Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Michael Park: "You may disagree all you wish Paul Morrella. I do not know just who it is you're disagreeing with. My observation was that the results are a little different in politics as in war."

When people pay the ultimate price in war, they die. When one pays a price in democratic politics, one moves on to a new career, retirement, etc. War and democratic politics are nowhere near similar. It's a ridiculous observation.

It didn't result in death in this case for the Coalition has no one in a position to challenge the foolhardy general that led them to utter embarrassment. Worse, it has no one palatable to the public.

In a war this would be called a failure to terminate - for whatever reason. During WWII it was because of an extra cold Russian winter, merely delaying the inevitable. It didn't entirely turn out the way it was expected.

Whilst you're in it, you can always win it.

Successful people never give up, and if this guy is all he thinks he is, he won't. Nor will he lose a core belief that he won't eventually triumph.

Politics is probably a tough career, I can think of a lot tougher, though. And the rewards (monetary and status) reflect the fact.

As to the "Dodgygate" phony email antic that cost Martin Hamilton-Smith his job as Liberal opposition leader in SA, the second leader ship spill this week apparently has produced another of his social conservative faction: the lawyer Isobel Redmond, as new party leader.

Paul Morrella, I don't entirely agree. I acknowledge your point that, like the social democratic impulse, the conservative, as opposed to reactionary, impulse is motivated by a rational aspiration and consciousness of reality.

One seeks improvement, the other the retention of a worthwhile base.

Both small c conservative and social democratic impulses are easily undermined during times of challenge leaving a Hobbesian, in the most negative sense, rump, if you like, typified at the extreme by people like Stalin and Hitler.

I understand and welcome the cautionary "don't expect too much too soon" approach, against the light of human nature sense of conservatism and happily acknowledge its part in my own outlook.

I understand that realism thru to pessimism can create a siege mentality that deteriorates into reactionary authoritarianism, the same as I can understand the "don’t fix it if ain't broke" commonsense approach a real conservatism.

In an odd way so-called leftist ideologies have the same approach, since they are also interested in the protection of a previously identified humanity, but these recognise the "alien" or threatening element as different to what some conservatives would identify it as. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

I like Aristotle's idea that the "polis" or community is the means for expression, fulfillment and emancipation of humans and celebrate discourse, even given the difficulties that arise from imperfect people failing to communicate clearly enough in their sharing of their always incomplete and limited experience and knowledge with others.

And I understand the cautionary approach discussed by Nietzsche, for example, that society and humanity being the shambles it and they are, self-protection is perfectly realistic, understandable and justifiable. It's just the laager mentality throughout politics that frustrates me it becomes so self-limiting.

I actually find much to gain from discourse with others, it's a very human impulse and we have a society full of people to care and share with, although misunderstandings are inevitable given our limitations.

Paul Walter: "Paul Morrella: "The most successful politicians are the most hated."

I wrote "conservative politicians". A big difference.

The subject of this person for one reason or another causes you over emotional feelings. There isn't a chance therefore of a rational exchange.

My original point still stands. That is that people make mistakes. Thankfully most don't then publicly denounce their life as a fraud and their position a sham  followed by ritual suicide or some such.

Successful people find ways of bouncing back from life's little tests. End of story.

Paul Morrella: "The most successful politicians are the most hated."

What are Paul's criteria for "success"?

Finding out ways for ripping off the community for the benefit of vested interests, by twisting the law thru deception and then backing this with the threat of the skewed law and beyond that, force?

No wonder they are hated.

Have just come from a report on 7:30 Report relating to Malcolm Turnbull's groggy response to his painful unmasking as to Utegate: a pitiful attempt at the resurrection of the ancient and dishonest Howard ploy of the "debt truck".

No doubt, by a reactionary reading, Turnbull would be "successful", if by this use of sleight of hand he was able to deceive the public into believing the debt myth and returning power to the plutocrats and their big end of town mates who created the conditions for any current recession thru their greed.

Fortunately, the ABC his not yet sold out all of its journalistic principles, in the way of the scum Murdoch press.

