“We can’t take all these illegals, Australia is full!”
“Full of racists, you mean!”
OK, we know where this dialogue is going. The words “Nazi” and “bleeding heart” will be tossed around, but rarely do people ever go beyond abuse once a dialogue starts this way. Personally, I try to focus on the issues rather than simply resorting to abuse like those fascist bastard right wingers do! (See, Andrew Bolt, two can play at that game.) But every now and then it’s fun to bait the angry.
Of course, a lot of things are fun. It doesn’t make them right. We all need to demand higher standards of ourselves – except for Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt who always rise to the highest standards. (No-one can accuse me of lacking balance!)
And so, I write this in a state of some confusion. I’m no Julia Gillard groupie, but I admire her courage and toughness, and I do think that she’s been harshly treated. And I suspect that if I’d gone to school with Rudd, I’d have eventually been so annoyed by him that I’d have rubbed his face in the dirt, until someone pointed out that I’m actually a pacifist, and that I actually agreed with the first statement he made.
Having been on social media, read the paper, listened to the radio, watched TV and, generally, heard the forces of Abbott gloat as though they’d actually won the last election, I must confess: I like watching Rudd restore some sense of reality to these wanna-be “Tea Party” losers. They may still lose! Ha!
Of course, the whole asylum seeker issue disturbs me greatly. So let’s start with the things we agree about.
- It would be better if people didn’t travel to Australia on unsafe boats.
I’m pretty sure that no-one will disagree with that. The “Stop the Boats Nazis” and “The Bleeding Hearts” and everyone in between.
The question is what is our second point of agreement. Can we agree that a strong deterrent will work? Well, if the strong possibility of drowning isn’t a strong deterrent, what is? So I doubt that will be the second point of agreement. From this point of agreement we spread off in different directions. Some complain that Rudd is no better than Howard. Others gloat that he’s removed an electoral positive from Tony. Yet others say that he’s admitted the Liberals were right. And finally, we have Abbott’s: It’s a good policy, but we think he’ll muck it up, because that’s all we’ve got now.
Will there be number two?
I’d like to think that we could agree to find the best solution possible. That people will be treated humanely, that we won’t resort to slogans. And that something better is possible, providing we think about it.
I mean, actually think, and not resort to emotive language, whichever side you’re on!
- _________________________
Good luck and good wishes.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
There’s no confusion Rossleigh, Australia is full, suffers from ailments like less rainfall, lower dam water-levels, bigger droughts, country towns have no industry and aging populations, unemployment is really high & people living on the coal face are pissed off to the max because nobody in power seems to recognise the reality of the have-nots & that those on the coal face don’t feel safe anymore. For me, the sooner our capitalist system fails the sooner we will have a system that demands care for people and planet mean more than a bank balance. Couldn’t we gauge wealth by the measure of people’s intelligence, common-sense and problem solving skills. Homeless people in Beijing shit in the streets and for the life of me I can’t understand why our leaders want to take us there. Yep, Australia is full enough. Cheers Jean Waddell