18 Comments

Being a one-eyed supporter is easy

One-EyedIt must be wonderful to be a one-eyed supporter of anything: a football team, a soccer team, a political party or ideology; or a religion.

If you are a one-eyed supporter you can close your eyes and ears to anything that you think doesn’t fit your world.

I’m not a one-eyed supporter of anything. I stopped barracking for the Magpies when there was a racist furor many years ago. I left the Liberal Party when I could no longer tolerate many aspects of the current political platform. I am an atheist. I read a column today that was full of “oh the left should be so ashamed”. There was no balance in this article at all.

There was much talk of “vulgarians”. Interestingly, vulgarian is a term most often used to describe people who ostentatiously display their wealth.  I do believe, given the examples, the writer in question was actually referring to less than polite language, not displays of wealth. I happen to agree with the writer on this point. Far too much use of nasty personal insults in the political sphere these days. He forgot to look back at the “big red box” quail menu. That was rather vulgar, as per the definition of “making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude.”

The main attack was on Mr Schwartz and his new paper launched by no other than a member of the conservative cadre, Mr Malcolm Turnbull. Bolt (yes, the columnist was Andrew Bolt, but I didn’t want to frighten everyone away too soon) seemed particularly concerned about the satire of one Richard Flanagan.

It even included a fantasy from author Richard Flanagan — the kind of absurd projection that makes the Left a laughing stock — in which he sarcastically proposed we work off our alleged racism with a strategy to “bomb the boats and kill all the illegals”.

I had rather enjoyed Richard’s piece to be honest because it made my piece proposing the possible reintroduction of slavery as a solution to the asylum seeker “problem” seem gentle by comparison!

Bolt complained about attacks on Scott Morrison, Fiona Nash and George Pell. Not once did he mention anything about the failure of those three people to perform their duties as required in the service of this country or, in Pell’s case, his flock.

Bolt has previously criticised the Manus Island fiasco and so he should, but he didn’t mention this in today’s attack.

I find it hard to believe that whoever assured Morrison or his staff that most injuries were suffered outside the centre was not lying. It’s no longer possible to believe other assurances now, including claims there was no evidence of anyone having their throat cut.

My confidence in the information given to date by the Government on this riot is now extremely low.

Note he was extremely careful NOT to criticise the government of the day nor the Minister in charge. No, Bolt blamed the people who provided the information. This conveniently ignores the simple fact the Minister is responsible for the people who gave the information.

I see way too much of this from both sides, Bolt is just an extreme and vocal example of one-eyed fanatical support. I could suggest it is inappropriate for anyone, so one-sided they are rendered incapable of seeing the flaws in their own “team”, to be allowed a voice loud enough to brainwash the public, but that would contravene their right to free speech. We have to ensure we educate our children in the art of clear thinking.

Malcolm Fraser has called Tony Abbott a “dangerous politician, perhaps one of the most dangerous in Australian history” and Fraser is a past Liberal Prime Minster of Australia. Does Bolt not think there might be just a little in what Fraser has to say? That wouldn’t generate as many clicks, I suppose.

While many of our readers find this difficult to understand, I am a conservative. I’m not the sort of conservative currently in power. A little while ago, when considering the Tim Wilson appointment to the Australian Human Rights Commission, I highlighted the objectives of the constitution of the Liberal Party. It does make for interesting reading, as a few of my Twitter fellows commented.  I’ve made a few off-the-cuff notations in green below and I am sure you can make a few more (hint, hint, that is what the comments section is for).

Part II – Objectives

2. The objectives of the Organisation shall be to have an Australian nation:-

(a) dedicated to political liberty and the freedom and dignity of man; I assume they mean the species, not the gender

(b) safe from external aggression and living in the closest communion with fellow members of the Commonwealth, playing its part in a world security order which maintains the necessary force to defend peace; That would be why we crossed into a neighbouring nation’s territorial waters, I suppose, several times! Didn’t take long to tell Russia to “back off” though. A case of one rule for us and another for everyone else?

(c) in which national defence is a matter of universal duty, and in which the spirit of patriotism is fostered and all Australians united in the common service of their country; Those of us who speak out ARE the patriots, because we want the best for our country. The one-eyed supporters are not patriotic, merely blinded by narrow idiological frameworks – both sides of politics!

(d) in which an intelligent, free and liberal Australian democracy shall be maintained by:- Intelligent – so we cut education finding? Free – so we stop people bringing their partners here? Liberal – no same-sex marriage for Australia.

i) a Parliament controlling the Executive and the Law controlling all; I’d like some punctuation here – does this mean the parliament controls the Law, or the Law controls all including the parliament?

ii) independence of the Judiciary; Of course!

iii) freedom of speech, religion and association; Freedom of association? The VLAD laws in Queensland?

iv) freedom of citizens to choose their own way of living and of life, subject to the rights of others; Forgive me for having desired the freedom to choose my own way of living and of life, but OK, Libs weren’t in power at the time. HOWEVER they are NOW and my series on Partner Visas illustrates how much they keep THIS objective! Subject to the rights of others – but we don’t enshrine the provisions of the ICCPR in our domestic legislation, and the Libs have had opportunities.

