Nutters
I'm scared! I am afraid! I really am frightened — that great superpower (the United States of America) is now being ruled by nutters — a cabal of nutters. Its president, and his mates (Richard Wolfowitz in particular) are talking of "taking out" countries with whom they disagree.
Defence secretary Rumsfeld is arguing for the possible resumption of underground nuclear testing and has his military scientists on standby for when the Administration decides to do so (Washington Post, January 8).
Bush and Wolfowitz have both told North Korea "to move back" from the Demilitarised Zone which for more than 40 years has been established between it and South Korea.
So what has changed?
When the Anti-Terrorist Coalition (NATO, etc) say "Hey! You're going a bit far; we don't think we can support these new proposals of yours", Bush and Co retort "We will get new supporters".
We — the people — know, or should know, how support is gained in these days of globalisation, World Bank, IMF etc: It's "Lean on 'em!"; "Bribe 'em!" "We expect this or that from you, or else we will have to reconsider or renegotiate that grant/loan/deal."
They scare me, but when, like most people, I'm frightened/afraid, I get an adrenalin rush and engage that frightening thing and take action. (I could have said "I fight back" but am trying to be peaceable.)
Everyone is justified in being scared when nutters are in control.
Hang on though; perhaps it is I whom am mad and they are perfectly sane.
Jim Knight
Kangaroo Creek NSW
SA election
Green Left (#479) has outdone the Murdoch press in its reporting of the South Australian elections since even the Adelaide Advertiser has been forced to cover the Greens' campaign this time. The Greens are standing 26 candidates, they have distributed 200,000 leaflets that highlight some of the important issues in this state, and they have a chance of winning a Legislative Council seat, but GLW failed to even mention them.
On the broader campaign, the article contains little information of any substance. Why do you bother to publish an article such as this which shows scant knowledge of the issues and is barely a token effort?
Paul Petit
Adelaide
SMH 'balance'
I would like to question the "balance" of letters printed on the refugee issue on the Sydney Morning Herald letters page. To lay my own cards on the table, I am against indefinite detention of asylum seekers, here, or on Nauru, or in PNG. It is shaming into despair or action citizens of this country, and pushing Australia into well-deserved pariah status.
It seems that the people having letters printed 'against' refugees come from a small group whose names come up again and again. The famous Ron Elphick of Buff Point springs to mind. Broadly there is a "balance" of those "for" and "against" asylum seekers or refugees. Why the "balance"? Why the equal space? Are the Herald letter writers really split 50/50?
The problem is that the argument never really moves on from the Monty Python "Yes it is; no it isn't" sketch. We should be onto, surely, how we are going to stop government sponsored misinformation campaigns, how we can get a more fearless press so reporters will stay firm outside Woomera and will investigate what the government is up to, and how, for heaven's sake, we will rehabilitate the people being victimised by Ruddock, Howard and company.
Stephen Langford
Paddington NSW
From Green Left Weekly, February 13, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.