and respected. Some, may even change their opinions based on respectful and logical debate. Of course the ability to do that is usually associated with your level of commonsense, intellect, maturity and most importantly your upbringing.

Damon certainly wouldn’t win too many over to his side of the argument in 'spraying' everyone. But that's so typical today. No wonder it is a struggle to have sensible debate on issues that are important

I also think it’s sad that Damon admits, "It's hard to be respectful of a view when you don't respect it.". Damon fails to see you can disagree on an opinion but still respect the rights of others to hold opposing views. That means you don't label them pariahs. But then he summed it up when he said, "I care little for any respect you may have for my opinion. History will ultimately be the judge."

That probably explains a lot. How can Damon respect the opinions of others when it's blatantly clear he doesn't respect himself? If he did respect himself he would care what others think about his views.

What Was Pauline Hanson's Real Motive

If you are going to pull a stunt then at least stick to the story. Yes, I'm having a bit of a rant.

Pauline Hanson made a right prat of herself yesterday when she turned up to senate question time wearing a Burqa. I guess we should be used to her making a prat of herself. She has a long history of it. But mocking the parliament in pulling a moronic stunt is a new low even for her.

What is really telling is her true motivation. This was her question in the chamber yesterday.

My question is to Senator Brandis. “In light of what is happening with national security—there have been 13 foiled national threats against us from terrorism, three that have been successful, and Australians have lost their lives. Terrorism is a true threat to our country, and many Australians are very much in fear of it. What I would like to ask on behalf of the Australian people—considering a large majority of Australians wish to see the banning of the burqa—our two former prime ministers, Julia Gillard” – time expired

Hanson continued following Senator Brandis’s response.

“Is the Attorney-General aware that the burqa is not a religious requirement at all? Will the Attorney-General then ban the burqa in this house for the future as a security risk. Also, the fact is that the people of Australia have the right to see the face of a person that they elect to this parliament. They are the person who is actually going to be making decisions in the parliament on their behalf.”

She closed with this final supplementary question.

“If a person wears a balaclava or a helmet into a bank or any other building or even on the floor of the court, they must be removed. Why is it not the same case for someone who is covering up their face and cannot be identified? Will the government make changes to these laws?”

Her argument in the chamber was about security. Of course she was well and truly shot down on that point. So then Hanson turns up on every media show she could with the BS argument about repression of Muslim women.

Hanson doesn’t give a rats about the few Muslim women in this country who wear the Burqa. It really is only a few women. Some choose to wear it and no doubt others are forced to do so. Whilst I think it is a garment of repression, I respect the right of women who choose to wear it to do so. But Pauline Hanson as a champion of the Muslim Women’s rights? Give me a break.

If Hanson really cared about women's rights she would champion programs addressing English language for immigrant women when husbands deny them that right. That is a far bigger problem than a few women in this country being forced to cover. She would focus on the plight of women in indigenous communities. But of course she's not likely to grab headlines or attract hardcore support from the far right pushing those worthy causes is she.

So let's not kid ourselves. The Burqa was just a tool to enable Hanson to soap box her favourite topic .. Muslim bashing. It’s time her oxygen supply was cut off. Perhaps Tony Abbott could step up again. He did a good job last time.

I feel very sorry for Anthony Scaramucci

Some people cheer Trump on and other conservatives like me are equally critical of him. That's the way of politics. But this comment, has nothing to do with politics. It's about the cynical games of a psychopath. 

I am a fan of Will Black and his enlightening book, "Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires." I will share this quote from the book because I believe it highlights what we see time and again with Trump's psychopathic behaviour.

"Indicators include self esteem being derived from personal gain, power and pleasure, lack of concern for feelings, needs and suffering of others and a tendency to exploit, deceive and coerce. They may appear charming but this is superficial and used to manipulate as, ultimately, other people are prey."

I was stunned when Trump announced the appointment of Anthony Scaramucci. Lets face it he was hardly qualified for the role. I was even more stunned when Scaramucci launched his disgusting attacks on others. But, the more I think about what just transpired the more it appears to be obvious that Trump has cruelly used a vulnerable man in the most callous way.   

Trump wanted Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer gone. He could have just fired them. That would have been the simplest solution. But that's not the Trump way. He wants to taunt and humiliate people. So Trump brought in Anthony Scaramucci. In actual fact Scaramucci never really got to start the job as his official start date wasn't until August 15th. Trump did this knowing that Scaramucci's nine-months-pregnant wife had just left him. Any man with an ounce of intelligence would realise no person in that position would be in the best frame of mind. Unless of course it was a deliberate and Trump was counting on Scaramucci not being in the most robust state mentally or emotionally and therefore easy to manipulate. 

Trump stood by and allowed Scaramucci to run roughshod over the White House. He did this knowing it would make Scaramucci a laughing stock and bring shame to the WH. But, it achieved Trump's aim. It was the final straw for both Spicer and Priebus who promptly resigned. Once Scaramucci had done the job, Trump callously turned around and fired him. Used and discarded before he got off the launching pad. 