v) protecting the people against exploitation; Right – that will be why a Green Army is being proposed where I am yet to be convinced the youth of this nation will be adequately protecting in case of work related injury and other issues

vi) looking primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as the dynamic force of progress; Supporting INDIVIDUAL initiative and enterprise is not the same as supporting corporate initiative and enterprise

vii) developing to the fullest extent a national spirit in Australia; Reducing important funding to Indigenous programs is not exactly helping develop a national spirit

(e) in which men and women who have been members of the fighting services and their dependants shall enjoy honour and security and where preference and generous repatriation benefits are recognised; Is this being upheld? Do we honour our servicemen and women when we blame them for straying off course?

(f) in which primary, secondary and tertiary industries are promoted, new and adequate markets developed, the lot of country people improved, rural amenities increased, and decentralisation of industries encouraged; Oh, I could go one about this for hours! Lack of investment in science, little innovation support etc

(g) in which there shall be no nationalisation of any Australian industry without the approval of the people; I should hope not

(h) in which constant employment at good wages is available to all willing and able to work; Note the “at good wages” – dependent on (i) below

(i) in which employer and employee have a sense of common interest and duty, and share as co-operators in all advances of prosperity, and in which living standards rise steadily as physical resources expand and ingenuity grows; This sounds lovely, but simple mathematics shows it needs careful juggling. More on this another day…

(j) in which social provision is made for the aged, the invalid, the widowed, the sick, the unemployed and their children; Disability pensions, razing the NDIS, rising education costs 

(k) in which adequate medical services are within the reach of all; threats to Medicare

(l) in which a comprehensive system of child and adult education is designed to develop the spirit of true citizenship, and in which no consideration of wealth or privilege shall be a determining factor; WHAT HAPPENED TO GONSKI?

(m) in which the youth of the nation is given every encouragement to develop its talent to the full, recognising that from its ranks will come the leaders of tomorrow; WHAT HAPPENED TO GONSKI? And are we only getting youth born of those who qualify for the PPL?

(n) in which family life is seen as fundamental to the well-being of society, and in which every family is enabled to live in and preferably to own a comfortable home at reasonable cost, and with adequate community amenities.

I can criticise the performance of the Liberal Party because I am a patriot and I see those objectives being thrown out the window by the current leadership.

It is easy to be a one-eyed supporter and follow blindly. It is not so easy to “man up” (I believe that is the phrase of the moment) and call a spade a spade.

Missing from the above is a humanitarian objective.  Maybe Malcolm Fraser was right:

Says Fraser: ”If there were a moderate – in philosophical terms, a liberal party – emerging again in Australia, I think people would flock to it from the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in their hundreds of thousands.

”And in my book, that would be easier than changing the Liberal Party to that which it used to be.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-partys-moderate-voice-goes-silent-under-tony-abbotts-leadership-20140222-3391c.html#ixzz2utUE7ABW

To everything, there is a season

Is there a Labor supporter out there willing to throw their eye patch away? Noely gave the factions a blast in her very eloquent rant!

Note to USA readers: in Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party and blue, Labor are sort of your Democrats and red. Hope that clears it up for you! 🙂

Advertisements

18 comments on “Being a one-eyed supporter is easy

  1. […] to the list. There is one rule: no infighting! When it comes to political transgressions, very easy to be a one-eyed supporter and want to defend anyone mentioned by someone from the other side (or faction). So keep it clean, […]

    Like

  2. […] What about that Liberal objective expressed in paragraph j: […]

    Like

  3. You’ve covered everything, love your thought patterns. I’m one-eyed about environment and justice & rights of all animals including people. I’m a Greens member but definitely not one eyed about them. Ex liberal til they changed to Liberal.

    Like

  4. A part of me has, occasionally, felt envious for those who can support a cause so strongly it becomes a core tenet of their belief system. Then, a natural disinclination to make a fool of myself kicks in. That the earnestness of the convinced generally makes me uneasy, helps.

    Forget two sided, there are more shades of grey than the infamous novel and every argument is multifaceted. This doesn’t preclude making decisions or having beliefs. It just allows that these are individual, time and circumstance specific. It also allows that those with extremist views, the ‘one eyed’ if you will, have a value to our society. They allow us to move forward without rejecting those worthwhile concepts that emanate from the past.

    Disclaimer: There is an enormous gulf between holding extremist views and acts of terrorism. Similarly, there is an equally wide gulf between asserting a view to be indisputable and intimidation. I support your right to do the former and unequivocally condemn the latter.

    And there we go, trolling & bullying is totally unacceptable, yet I can feel sorry for the person who is unhappy enough to do either. As a hard liner, I make a great fence sitter.

    Like

    • Jan we need more of you! 🙂

      I’m with you on the shades of grey. It seems to me too many are hell-bent on being right without any consideration of minor adjustments. Often a concept is good, it is the execution of that concept into reality that fails.

      Too much playing the man (or woman) these days, I fear. The ball gets lost in a hail of insults.

