BARVENNON.COM
7th October 2004
AUSTRALIAN DIARY
- FEDERAL ELECTION 2 -
The Democrats are probably finished as an Australian political
party, and they most likely have Meg Lees' GST vote to thank for
it.
I suppose it is because
most politicians are elitist, and consider that they are a superior
breed, with special intelligence and abilities that set them apart from
we the common
herd. Meg Lees promised in the election campaign to resist the
GST. Her sophist rationale for being the deciding vote that permitted GST
introduction was that the Senate term for which she promised to resist
the GST did not start until the following June. Nobody now thinks that the Democrats would "keep the bastards honest".
The Greens, which are (is?) a one man act by a person called Brown,
(who apparently lived for a while at Trunkey Creek NSW which is
a village of maybe 100 people less than 20 Km as
the crow flies from Barvennon)
has got a few wacky ideas, and a few good ideas.
I am not particularly keen on some of his socialist taxation ideas.
So
long as he stuck to sustainability in environmental protection, bans on
GM,
quarantine, and libertarian drug ideals, he would have had my
support. The Labour/socialist baggage is outside my
mandate. The deal to support Labour in Wentworth is probably
intended to destroy the chances of independent Peter
King. All parties have fear & loathing of independents.
According to the latest polls, Pauline Hanson has not got the support
that was quoted in my last diary. Well I'm not much in touch with
Queenslanders, but suspect that they are part of the national trend
among voters to vote (select) their own preferences. I also note
that Pauline's supporters have resisted in the past the tendency to expose their voting intent to
survey interviewers. I believe that Pauline has a lot of support
among those who see through the journalistic gobbledygook, and
might well get a few more primaries and preferences than the surveys indicate.
Mark Latham in Labour is coming across increasingly as just an
ordinary, rather nasty person, having much in common with his sponsor
and mentor, shadow treasurer Simon Crean. As time goes by I trust Latham
less
and
less. The contrast with Howard is stark.
I have heard PM Howard make it clear in his criticism of a Labour
policy that
"I do not wish to
criticize the person" whereas Latham makes it clear that he not only
disapproves of the PM's policies, but considers our PM to be a shifty
person & a scurrilous liar etc. I am beginning to appreciate
Howard's strategy of running a long campaign; it gives Latham the rope for we the people to get to know Mark Latham the man.
Most Labour policies appear to be crafted for immediate appeal
without the substance of possible fulfillment. It is increasingly
becoming clear that the promise that all those over 75 will obtain
instant free hospital access is in the same category as Hawke's promise
to eliminate poverty for children: a beautiful idea that will almost certainly prove impossible
to fulfill in actuality. Labour's sop to it's union controllers is the revision of
the Industrial Relations act. Although the promise is theoretically to
only "correct glaring
inequities", my own cynical view is that allowing Australian Industrial Justices to meddle with industrial agreements is like
being a little bit pregnant. Australian justices have a well
deserved reputation for taking the arm when being hand fed.
It does appear that Latham was "rolled" into making extravagant promises on preservation of forests in Tasmania.
- IRAQ & ISRAEL -
Iraqi terrorists seem to be attempting to emulate the US car
culture (There are about 50,000 road deaths in the US each year) by
killing their fellow Iraqi citizens and themselves at an accelerating
rate. I guess we will see that rate increase up until the US
elections, and then tail off. (I give the terrorists credit for
realizing the futility of attempting to affect Bush or Kerry when
either has won the election.) I am bemused that the terrorists
should think that killing themselves and their fellow Iraqi children
should somehow influence US public opinion towards sympathy (or fear)
for their cause, which clearly seems to be to set up a religious
dictatorship. Despite appearances (and occasional lapses) the
average US citizen is decidedly against religious influence on
government.
25th October 2004
On the other hand, the Sunnis
might be trying to stop an electoral
process that would see the Sunnis much worse off than they were under
Saddam Hussein. The reason is that the Sunnis controlled the
government in a majority Shia nation under Hussein. That
undemocratic situation derived from history. For
many centuries up to the first world war, the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire
(Emirate?)
dominated what is now the middle east. The English (via Laurence)
freed some of the Turkic empire
(they knew the weaknesses in an oppressively governed empire was
terrorism) and after WWI the English were given a mandate to govern
(among others), the areas now known as Palestine,
Israel, Iraq & Jordan by the League of Nations (which was the
precursor of the
UN). In the case of Iraq the British arranged democratic
elections.
