We need to stop the emotional blackmail and intimidation

I am growing very weary of being bombarded by various groups and individuals telling me how and why I should vote the same way they will in the SSM postal plebiscite. I'm also somewhat dismayed by articles I've read and comments people have made that if their position isn't adopted they will no longer be friends with those who hold an opposing view. Some have even declared they will not even associate with someone who doesn't support them. Seriously how melodramatic and childish is that?

We've always prided ourselves as a society who embraced different opinions and who respected the right of others who differed from us. That is a sign of an intelligent, caring, enlightened, colourful and mature society. But that has changed and not for the better.

I'm proud to acknowledge I have friends and associates within my various circles with whom I don’t share the same beliefs; culturally, politically, environmentally and also on the topic of religion. I've learnt a lot from those people. That has led to some unique and fascinating relationships over the years. Not to mention some highly entertaining and robust dinner party discussions. In some cases I've changed my position based on compelling arguments. But above all I respect them as individuals and I would never wipe them just because we hold different views. I value them for who they are and the richness they bring to my life, not what they believe.

I had two so-called friends completely wipe me because of all people Donald Trump. I was stunned by that. Whilst I am an avowed conservative I could not support someone like Trump. I gave my reasons but I was flicked anyway. If the same were to happen should anyone become aware of how I vote on SSM, I would now consider that a positive. Why? I don’t want to associate with people who would simply shut me out for no other reason than a different opinion. Or to associate with people who want to live in a one dimensional society. A society where to be respected and accepted we all have to think the same and believe in the same things they do.

How I vote is my decision, no one else’s. I will be making my decision based on several factors. I will take into consideration my personal views.  In addition I'll consider the potential changes (if any) in law and what that will mean in the shorter and longer term across a number of spectrums. I won't cave in to emotional blackmail or intimidation from either side; Yes or No. In fact I find that behaviour nauseating.

"You've got to do what's right, or what you think is right. And  you've got to make tough decisions. And you've got to be willing to take on your friends when they disagree with you." Antonio Villaraigosa

That's true, we do. But above all we have to be true to ourselves. If others choose to cast us out because of it, it's their loss.

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.