      Like

  5. To me it is ‘blind belief’ through lack of questioning that bothers me. I have changed by views on many things over the years including religion, politics & gender equality. Remaining open to challenges, new ideas & differing views is the key for me as long as it is a reasoned informed debate.

    However I also believe my own values are a navigational aid that ultimately steer me in a certain direction and drive my passion. I certainly dont always support all that is dished up by Labor, asylum seeker policies being a major objection on my part as is moving single parents to Newstart. Probably lots more. I support the Greens on some issues but not others. However I cannot think of any issue where my values would be congruent with those of right wing ideology i.e. Liberals

    Like

    • Not one teensy, weensy issue? 🙂 I’ll have to work on trying to find one – although at the moment I am having difficulty finding any I agree with either, sadly.

      I am inclined to agree with Fraser, easier to establish a new party than raise the Liberals from the ashes. Now, maybe there is the name for a new truly liberal party – Pheonix!

      What is lost in all this at the moment is that the original Liberals were not “right wing” as they are today – now almost more right wing than the GOP of the USA and that is saying something.

      Like

  6. I am with Archie, I am one-eyed about the Maroons & Bronco’s LOL 😉 But that is a game, entertainment, NOT real life. The one-eyed attitude by all parties, ALP, Libs AND Greens, drives me insane.

    This is our life, these people are supposed to be representing ‘real’ people in their electorates, instead they are beholden to a ‘party’ line, which in itself is beholden to their backers, be it Unions, Businesses, rich old media farts in the US, you name it, then message massaged by a plethora of spin doctors…

    Sadly punters are bottom of the ladder and too many of them don’t even realise it, the spin doctors have reduced the whole conversation down to little slogans the teams can chant at each other & while the ‘faithful’ are distracted doing that, the rest of us who are politically homeless, which, let’s face it, are probably the majority in this nation, are being screwed over royally by all concerned 😦

    SIGH! just read back my comment, maybe I need more chocolate…

    Like

    • I don’t think you need more chocolate, I think you summed it up accurately. Perhaps not how the faithful want to hear it, but accurate.

      Of course it is easier for me to criticise the Liberals than Labor or the Greens, because just as we hold our footy teams to a higher standard than others, we SHOULD (and I do) hold our political affiliations to higher standards than the opposition.

      There are Labor philosophies and Green philosophies I agree with – and some I disagree with. We need difference in the political spectrum, it is a good thing.

      What we don’t have enough of are the qualities of humanity, integrity, honesty, responsibility and fairness.

      Like

  7. My family and some friends, say I am a one eye Labor supporter and yes I will admit I am.
    Liberals only think of Big Business and self. Often they put workers down, always the workers fault if Business doing bad. Not because people high up CEO etc are getting Big wages etc..
    I have worked, a lot of different positions in my working life and a lot really not good or caring places for workers. If you do not work hard, sometimes dangerous jobs the door is there, you are told. Thank God for Unions.
    Where is the Compassion from Liberals. For those through not fault of their own have little to help theirselves. I live for a dream, that we are all equal and all work together. Am I asking to much?

    Like

    • No, Maureen, you are not asking for too much at all. I believe it is achievable.

      While I do consider myself a conservative in the sense of a proper liberal as they used to be, I believe unions are necessary in a capitalist economy. The scales of justice. We don’t need corrupt union officials, or unions that push for wage rises that result in job cuts and I have seen that happen over the years too. But there is a balance required between workers and investors interests.

      The safety aspect is of course paramount, but I know in many places senior management stress safety and zero harm but this doesn’t filter down the organisation. Diligence is needed at all levels.

      Liberals did have a compassionate culture in days gone by. Many individuals still do, but the official actions are now cruel and unconscionable. I look to see compassion reinvigorated.

      Like

  8. I admit to being one-eyed about the Dockers. And the environment because without it we are nothing. And human rights and the whole “do as you would be done by” thing. And Pete Seegar.

    And I love your monster!

    Like

  9. Brilliant Robyn, years ago as I became politically awake once more, a decade or so after the heady days of university politics, I searched for a party to join. I couldn’t bring myself to the join the Labor party because of their restrictions on speaking out once a caucus decision is made. I couldn’t bring myself to join the Liberal party because, in my mind, they weren’t Liberal anymore plus the whole ‘Monarchy’ thing because I’m a republican.
    I think there’s an opportunity for Labor to ditch its current policies on Asylum seekers and reinvent itself – heck its in opposition – now is the time to do that. Alternatively, there’s an opportunity for the Liberal Wets to make themselves heard, remember what being a Liberal was and cross the damn floor if you disagree with a policy. FYI A worthy read on crossing the floor is here: http://apo.org.au/commentary/crossing-floor-short-history
    I think both Parties are not what they were when they founded – both have drifted away, ever hungry for the political center which, sadly, has drifted progressively “to the right” over the last decade or more. I think we have grown complacent as a nation; the “center” worries about today and the “megaphones” of the Loonie Left and Zealot Right get the air-time because “crisis gets eyeballs”.

    Like

We love to hear your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: