The Alternative to The Sydney Morning Herald letters page

There is a disturbing trend in reporting in The Sydney Morning Herald. On the one hand we are witnessing an apparent editorial policy that dictates that all headlines featuring Kevin Rudd must show him to be active, decisive, striding, leading, managing, burning the midnight oil, berating the public service, etc.

In Japan, for example, Rudd “dishes up the charm smorgasbord”, “turns tables on his critics” and even “orders anger management for (Belinda) Neal”. A real super-human, he is. He can even perform death-defying feats of decision-making while in a far-away land. Pity that the idiot has about as much decisiveness as the pre-1939 Neville Chamberlain and that his determination on important issues extends to little more than establishing enquiries, commissions, research studies and other really complex analysis.

Then, on the other hand, we witness Herald reporters who appear to be going out of their way to give Mr Rudd excuses before he has a need to use them. A case in point is one Peter Hartcher (pictured), that erstwhile purveyor of deep, sophisticated political commentary, who has reached the apex of journalistic analysis by reminding his readers that Kevin really isn’t responsible for anything that is happening around him at the present time.

The particular sentence that brought about my ire was this: “Although he (Rudd) was careful never to actually promise to cure inflation, he certainly gave the impression that he could do something about it.” Then, a little later in the article, he gets to a real nadir (well he got to the top, so he might as well have got the bottom as well) in journalistic professionalism by inviting Mr Rudd to “treat the Australian people as adults; take (them) into his confidence…and explain that he can help manage it, but he cannot turn the tide of global (inflation) (”Rudd needs to dismount to ride this wave”, The Sydney Morning Herald, June 14, 2008).

Peter, to my young ears, not only did Rudd promise to cure inflation, he said he would save the world from global warming, skill-up every dumb-ass 16 year-old school leaver to the point that he could fly a 747 and turn every Australian university into a Harvard. Yet, unlike Mr Hartcher, I didn’t believe Mr Rudd; and the more I see of Rudd’s bluff, bluster and megalomania, the more convinced I am that we voted in a turkey.

Furthermore, can you imagine Hartcher ever having said the same thing to John Howard - I mean actually offer Mr Howard a reason to break an election promise and get away with it? In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, didn’t Mr Hartcher fail to remind electors that Mr Howard himself never promised to keep interest rates low. The reality is that Howard was careful to never say anything more than he would keep rates below those of Labor when they were in power. Just a pity that one Coalition election ad, withdrawn very soon after it first aired, referred to keeping rates at record lows. Yet that is what Labor and their media fellow-travellers like to remember, not Howard’s own personal comments.

And, of course, Hartcher never quite got around to saying that Mr Howard was ‘careful to never promise that he would keep rates low…’ Pity we don’t have any journalists in the Herald who are professional enough to treat their political targets equitably and with impartiality. Peter Hartcher - what a knallkopf.

- Justin Verity
North Rocks, NSW

Because of the distribution by paedophiles of photos featuring nude children, it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether Bill Henson’s photos constitute an art form, or are a potentially titillating experience for voyeurs with paedophilic inclinations.

Depicting youngsters in the nude is hardly a new thing: during the Italian Renaissance (1500-1600), young nude boys were featured in many paintings, including those that had a Christian theme. The Italian painter, Raphael, painted nude cherubs (’celestial beings’); Jesus, too, was frequently depicted as a nude baby. A few centuries later, many Western painters depicted nude adolescent boys engaged in everyday activities without erotic overtones.

Professional photographers such as America’s Sally Mann and Britain’s David Hamilton photographed many nude children and adolescents for displays in art galleries. However, not everyone agrees that such photographs should have been legal even though they portrayed young subjects in an artistic manner, the child models had not been sexually abused, and the photographers had received permission from the kids’ parents or guardians.

Critics equate all photos of nude young children as a form of child pornography, and therefore are squarely against such photos being displayed in public galleries. Might the problem lie in many modern titillation-saturated citizens’ inclination to see naked human beings of any age as bodies, rather than as respect-deserving human beings minus their clothes? (Bill Henson is pictured above.)

