11th October 2004
- FEDERAL ELECTION 3 (SUMMARY) -
As predicted, the Democrats are almost certainly finished
as an Australian political
party. They dropped to 1% of the national vote, and only
have a couple of senators left over from the last half-senate election.
The trendy liberals moved to the Greens. As a consequence, Peter King in Wentworth was crushed..
The senate poll counting in Queensland has not finished yet, so
Pauline Hanson has still got a chance. The religious right has a
party called "Family First" and it polled strongly.
The Labour Party (i.e. the "liberals") were massacred. My own
interpretation of this defeat for the Labour party was that leader Mark
Latham projects the image of a thug. Also showing as thugs are
Liberal Party stars Tony Abbott (who did the job on Pauline Hanson) and
(as a lowkey thug associated with the death of the Republican movement)
newly elected representative Malcolm Turnbull. Peter Costello or (to a lesser extent) Alexander Downer is
looking like the best bet to follow Howard.
The real hurt to the Labour party, which as of today has not yet penetrated, (liberal journalists are
mostly a bit slow) is that the Liberal
Nationals might now have control of the Senate.
The political selection process in Australia has security flaws. When I went to
vote, there were about five polling officials at the polling station, and that polling station
was one of five for the electorate. I was not required to provide
identification. I was provided with a voting form for the Reps
and the Senate. I was then marked off on a book that was
exclusive to that official. Theoretically, a stranger who knew my details could have voted 24
times, and that fact would only be discovered next day. Which
votes I had cast it would have been impossible to determine.
On the international stage the Howard win is seen as an affirmation of
the Iraq invasion. Locally most people see that the Iraq invasion
was necessary, and that objections to the war are largely a non-event
driven by members of the media who are still living in the Vietnam era.
- MIDDLE EAST -
Afghanistan has held elections and observers are
hailing them as "fairly democratic". A BBC announcer misnamed
them as introduction of "direct democracy". This is the newspeak
word for "representative democracy". Liberal journalists of the
world have fear and loathing of direct democracy (aka propositional
legislation, California style) in which the people have the power to
enact legislation, rather than having democratically appointing
representatives enact all legislation.
The international terrorist movement seems to have been concentrating
exclusively on Iraq. That was a strategic mistake, because
Afghanistan is now an example, (in a country demographically similar
even if the population is less formally educated than in Iraq) of the
fact that an overwhelming majority of Muslims actually want a
democratic government. Following that election I now believe that
the elections in Iraq will be a resounding success. This will
occur because the Mullahs are politically aware. They will see
the writing on the wall, and will order their followers to marginalize
The reason is, there is a basic contradiction in the Muslim
religion. On the one hand, Mahommed set the example for
governance when he ruled from Medina as a theocratic dictator. On
the other, he did not specify how that theocratic leader was to be
chosen. (Dispute on that question is the reason for the Shia-Sunni
schism). To further complicate issues, he was quite definite that
Muslim should not fight with Muslim. Apparently, however, that
prohibition did not extend to political opponents, who were legitimate
targets of assassination.
I suspect that the religious leaders who exercise power in Iraq might
democracy as the answer, unless their political opponents assassinate
them. There is also the theological problem that the gift of
representative democracy is being offered by the much reviled "Great
- US ELECTIONS -
From Australia, we do not get a real feel for how the
US presidential election proceeds. What is loud
and clear is the fury of liberal journalists with ex-Australian publisher Rupert Murdoch.
(e.g. "Outfoxed"). Of course little coverage is given in the liberal press to the
recent study that found that mainstream press opinion and news articles
in the US are 80% favorable to the Democrats. (Wonder what that
ratio is in Europe?)
I recall a conversation I had with a Manhattan liberal. I advised
him from experience that Murdoch considered the "colour" of editorial
comment (i.e. red-v-blue) to be one of the variables that sold papers. For
instance, if tits on page 3 (Mirror in London) sold newspapers, then Murdoch put tits on page
3. If racial or right wing polemics sold papers, there would be
racism or right wing polemics in the editorial and news articles.
"However" I recall saying to that Manhattan liberal, "a few weeks out from an election all that
will change. Whichever party he (Murdoch) wants to win will be promoted
mercilessly." From the shrieks of anger that are emanating from
US media, I gather that the liberal rump of the US media is becoming
aware of Rupert's tactics. I gather that NEWS is
supporting President Bush.
On the other hand, (we must consider moral relativism issues) it could
be that NEWS has merely discovered the silent
majority. Perhaps the silent majority in the USA are sick of the
liberal/democrat spin, and find that NEWS is an objective publisher of
the facts, and that those facts expose liberal journalism for the
slanted, biassed reporting that it
is. That theory would explain why NEWS corp. newspapers and TV
are outselling the other media.
Personally I do not like either the liberals or the
conservatives. On my political agenda is the constitutional change
that would allow the Federal government in Australia to be dismissed in
the same way as was Governor Grey in California. I would also
prefer it if we the people of Australia (like those in California) could initiate and vote on
legislation, without the need to lobby our elected representatives.