Ross Gittins, commenting, noted the Howard government oversaw the blowout of the far more significant foreign debt by a factor of three.

But we can now uncover the ideological underpinnings of the Turnbull's information on the basis of faulty ideology.

Turnbull represents neoliberal forces who oppose any scrutiny of big business from the point of view of community interest. The Americanised ideology opposes what it calls "big" (eg effective) government and resents even barely adequate funding of government, because this may thwart commercial exploitation of the community thru apt regulation and its enforcement!

We return to era of Cheney, Howard etc, where the squillions wasted on wars and tax cuts for the rich to disempower the rest of society dwarf the $billions employed by Keynesians thru fiscal stimulus, on the basis of civilised considerations, against wholesale poverty-inducing misappropriation that enables the neoliberal "disciplining" of the workforce, while the economic hijackers look on gleefully, safe in their walled-off mansioned estates.

Michael Park: "Oh indeed Paul Morrella, indeed. And, in general, that's how it works. It is often a little different in politics as in war. It can get you killed."

I disagree that politics works on a different principle. The principle for success is universal. Perhaps this person is treating it as if it is different, and perhaps that's his problem?

What was a strength for one yesterday, doesn't become a weakness today.

The biggest mistake a politician (or any occupation) can make is allowing self-doubt through the mask or worse, start believing it yourself. If one can't believe in one's self, who else can believe in one?

The most successful "conservative" politicians are the most hated. They revel in that hatred. They gain strenght and draw upon those negative feelings. For successful conservative politicians the level of hate is a reflection of success - a bit like a lawyer really. The conservative side of politics is the bad cop role. It always has been and it always will be. That's just the way it is.

My advice: if you're going to pick bad cop, be the biggest, baddest cop on the block. Politics like all things works in cycles, and there will come a time (as sure as night follows day) when people just want some heads smacked. He should start building his portfolio as of today.

For Jay Somasundaram let me say that there may well be an invisible hand at work in the oh so sage and world weary philosophy below.  This philosopher has two hands - one visible above the desk and the other invisible below the desk and both working feverishly.  

For all our sakes I fervently hope that the invisible hand is more productive of a better result than the one operating the keyboard.

Jay Somasundaram, there are those that "get back on that horse", and there are those that don't. You will soon find out (a good thing) what category the person in question should be placed.

A foundation for Paul Morrella and others free market philosophy which we all would share, is the concept of reward for (genuine) effort.

Most certainly I'm a believer in the concept. Whilst such a concept isn't perfect (we are human after all), life has a very curious habit of self balancing over the long run. What I'm trying to say is that generally (and there is some very big exceptions), we end with what we deserve (truly earned). Money is of course only a very small part of any final audit.

Hmm, a bit of further musing on this.

A foundation for Paul Morrella and others free market philosophy which we all would share, is the concept of reward for (genuine) effort.

Triple M radio this morning reported that a WD old soldier, Richard Tonkin, who apart from his day job of moderating Webdiary, is the "Gov" Hindmarsh" pub licensee as a sort of after thought or hobby, has had his efforts in making his operation an enjoyable experience for his public acknowledged in the awarding of yet another annual "Best Venue" award from the state Hotels Association.

A reward happens for genuine effort in the cause of facilitating social experience, rather than for just harming others. The Hotels Association is happy to be associated with something that encourages music and friendship rather than just profiteering, beer-swilling violence. The right image at the right time, thru a bit of forethought.

There's a difference , I reckon, that emphasises the meaning of reward for effort. It involves intent, forethought, work- "character"- and outlook.

Congrats, Richard!

Jay, you can't see why it is wrong to try to ruin someone using confected evidence?

Hypothetically, you are at work and someone steals the secretary's purse. But the person who stole it, stole it not for the money, but to plant it in your desk so as to get you later sacked for the theft.

But Paul Morrella has moved the topic on a little with a little context involving a rueful contemplation of Grech-gate within the wider the scheme of things. After all, only Turnbull himself has been injured, altho as badly as he sought to injure Rudd (quite unjustly), thru the employ of an apparently confected email drummed up on cue from his opposition treasury mole, Grech, on riding orders from above.