- Henk Verhoeven
Beacon Hill, NSW

Although I am not a Catholic, I believe that Chris McGillion is confusing representative democracy with religion (“Papal pill remains a Mass turnoff”, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 23). He seems to believe that religious denominations should adopt the views of their adherents rather than those of God.

The role of religion is not to function as some sort of mirror reflecting back to heaven the views of mankind so God can adjust his opinions accordingly. Rather, religion is by definition a theocracy in which God reveals his unchanging truths through his representatives on earth. In the case of the Catholic Church these individuals are the pope and the cardinals. It is up to the people to decide whether they will abide by those Godly revelations or not.

And, if Chris took the trouble to examine Australian census data a little more closely, he would see that those faiths that are losing numbers fastest are those that are attempting to be just like the world around them. By contrast, those that are doctrinal anchors in the midst of the turbulent sea of the contemporary world are largely retaining their numbers. In fact, many of these faiths are growing substantially. Trendy social mores were never a substitute for true religion.

History is littered with the sad tales of those who have ignored God’s revealed will. So, even if a faith was to lose all of its members, that is not God’s problem nor his fault. It is the problem of those who have chosen to adopt a lifestyle that brings instant pleasure but that eventually ends up providing long-term pain.

- R. Hansen
Fisher, ACT

I have recently returned from Canberra where, thanks to an invitation from former First Ordnance Field Park members, I was present at two ceremonies hosted by the Australian Government. These ceremonies recognised those present at the longest and most costly battles experienced by Australians during the Vietnam War. Forty years after the Battles of Coral and Balmoral, veterans from the Infantry and Support Services who were present, were finally thanked by the Australian Government for their commitment and service. The names of 26 soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in these almost month long operations were read out in respect.

The battles of Coral/Balmoral were notable historical events, not just because of the length and intensity of the battles. These battles were some of the first in which infantry and tanks recognised how well they could work together. They overcame their friendly rivalry and gained respect for each other. I noted to a veteran that I felt as if I was sneaking a peak at history. He replied that these commemorative occasions were not just recognising historical events, but the occasions themselves were historical. Forty years is a long time to wait for recognition. He also confided to me that this recognition from the Australian Government meant more to him than the Welcome Home Parade in 1987.

The days following the Parliament House Dinner and the Battle of Coral/Balmoral 40th Anniversary Commemorative Service held in Anzac Parade, I scoured the newspapers looking for articles on either of the events. Except for one article in a local Canberra paper there was nothing!

How much longer will we continue to ignore the men and women the Australian Government sent to Vietnam? Why does the London premiere of a film about four fictitious promiscuous women get more media coverage than the Australian Government’s first-ever public recognition of these battles? How public is this recognition if only the veterans and their families know about it due to lack of media coverage? What did they do to deserve our continual rejection? They were sent! They went and served in such a way as to gain respect as soldiers from the VC commanders. And yet we snuck them back into Australia under the cover of darkness and have tried to keep them there.

If you subjected yourself to gunshot fire to save another person, how would you feel if you had to wait 40 years to be thanked? When a gunman went on a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, witnesses spoke of the terror they felt for a couple of hours not knowing if, when or where he might appear again. Those at Coral and Balmoral lived with this same fear every day and night for weeks and yet when the Australian Government finally acknowledges them, our media thinks it is not newsworthy.

In his speeches, Prime Minister Rudd stated, “For those whose service to the nation through this terrible war has not been properly honoured by government, I express regret.” He also said that Australians, “have not always been good at thanking our Vietnam veterans. In fact at, times we’ve been very bad at it.” From my point of view we still are “very bad at it!”

- Kim Kirk
Tamworth, NSW

With the Sydney Morning Herald popping up as my homepage every time I log on to the web, I was absolutely disgusted to read the headline about the junta in Burma refusing to let aid workers into the worst-affected areas of the country after the recent natural disaster. I doubt that I am the only person to think that surely this would constitute an act against humanity.

