Here we go again
John Richardson writes: Re. “Time for Dutton to go” (Monday). While most will be delighted to welcome Crikey back for what promises to be yet another year of rollicking political burlesque Oz-style, I’m concerned that the Boss’s apparent preoccupation with the standards of behaviour of our politicians & governments could mean that we are all in for a very long and frustrating year.
It seems that Crikey is operating under the spectacular misapprehension that politicians and governments should conduct themselves with the best interests of taxpayers in mind. While only Crikey can know where it stumbled upon this rather quaint expectation, certainly the quicker it gets with the program and accepts the reality that today’s politicians and governments unapologetically act in the best interests of those who have bought and paid for them and no-one-else; the better-off they’ll be.
Whether it be ministerial behaviour, the treatment of whistleblowers, defending the meek & defenceless, pursuing corruption, addressing genuine “tax reform”, or accessing Uncle George’s metadata, appearance has triumphed over substance and sadly our politicians and governments no longer feel compelled to explain their actions, let alone justify them; least of all to the masochistic taxpayers who stubbornly fund their own ongoing abuse.
On Briggs and power
Richard Middleton writes: Re. “Speaking power to truth in the Briggs affair” (Monday). Bernard, yet another excellent piece of writing . However, even though I do not know any of the people involved, I do feel inclined to make answer on your re failure to put names to comments.
This is not one sided behaviour, if you have been following the furore that erupted on New Matilda when one hapless writer was so misguidedly bold as to suggest that perhaps a little bit of courtesy was not amiss when discussing these sort of issues.
This was actually in response to one particularly rabid neo-wave feminist who really is a sort of new age feminist Andrew Bolt (ugh) and uses vulgar and profane comments to make her very one sided points.
This fairly mild suggestion from a sympathetic man provoked a massive response. Many were anonymous and really comments that would be enough to make even the most hardened journalist’s toes curl. Almost all indicated that the writer had not really thought too hard before typing. Curiously, the majority of the named supporters in this vein were apparently men. Of course, they could well have been going for “pussy points”.
Just out of interest, how are men and women supposed to show a healthy interest in each other in this new age Australian Utopia?