The debate (and you know which debate)

was something I did not see. I could have watched it. Our international broadcaster had it there for all of us to watch if we so wished. 

I considered doing just that - and then reconsidered. The "highlights" would be there on the evening news. Nothing was going to change. I am not going to vote in the US elections.  I have had enough of politics already this week.

And yes, I did see some highlights on the evening news - or perhaps I should say "lowlights". The debate needed discipline, depth and good manners. All three were lacking. 

Is this really the best that they can manage?

I usually do squirm during election debates from anywhere. I have had to watch a few in my time. Here I watch them because I know I am bound to be told "s/he said" or "s/he said" and I believe it is better to know for myself what was actually said. Often nothing is really said at all. Politicians are expert at that. 

One of our columnists managed to get something glaringly wrong in their piece this morning. I heard the exact opposite on the news last night. No, I am not mistaken. There is a clip still there with the candidate saying just what I thought he was saying.  Never mind. I am sure most people who read the paper will believe the columnist instead. 

Along with hearing what we want  or hope to hear this is a problem.  Reporters are supposed to give us the news, inform us as to the actual facts. Columnists are permitted to have opinions. Apparently I am mistaken in my belief that columnists need to have their facts correct. 

I have had a fair bit of politics this week. There was the discussion around whether the Minister for Health in the neighbouring state should have resigned and (even more importantly) who knew what and who ordered what.  I was sent some important information that has not yet made it to the media - and probably won't. The other story line is simply too good - the "nobody knows anything" line is one that could run for sometime.  It is the line which will sell papers.

Cardinal Pell has gone off to Rome and that has set the divisive debate about his guilt or innocence and what he knew or didn't know going again. There are also rumours flying around about why he has gone  - and no, it isn't to "clear out his flat". Someone else could easily do that.  (He has gone back for reasons associated with his former job.)

Someone else I actually know has quietly resigned a position because he is seriously ill. The person who suggested wrongdoing is going to be in a very awkward position soon - but it makes a good story in the meantime.

There are more rumours around that and other rumours around similar issues here. I really don't need to know but people who do know these things keep hoping I will help. "Write a letter Cat!" 

Sometimes I do not wish to write letters.