Instead of sitting on its hands waiting, or trying to talk the aid through, surely the combined forces of the United Nations could be brought to bear in a much more assertive way against the Burmese government. Obviously it is using its own internal propaganda machine to score browny points against any opposition parties by saying ‘Look what we are doing - aren’t we good people’, with the purpose of holding onto power.

But, do the Burmese authorities really think that the rest of the world’s population are that unintelligent that we don’t know what they are up to? Haven’t these people heard of satelites with cameras in them? After all, they are supposed to be militarily-trained, aren’t they?

The military rulers know full well that the normal, compassionate people of the world will still donate. No doubt they have their greedy little eyes on the goodies that they can fill their homes with before the dregs make it to the people who really need the humanitarian assistance. One woman interviewed on a television news program during the week was told by the soldiers to “return home”. Yet, that is somewhat difficult when her whole village probably doesn’t exist any more.

After the days of Pol Pot and his ilk, I had thought that ruthless dictators may have been a dying breed, but obviously not. The Burmese authorities may not have deliberately killed three million people as in the case of the Cambodian slaughter of a few decades ago. Yet, through deliberate neglect and pure maladminstration, the Burmese authorities are committing genocide against tens of thousands of their own citizens, just as did the Khmer Rouge.

The people of Burma are now living on borrowed time, so please give them a thought tonight when you are tucked up in bed with a full stomach. Many will be dying as you are reading this from air- and water-born disease. We have homeless people in our country, as does every other nation in the world, but we are not talking about a few hundred or even a few thousand in Burma. There the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents are at stake.

- Geoff Horne
Newcastle, NSW

Dear Mr Rudd (aka Robin Hood)

I am writing this letter today to vent my anger at you, your party and your budget. This letter is from a citizen who doesn’t meet your government’s ‘working families’ criteria. I only hope you get to read it and think about it for a second or two.

I am embarrassed and ashamed! I am embarrassed and ashamed to be a hard-working 38 year-old single woman earning $119K per annum and Australian. As I was growing up, my father always instilled in me that anything in life is achievable. Yet, to achieve great things requires a lot of hard work. Nothing comes for free!

So, with this cultural background and understanding in mind, I’ve spent the last 20 years or so of my adult life living the continual improvement philosophy. I have self-funded all of my education and continually sought better career opportunities. To this end I’ve enjoyed a little success; I have a terrific position as a Risk Manager and work for a terrific company. Whilst I believe ‘luck’ has played a hand in my small success, I’ve also worked bloody hard over the years to achieve it, proving that I have been able to stand-out and be deserving of career opportunities. I refer to this as a ‘can do’ approach to life.

I managed (eventually) to buy my house in February 2007, on my own. However, I drive what the government considers to be a luxury vehicle; thank god I bought it two years ago. I won’t be updating as planned. I’ve been very proud of this and other accomplishments and now feel so ashamed of what I have. With your Robin Hood ’steal from the rich to give to the poor’ approach to the budget, I feel as if you think I don’t deserve it.

Sadly, I’ve been unlucky in love. At 38, I still haven’t found a soul-mate to share a life with and breed 2.3 children. Furthermore, at 38, even if I find a soul-mate in the next year or so, it’s all too late for me. So, as is the case with an increasing number of Australians, I will never fit your ‘working family’ philosophy. Thanks, but no no thanks, for considering us in your party policies and, oh, of course your budget.

- Chantal Wiessner
Kincumber, NSW

Australian working families will eventually rue the day they elected the Rudd government. The health insurance changes will dramatically alter the finely-tuned balance that exists between the public and private systems. They are about the most irresponsible actions of any government in recent memory.

The former federal government had it just about right. As demonstrated in the graph to the right, the Medicare surcharge and other policy decisions ensured that large numbers of people elected to enter the private system for the first time. We then saw a concurrent reduction in the load on public health care, something that occurred in spite of the poor management of the system by state governments.

Now, with only those on very high incomes being forced to pay the Medicare surcharge, tens of thousands of people will re-enter the public system and will bring it to its knees.