I feel very sorry for Anthony Scaramucci. Trump obviously doesn't care that he may have destroyed what little is left of Anthony Scaramucci’s life. Scaramucci was merely a pawn in Trump's cynical game. For that matter Trump doesn't care that he’s severely harmed himself. He believes he'll be forgiven by his adoring followers it doesn't matter what he does. From where I sit, any man that uses and abuses people like that is nothing more than a full blown psychopath. The only question that remains, who is next in Trump's sick little games. 

"Trump isn't draining the swamp, he's building the cesspool."

Aren't we adult enough to have the discussion?

Tim Blair's rant "Environmental nonsense gone wild" in the Daily Telegraph today highlights the inability to debate the merits of some sensible environmental initiatives. 

As an example. Coles & Woolies removing plastic bags & replacing them with reusable bags isn't a bad thing. Thousands of sea creatures die awful deaths because of plastic bags. If humans were more responsible, perhaps this wouldn't happen. But sadly far too many aren't and that's a problem. 

The sticking point for many, will be the 15cents Woolies will charge for the replacement when the current bags as 'free'. But let's not fool ourselves we pay for them anyway it's just not obvious. All things considered, for me with an average of 8 bags per shop that's an extra $1.20. If I reuse 4 times that's 30cents per shop. It won't bankrupt me and if it helps remove bags from waterways and oceans good. 

Likewise, reducing car emissions has a lot of merit. But the debate wasn't even allowed to take place!! The mere hint and there was uproar. Car exhaust fumes are a health risk. You only have to look at China to see that. In our own backyard in Sydney exhaust fumes and tunnels is a frequent discussion. 

These are just two examples. But regardless, we should be mature enough to have the debate in the absence of emotive diatribe. Not everything should be judged on this ridiculous left, right divide. As adults we really are setting a very bad example. Time we grew up. 

Openness and transparency protect us from the powerful and the corrupt

“Openness and transparency are among the few protections we have to guard ourselves from the powerful & the corrupt.” That includes protecting us from those who are elected to lead us. I believe few would disagree with that statement.

For many of us, we rely on the media to provide that openness and transparency when they are reporting on what those in power say and do. Whilst we may not always agree with the opinions given (via the media), most people with a level of intelligence should be able to apply a level of logic in determining the validity of what they are being told. We always have access to transcripts, videos, past behaviours etc., to assist. We have many reputable news outlets out there; particularly independent news sites. We also have tools to help us determine media bias, fake news, click bait sites etc. Even MSM sites are capable of and do publish facts. Not everything they say is corrupt totally lies.

When those in power restrict media access I question why. What are they trying to hide? Because they in taking that action are then restricting our ability to decide if what we are being told is the truth. It is a dangerous precedent. It is even more dangerous when politicians and the leaders of countries do this. This applies to the leader of the so called free world; Donald J Trump. You can’t claim to be the leader of the free world if you suppress and continually attack the press because you don’t like what they report about you. As a result you scream fake news at every opportunity or you ban them. That is not the free world. That is dictatorship.

Unfortunately, Trump’s strategy is working on a lot of people. Despite reports citing official documents, credible first hand named sources and being published by credible news outlets there are those who just scream fake regardless. I had an interesting exchange on this very subject a few days ago. More surprising it was with a person who has appeared very open in the past. They do say if you repeat something often enough it becomes truth to some.

This highlights just another event where Trump has banned the media. Why? Who would know?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337354-trump-headlines-fundraiser-for-new-jersey-gop-lawmakerby

Freedom of speech and hence freedom of the press is crucial. Thomas Jefferson recognised that when he penned these words to Edward Carrington (an American soldier and statesman from Virginia).

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

While we might argue that our media (at times) does a poor job, the principle of freedom of the press cannot be restricted. Without it, we have no real protection. It’s down to us to decide if what we are being told makes sense and to make intelligent decisions on that basis. In other words free to decide for ourselves.

I read this recently. It was from a speech delivered back in 2006. How some people respond to this I suspect depends in some part on what side of the political divide they sit?

“It is precisely when the free press is telling us what we don’t want to hear, when it is challenging government officials, exposing government misconduct and refusing to be the unofficial mouthpiece of any government agency that the press stands most in need of constitutional protection.

A press that is the house organ for the government doesn’t need it. A press that only reports the good news, that ignores the scandals and the corruption, that is the cheerleader for every misadventure and stands silent when our liberties are threatened by the very government we created to protect them has no need of such protection.

It is only when the news media dares to speak truth to power and reveal the truth about those who wield power that it requires the umbrella of constitutional protection……….”

We have to demand open honest reporting from our media. But to blacken everyone because we don’t like what they say is nonsense. I fear anyone who tries to control what the media can and cannot access more so that the media itself. History tells us we should.