Why do we give these people air time?

At around this time every year there is a vocal minority group which gets more air time than the majority view. "Research" is carefully done to support their point of view - and, believe me please, you can get whatever answer you want if you know a little about how "research" is done in the social sciences. Pick and choose your victims, carefully construct the questions and more if  you want to make sure you get the result you want.  (Have you ever wondered why most "political research" doesn't give you the opportunity to  say "none of the above" or does not give you a figure for "refused to answer"?)

Around now we get complaints about Downunder's national holiday being "invasion" day. We get demands for Downunder to "become a republic", to change the flag, to change the national anthem, to be rid of the states (or to break away from the rest of the country). We get demands to let everyone who wants to come here in or keep most people out. 

Many of these demands are made by people who actually know better - but it suits their political agenda. They are adept at getting publicity. Some of them are now so well known they simply have to make any utterance for the media to fall all over them and each other in an attempt to make as much of it as possible. A much more measured and careful response by someone who does not fit into the political agenda will be ignored.

I thought of all this yesterday when the young woman chosen to be last year's person of the year made it very plain she was not happy about having to appear with the present Prime Minister. She was actually praised by some in the media for her manner towards him.  Yes, they have an agenda. They want him to lose the upcoming election. He has been criticised unmercifully about all manner of things. Most of it is hearsay and there is precious little evidence for it - if any. I suspect much of it stems from the fact that he is open about his membership of a "charismatic" religious group - and that is seen as somehow "not on" by many people. It is also easy to ignore where responsibilities really lie if it suits a political agenda. Let's blame an unpopular Prime Minister for the failures of the states - just be careful not to let people know who has responsibility for what under the Constitution.

I have met and had dealings with more than one Downunder Prime Minister. One had to be told by his wife "and be polite to her" when I was introduced to him. Another pushed me out of the way and refused to have me employed because "I'm not having anyone with a disability in a position like that". Another ignored a serious situation that resulted in the death of someone I had been asked to help. (My nephew saw another Prime Minister drunk and breaking glasses at a private function with the previously mentioned one - but it was never reported even though a number of journalists were present.)

There have been two I can respect as much as I am ever likely to respect someone in that position. The first brought in measures which made everyone much safer. He was unfailingly polite and courteous in my dealings with him. The second listened to another serious problem, listened to the possible solution and then implemented it. Later still he wrote a letter in support of me, a letter not composed by one of his minions but with a personal account in it. He was unfailingly polite and courteous - despite a certain infamous (and carefully edited) speech by another Prime Minister.

I have had no direct dealings with the present Prime Minister. If I had to meet him I hope I would shake hands or bump elbows or something similar and that I would be polite. To do anything would be to betray the people on whose behalf I would be meeting him.