More on Responsibilities..

Earlier this month I wrote a little about responsibilities, and last week there was a piece in the Australian making the same point:

The Aussie whinge has been around forever but is it getting worse and it is a symptom of something bigger. Modern Australians live in a cultural bubble. They have lost the art of self-reliance and think the Government has magically to fix things when they're overseas [...] Australians appear overwhelmingly inclined to take less responsibility: for our children, our old people, ourselves. We are our own chief responsibility, not that of the Government. Now we hear a great deal about the ultimate nanny state illusion. a new charter of rights, but nothing about a charter of responsibilities.

We live in the most blessed country on earth and we have inherited a great tradition. As free-born, relatively rich, English-speaking Australians, we have every right anyone has wanted in the history of the world. Our political life and society are the culmination of the benevolent vision of the great 19th-century English social reformers and of the colonial founding fathers. Australians don't need any more rights, especially phony ones. It is about time we cultivated a few responsibilities.

~~~~

Shorts..

On the quest for the (mythical) heroic leader (via The Independent):

Human beings are invariably flawed. Every person who is capable of moments of greatness is also capable of cruelty or stupidity. The only way to check this is for us to be constantly watching each other – even the best amongst us – and to never be blinded by admirable acts. We will never reach a point where we find the good leader and can sigh, sit back, and relax. If you care about the state of the world, you have to keep watching and pressuring and fighting, forever.

On social responsibility (via Alertnet):

[Is it] time for Media Social Responsibility? (something analogous to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), in which organisations consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, employees, communities and the environment).

[Sally Begbie in a recent conference] quoted Boutros Boutros Ghali - "CNN is the 16th member of the Security Council" - and while making clear that agencies must remember that the media always has ratings and readership to consider, she asked whether it was time for journalists to take on the idea that they too have a responsibility to give the voiceless a voice.

Here is details of the conference.

Making Poverty History

It was a banner year in 2005 for big speeches from global leaders about fighting third-world poverty. But if any of their promises are going to come close to being kept, 2006 must be a year of action [...] The world needs no more speeches in 2006 about global poverty. The six million children under 5 who die every year of diseases that can be easily and cheaply treated do not need more lofty goals. Nor do the 40 million young people still unable to go to school, or the 300 million Africans who lack access to clean water. The time for talking is over. Our resolution for the new year is to keep track of how many of last year's promises turn into something more than words.

New York Times, January 1, 2006
+++

Today is Julian day 2453738 or if you prefer, January 2, 2006.

Electioneering

Mark Latham, caused a little bit of a stir when he published his diaries recently. I am not sure that I am keen on reading them, but at the same time I suspect that within his book there will be kernels of truth, and understanding, of both the Australian Labor Party and Australian Politics. (Of course I might be giving Latham too much credit.)

I was perhaps a touch more interested when I read a speech Latham gave entitled 10 Reasons Why Young Idealistic People Should Forget about Organised Politics, and a responding article in The Age 10 Reasons Why Politics can be Great.

In sum, perhaps truth is in the middle. Politics can be both richly rewarding, and deeply distressing.

Mark Latham’s first point was public apathy. He broke the electorate down into for groups, those who are well informed “conservatives” or “progressives”, those who are “down and out, and for this reason distrust the Government”, and the apathetic middle class who vote from their wallet, but are largely disinterested.

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but I think contains at least a kernel of truth.

To be sure, politics is not a career you’d want to take a family through, given how ruthless and relentless elements of the media often are.

In the follow up piece, I guess the below kind of sums it up –

There's so much that needs to be done. Who got the children out of detention? Who freed the long-term detainees? Courageous Canberra politicians! Who's going to pass laws to cut greenhouse emissions? Who's going to get justice for our indigenous people? You! No one else can do it.

Sure politics may not be a fun-filled life, but it’s an area which cries out for idealists, to reform the system, and reform our society.

++

Before I leave the area of politics, I was thinking, about the debate surrounding our system of voting, and length of terms. Just thought I’d leave my two cents worth here. I like the idea of fixed terms; it means we know when we’re going to vote, and four year terms means that stuff could well get done.

I know you can’t legislate people to care about who, or what they vote about, but the least we can do, is make people need to show up, and perhaps mark a bit of paper.

The other thing in the debate that intrigues me is that in the reforms they are suggesting that those who have been incarcerated are ineligible to vote. I don’t think I like this idea because I think it makes on comment on those who are criminal as beyond rehabilitation.