The Rudd government is going out of its way to distance itself from the policies of the former government. Previously there was little but symbolism and empty jargon and cant from them. Now, they are stepping off into the great unknown with the introduction of a real policy that will have real results. The trouble is the results will involve penalising ordinary wage earners, just the people who, mesmerised by Rudd’s empty promises before the last election, helped bring him to power.

- Name withheld
Dural, NSW

I do not know if other people out there feel the same way but I confess I am sick to death of governments (both State and Federal) crying for Australian Working Families!

Certainly, Labor governments must pay obeisance and genuflect before their union bosses but has it ever occurred to them that there are others in Australia as well. Kevin Rudd said he was going to govern Australia for all Australians. But all of his efforts are targeted at “Australian Working Families”. What about the sick, disabled, carers, pensioners and, dare I say it, the unemployed? Are they not also suffering from high fuel and food prices?

Wayne Swan has also caught the repitition disease. In his case, there are these monotonous, tiresome, sad comments about “inflation”. Ah yes, the poor little man has to find some way to differentiate those presently in power from the former government. Or at least find some method of suggesting that the former government didn’t do all it was supposed to do in running the economy. But most Australians know his comments are really nothing more than a fabrication. Inflation is caused by much more than just government spending. There is such a thing as the resources boom which is pushing huge amounts of money through the economy at the present time and fuelling price pressures. The former government did little to cause the present problems.

So, the reality is that Mr Swan is merely talking down the economy with his comments about inflation. To me the only inflationary issue is associated with the size of his mouth. Has someone thought to tell him that, now he is in government, his goal should be to talk UP the economy, NOT talk it down. Granted he may not know what he is doing but there must be someone - be it an advisor or some other official - that can give him a heads up!

It’s funny to me how people are currently saying how bad the media is in Burma because of its pro- government, one-sided, views. The sad thing is that, in Australia at the moment, our media are no different. They collectively have bought the government’s spiel, hook, line and sinker. Surely, there must be one media outlet here (other than this one) that can return to professional analytical journalism and, for the good of Australia, start telling some home truths.

- Peter McLean
Longreach, QLD

With a friend like Jodie Power (pictured), you certainly don’t need any enemies. Sounds like a good old cat fight to me and, unfortunately, the ham in the sandwich is Schapelle Corby. Schapelle certainly doesn’t need this kind of attention. Her sister, Mercedes, should have known better than to take her best buddy on in the courtroom, especially with the kinds of revealing claims and counter-claims being presented to the court. Can’t wait to see who wins this battle of the (very expensive) barristers.

- Russell O’Brien
Coogee, NSW

Why are we bombarded day-after-day with sordid news stories on our television channels? A case in point is that of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian incest criminal. It went on for at least five days in a row. Each time I had to change channels to something more benign.

Are there really so many people out there that salivate over these news stories? Or is it the media people themselves? Perhaps they are the ones doing the salivating. Beneath their shocked facades, deep down they’re really enjoying it all. We do not need to hear this stuff. Can we clean up the stories in our news, please?

- Peter Theobald,
Mosman, NSW

Thank you to Michael Duffy for being brave enough to expose the contradictions arising from recent global warming statistics (“New climate figures would make a great debate - if anyone reported them”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 May). The fact that the fall in global temperatures over the last few years has gone unreported reflects the concerns that many have regarding the legitimacy of the science behind global warming.

What is evident is that there has been a collective disregard for pure scientific method by otherwise intelligent researchers as they have fallen over themselves in the headlong rush to ‘prove’ that global warming is man-made. Scientific method requires objectivity and even scepticism in any experimental study. All possibilities need to be explored for observed phenomena, not just one.

Unfortunately, however, a shroud of experimental ignorance seems to have fallen over the scientific community in the last decade. Systematic examination of every reason for global warming has been replaced by a new scientific orthodoxy in which only one view - that man-made increases in atmospheric carbon are at fault - is acceptable. Any alternative options are not only ignored but utterly condemned. We should probably give this a new name: the ‘witches of Salem’ scientific method. If you know the story surrounding those sad 17th Century events, you will understand precisely what I mean.