So his apparent Keystone idiocy came unstuck thru slack technique. Like the Coyote after Roadrunner, caught out slapstick on one of his own tricks, he is a laughing stock even amongst his own troops.

But even if above comments re Turnbull do remain just supposition, consider how the clumsiness of the antic damages democracy thru the loss of credibility of the opposition leader who cried "wolf".

There may come a time in the future when the opposition may want to alert the public on something real, heaven forbid, and everyone will laugh it off as just another of Malcolm's merry pranks.

Nah, it is likely a learning experience. But it could, on a different level, be about character, but also the possible manifestation of a situation where "character" is impacted upon thru the operating of a possible personality disorder, and I for one find that perturbing- the lesson won't be learnt!

Michael Park: "This is a monumental cock-up from confected email to incredulous chronology. Turnbull, in typical fashion, took the crash through or crash approach. The result being his crumple zones are now clearly on display."

There isn't any shame in such an approach to life. It's a winning approach. Unfortunately (for those who take it) no human wins all the time. The "non-wins" are hence called lessons.

My late (and great) grandfather once shared with me these wise words: never to be afraid of failure, not ever - only those who've never known, and will never know success, fear failure.

This thread may be about politics, however, it could really be about anything.

I really can't understand what all the fuss is about.

Exactly what has Turnbull done that is so wrong? Considering the normal behaviour of Parliamentarians, Turnbull and Rudd calling for each other's resignations is actually pretty mild.

Actually what laws were broken that the AFP is investigating? Was the Official Secrets Act broken? Was there an intent to commit fraud? Or will they need to go looking with a microscope into some obscure corner of the Telecommunciations Act to find something to charge the poor bugger with?

The real issue is the 'mates' game played by all politicians, with public servants spending their time trying to get favours done for the well connected.

Afraid, also, must disgree with Fiona, after Michael Park.

It was not a cock-up as to intent, although it was a cock up as to efficiency.

It was malicious and that's what makes the downfall so much more piquant(and picaresque). As with Macbeth, we find nothing in the way of a redeeming feature: no idealism, no desire to make the world a better place, no concern for justice- just a desire to ruin someone else and seize power, for no good purpose, regardless of any harm done.

The world their playground?

Not.

While a cock-up is more likely than a conspiracy most of the time, there are several delicious possibilities concerning the concocted (confected?) email.

The scenario that attracts me most is whether the intended victim of the affair is Mr Turnbull - with the author(s) of the email being at least peripherally associated with one or both of the Coalition parties.

Media Watch this evening intimated that also we (yet again!!) need also be turning to contemplation of the machinations of that vile incorporation the Murdoch press.

But despite the ethics involved, involving the now obvious manifest malicious smearing of an innocent person’s (Rudd’s) reputation (by the evidence, thus far), the Murdoch Flacks remain tight lipped to the point of suffocation and willing to suffer death before honour, which is to say normal. Actually several across civil service, press, government and opposition; even Grech himself, who may yet being made an absolute patsy, or even other reputations now at stake given certain more exotic scenarios out working as true. Not least News limited's own now long-soiled reputation, as also incompetent or/and malicious.

But at least we have been a pre-prime ministerial peek at the real Turnbull and some of his accomplices, unless their is U-turn in the evidence trend, and can breathe a sigh of relief that someone was alert enough to discover that the email was forged and/or dodgy, to provide Australia with this glimpse.

The police evidence, after Rudd had already claimed that investigations showed it did not originate from his department in any forensic form, appears to demand that malicious people unknown be brought to account prior to sources being protected in this case, since, as MW pointed out, the source’s intention was to maliciously deceive.

Grech, at least, would be very uncomfortable at this news, but we shall see.

One supposes it will end up being about what can or cannot be proven, but I think the serried ranks of the Right are decimated at this time, from go to woe – we contemplate right wing dishonesty; right wing since it extends right across the board, as perhaps a cultural or even pathological function – at least one inimical with what Webdiarists would regard as human, let alone civilised, behaviour.