Those who know me well enough (and those, I suppose who have only just met me), would know that I am a narcissistic semi know-it-all who can rarely keep silent when it comes to expressing my beliefs and certain views I hold of various people. I actually learned today that Narcissism can be a Personality Disorder, in which the more severe forms were axiomatic in both Hitler and Stalin...just a little fun fact. The point of this entry, however, is to address compassion and self-censorship when it comes to proverbially disembowelling (nice image for you) others publically, humiliating the target, and in most cases, the shooter.
My example this week is Dr. Peter Van Onselen, who is fast coming to be my professional idol. He is an Political scientist, who has received both his Masters and PhD in Political science. He is the example of one of the few people who have made something of themselves with only their single BA – don’t kid yourself and expect anything the same if you’re graduating your Arts degree and seek a decent job. It won’t happen. You wasted your money. Arts degrees mean shit these days unless they are attached to a 2nd BA like Law/Education/Business/Psychology etc, or followed up with honours and Masters. Back to my point; Dr. Van Onselen has become a well received political commentator and analyst, writing Op.Eds for Australia’s largest papers, as well as having released three books on Howard and the Liberal Party. Overall, a household name when it comes to Politics. Well, at least he has become lately.
His latest offering, Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, is a manifesto, if you will, of the Liberals and their plans for the future and eventual re-election. As a standard, Onselen requested Julie Bishop (The deputy leader of the opposition) to write an essay entry for the text. However, what he received was written not by her but by her Chief of staff, Murray Hanson, with chunks of it lifted right out of a speech by New Zealand Businessman Rodger Kerr made in 1999 without any sort of acknowledgement (all students know what a crime this is; referencing’s a bitch). I mean, if it was me, I would be psycho about it too. If I was releasing a book which was to be received by the public as the future of the opposition, I would be pretty pissed off the deputy leader couldn’t be assed writing it herself, let alone proof reading. Now, Hansen took full responsibility, but it makes little difference. This event occurred only a month after Bishop was in a plagiarising scandal with a speech she had made ripping off an entry in the Wall Street Journal. Bishop’s a lazy knob-head, and I say that knowing that no one else will read this, because I know I could probably count on one hand the losers who actually read my crappy notes, but Van Onselen went one step further. He doesn’t write a crappy blog for Facebook, he writes for the Sunday Times.
His reaction was a little extreme; “Julie Bishop has the stench of political death about her” and so forth. Wow. Harsh much? Now I initially applauded him for having the guts to speak out about something which until then had been mostly confined to jokes in Parliament house, but then I thought again. His entire article had absolutely no compassion whatsoever. Most people who know politics know she is not all up to the job of deputy, but confronted with her, we would not tell her; because it is our humanity which would give her a second (or third..or fifth) chance. I mean, there are ways, and there are ways. His response from the public was just that; ”Peter van Onselen, we are all sick of your self-promoting, ubiquitous presence”. People can sense an asshole, they’re not all stupid. Bishop herself addressed Van Onselen directly, labeling him a “Political stalker” with an “unhealthy obsession”. To be honest I agree with her.
His first lecture last week revolved around his criticisms of the political spectrum and its visibility in today’s media. Again and again he reverted back to Bishop, and at first I did not know why. I had already known she was a bit of a discredited outcast (can you guess the interest rate today folks?), but hardly worthy of repeated mention in a room full of soon-to-be academics. I did my research and found out about Van Onselen’s personal involvement and then understood his side, but not the underlying venom in the words he spat. He then went on to appear on Lateline which I also watched, crediting her as deputy shadow minister “In name only”. She’s a smart woman, perhaps not deputy worthy, but not virulent bitching either. Enough is enough. I think Van Onselen should go on hiatus for a while so people stop resenting him and his omniscient presence in today’s media. As it is now, he is too overexposed; if you read the paper carefully, or have been for years, his name will at least ring a bell. He is supposed to be a Liberal, but here he is criticising one of their prominant leaders. He is not acting as a political analyst, but as a political aggravator; however all he seems to be aggravating are the people he is supposed to be informing. Time to hang up the pencil and hide under a rock I'd say.
Ash OUT!
xx
No comments:
Post a Comment