Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
As Christmas (aka for many the season of shopping) fast approaches, it’s perhaps time to articulate an unpleasant truth: shopping is not a relaxing or pleasurable experience. In fact, it can be downright masochistic. Somehow as consumers we’ve been conned into accepting that all large stores need to do is be the repository for goods for sale.
In a global landscape increasingly marked by fluid alliances, Prime Minister Albanese's diplomatic foray from Washington to Beijing had the dual aim of warming frosty relations with China and reinforcing the significance of foundational ties. This is not merely diplomatic choreography; it’s a story of Australia redefining its place in a complex global narrative.
As demonstrated in debates around the Voice, increasingly divergent perceptions of reality affect our dedication to our societal obligations and the upkeep of our shared core values. If left unchecked, this drift away from a shared understanding of the common good will further undermine trust and mutual respect that bind us, challenging the very foundations of a humane, civilised and inclusive society.
As the government drafts legislation to stem the rising tide of misinformation circulating online, the nation debates: will these measures sufficiently regulate online content and curb potential harms or threaten freedom of expression? This moment is a critical test for the integrity of Australia's public discourse.
Next week, former army lawyer David McBride will face trial, accused of leaking classified defence information. Meanwhile, the prospect of meaningful whistleblower reforms that would shield Australian public servants who contemplate exposing wrongdoing through the media seems remote.
This November 11, for many at ceremonies around the nation, the clocks will stop, the breath will pause for a minute to remember the dead and injured of war. And like the poppies in Flanders fields, the lists of names of men killed in action continues to grow: in Africa, in Europe and Asia. If history is our teacher, then we are very poor students.
In the midst of the fifth and deadliest war between Israel and Hamas, a retrospective analysis uncovers a history of missed chances and rising extremism that fueled this crisis. From Netanyahu's policies bolstering Hamas to declining support for the two-state solution, the situation raises a pivotal question: could a different approach have averted this catastrophe?
The proposed Misinformation Bill straddles the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the rising threat of misinformation, posing a challenge that could redefine the landscape of media and public conversation. The problem goes beyond discerning the truth, but determining how a democratic society identifies it amid a sea of conflicting voices.
In the war between Israel and Hamas it's essential to look beyond the simplistic dichotomies of good versus evil, exploring how historical, cultural, and political nuances shape the landscape of this enduring conflict. In a world quick to take sides, there's a need for deep understanding, underscoring the importance of balanced perspectives in seeking lasting peace and justice in a region torn by decades of strife.
Pope Francis' cautious remarks on the Ukraine war have stirred a complex blend of admiration, confusion, and criticism as he finds himself straddling the line between moral authority and geopolitical pragmatism. The challenge for Francis is how to uphold ethical standards while effectively engaging in the nuanced world of global diplomacy.
In this latest mass shooting in the United States, horror does not issue automatically, it is weighed down by being too familiar. We feel for the victims, but in that feeling runs the dismal knowledge that it is just another in a long line, seemingly without end.
The Hamas attacks on civilians posed a profound ethical conundrum for some. And it’s been sad to see progressives, who have for years sympathised with the plight of the Palestinian people and followed the actions of hard-line Israeli governments with dismay, attempting to downplay or rationalise the brutality of Hamas. Must empathy for one tragedy necessarily diminish compassion for another?