Let us hope that the shroud of experimental ignorance lifts before governments spend billions of dollars, and impose harsh financial imposts on consumers, in correcting a problem that doesn’t really exist. Man-made global warming is a myth, and is as crazy as the one that seized the scientific community over the so-called Y2K computer bug.

- Name withheld
Dural, NSW

The problem with any “root and branch” taxation review when conducted by a party of the left is that it is often a means of engaging in a Robin Hood exercise by stealth. While Kevin Rudd, the avowed conservative, may spout cliches about the need to be globally competitive (“In business: Rudd’s tax pledge”, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 22), the risk is that his liberal-leaning colleagues will clamour for a re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through a reimposition of a harsh progressive taxation regime.

While some form of progressive taxation is essential, the Howard government was particularly successful in making the taxation system far more equitable than it was under previous Labor governments. They increased net income in real terms for the poor but ensured that all income earners were not penalised through punitive taxation when higher income levels were achieved.

A further fear is that another substantial Coalition reform - which provided options for women to remain in the workforce or to be full-time home-makers - will be abandoned through the dumping of the family taxation measures. It has been evident for some time that the feminist collective has been chafing at the bit to remove these measures because the idea of women remaining at home to care for their children deeply offends their ideological sensibilities.

The Howard government created some of the most significant changes to taxation policy in the modern era and Mr Rudd is engaging in yet another symbolic, but meaningless, gesture to demonstrate that he is somehow different to his predecessors. Symbolism was never a subsitute for real action.

- Name withheld
Dural, NSW

I have worked extensively with Jeff Gambin at Just Enough Faith (JEF) and can tell you with one hand on the Bible and the other on my mother’s gravestone that this man is the salt of the earth. He hasn’t had the time in the past (don’t forget these figures are years old) to bury his head in ledgers and accounting books as he literally busts his guts daily feeding Sydney’s needy - something he has done for over a decade - WITHOUT MISSING A SINGLE DAY!

Was this a mistake? Yes. But remember the only money that went through the pokies was his own. If you have any doubts about this man’s good will and intentions, feel free to join me for a day at his kitchen and the feeding van in the evening. My mobile number is 0412 476 664. And please remember, don’t judge a man till you’ve walked a mile in his shoes - or been on A Current Affair or in the papers, for that matter.

- Margareth Dige
Cherrybrook, NSW

(NB. An edited version of this letter also appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald (“Faith in Gambin”, April 28. Jeff Gambin appears above with his wife, Alina.)

Yes, John Tuckfield, Islam and Christianity are still religions, and representative democracy is indeed a secular political system (see “Democratic gods”, Sydney Morning Herald letters, April 17 ).

It is also true that America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson (portrait at right), established a central government that was to stay clear of the domain of theology. Keep in mind, though, that he had been able to do so with considerable Christian support. Also note that Jefferson and his supporters, wittingly or unwittingly, were reflecting Christ’s advice to keep separate the domains of Caesar and God.

Yet, Jefferson still insisted that religious faith was the very foundation of liberty. There had been no intention to erect a “wall of separation” to insulate the central government from the province of morality and its sources.

These days, U.S. courts frequently interpret the original concept of separation of church and state as meaning that religion has no place in the public arena, or that religion-inspired morality should not be permitted to shape laws. U.S. secularists are intent upon emptying the public square of religion and religion-based morality. It looks as though quite a few Australians would like our nation to follow that very same path.

- Henk Verhoeven
Beacon Hill, NSW

Recently there were many letters in the Sydney Morning Herald protesting the plan by the Sisters of St Joseph to sell things to offset costs related to World Youth Day.

Looking at the photos in the Herald, I recognised handmade products from Peru and East Timor (“Pay to pray: the saints come cashing in”, Herald, April 8). These are Fair Trade products from projects which give women in those countries employment and income, changing the lives of their families for the better.

Is this a bad outcome?

- Alix Mandelson
Paddington, NSW