For whatever reason, the Shia community boycotted the election and as a
consequence the Sunnis dominated the first Iraqi government. By
corrupting the machinery of government the Sunnis managed to entrench
themselves
in power and that situation was maintained until the US invasion.
The Shia have learned their
lesson, and are apparently eager to vote at the next Iraqi
election. However having a fair & democratic vote
is not to the liking of the Sunni minority (located mainly around
Baghdad). They
liked it when Hussein had control of the purse strings of government,
because the seat of government is where much wealth is disbursed.
The Sunnis are
extremely reluctant to permit a fair election which would put the seal
on their minority status.
It would be advisable for the Sunni terrorists to consider the likely
result if they fail in their attempt to stop the formation of a
democratically elected government in Iraq. I would suspect that
the Shia clerics (who might well have some influence with the newly
elected government) would want to have the murderers (and their
co-conspirators, which would probably include their extended family)
hunted down, and would want to dispense Muslim (Sharia) justice on those murderers who were
responsible for the terrorist acts carried out against the heroic
(mostly Shia) people who attempted to bring peace and good government
to Iraq. I believe that Al Quaida might well find that by involving itself, it has taken a tiger by the tail.
What the Sunnis might achieve is the splitting up of Iraq
into a Shia Caliphate in the south, a Kurdish democracy in the north,
and a small, poor
Sunni theocratic/terrorist dictatorship (something like The
Lebanon) around Baghdad. I would imagine that the northern
and southern states/provinces would jealously protect their oil wells
against
the Sunni murderers. Of course Turkey would be quite upset if an
independent Kurdish democracy were formed, but this is one of the
consequences of their refusal to allow transit by the USA when the
Iraqi war started, and as members of the European trade block they will
be prevented from military adventurism.
Western liberal journalists do not seem to understand that the
Palestinians do
not want to negotiate with Israel. They want to delete
Israel. Bill
Clinton applied incredible political pressure on Israel, and forced the
Israelis to make concessions that have not been seen since 1957.
Under the Clinton agreement, the Palestinians would have had their own
country, on the old (UN) borders,
and half of
Jerusalem. The Palestinians (Arafat) refused. They wanted
the right of return to
Israel for all displaced refugees. (I find that a strange
requirement. Palestinians have committed acts of terror &
murder against those displaced
Israelis who have settled in Palestine, yet they apparently expect
Israel to welcome
and protect displaced Palestinians.)
My own assessment is that Palestinians would not and could not accept any offer of
peace short of surrender from Israel. They would not because too many Palestinians state that
they want all of Palestine. They could not because, even after a peace treaty was signed, fundamentalist
Muslims would feel bound to continue to commit terrorist acts against
Israel. Muslims believe that murdering Jews is god's
work. That is what history records that the Prophet Mahommed did
in Medina, and
what the Prophet has done serves as an unchallengeable example to
his followers.
The Israelis, being the victims, realize this. That is why they
are building the wall. That is why they respond to every
Palestinian murder with deadly force directed with intent to execute
the leaders of the murderous Muslim gangs. If necessary, I would
speculate that they would keep the
Palestinians bombed into such a primitive state that they cannot mount
murderous attacks on Israeli citizens.
How will it all end? The world is moving on. The time
of oil as the premium
energy source of the world is
running out. The world will find another energy source. The
Arab states are dissipating their human and financial resources on
theocratic ambitions and a futile and unwinnable war instead of bootstrapping
their culture into a liberal democracy. In
another decade or (at most) two (which is about when known oil resources
will be exhausted at current consumption) the Arab
nations will
sink back into insignificant oblivion again. (It is
pellucidly clear that no Muslim Arab nation, even with oil wealth and
technical assistance,
has been able to develop an advanced primary or secondary industry
except by hiring foreigners.) Despite there
being half a billion
Arabs from which scientists and engineers might be trained, arabs
apparently have to
import
most (if not all) of the scientists required to build WMD.
That
same technology was apparently not beyond
the capability of around three
million odd Israelis, who have developed a much admired battlefield
weapon (the Uzi) and are reputed to have nuclear weapons and not only
ballistic missiles, but also a burgeoning anti-ballistic missile
technology.
EMAIL
ARCHIVES.