Re: 2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Beazley?
Calculon said:
Firstly, the majority of "Christians" in Australia are those who only really pay lip service to the religion because they feel obligated. Secondly, I'll remind everybody that it's Rudd who came out in the last week or so pandering to the Church, and in this way negates any point you had about the Liberals being more influenced by religion than the ALP.
To clarify this point: this post started off being what is wrong with Australian politics in general, not what is good about the Labor party. I don't even really like Labor, and their flaws are clear and not small. The point that (I think) I was trying to make here is that it is impossible to have intelligent political leadership in a democracy which consists of this many... less than rational people.
Although I do like to imagine that the Labor party is slightly more secular than the Libs/Coalition. Beazley takes a reasonably more liberal (lower case l)
stance on abortion, proposes increased funding for public versus private school system, etc.
Calculon said:
What's wrong with a voter wanting to maximise their material wealth? Should they seek to become poorer and live in a gutter?
I was merely pointing out the discrepancies between Christians' idealism and their
de facto pragmatism and materialism. You'd think these people, who apparently (I probably agree with you on the lip service, to a point) believe they will spend eternity in holy glory, would be the least worried about what is in their next paycheck (or mortgage bill).
Is there something inherently wrong with a voter wanting to 'maximise their material wealth'? In a word, yes. Yes when that voter thinks: "If I keep asian immigrants out of my country, my wages are more secure and likely to rise" and not: "If I keep asian immigrants out of my country, I may be denying them an oppurtunity to lead a free, un-persecuted existence." The average Australian voter - and we see this constantly - cares less about the lives of 1000 Indonesians or Africans than the jobs of 100 Australian workers.
Sure, you might say, but we only care about what we know. If we love Our Country, it will take care of itself. It will be a shining example, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of all of this shit about Australia. Honestly, when will somebody point out that we are not an ideal, not a 'set of values', not even a common goal. We
are exactly the sum of our parts: a bit over two hundred years ago, the poms chucked some convicts here, they killed off most of the native population, practically pushed Japan into WWII, and finally buckled under int'l pressure and passed anti-discrimination laws. Now we are multi-cultural (award winner for the most meaningless phrase in Aus politics) but for some reason force everyone who wants to come here instead of being killed wherever the fuck they had the unluck to be born to subscribe to our set of Aussie values. I know I'm preaching (hopefully) to the converted here, but who the fuck gave us the right? We're just a bit of land, a few tens of million of people. We aren't a country, our lives aren't more important than anyone else's, and neither is our prosperity.
Calculon said:
Elaborate on how coalition policy is blatantly racist. While I disagree with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan on a principled basis, it is in Australia's interest to maintain good relations with the United States, because if, heaven forbid, 50 years into the future we face a large scale invasion by an aggressive China, a technologically improved Indonesia or by someone else, it's better to be able to call on the world's most powerful military to help us than to be crushed like an ant.
Do you think that the small kid in the playground should pick the bigger bully and help him to beat up other kids just guard against the remote possibility of future attack? I think you are a bit deluded if you honestly think that
a) We matter enough to China to be a possibility for invasion - lets think about: China has a fuckload of land, labour and natural resources already that are being under-utilised. To seek more, they would first have to sort out their own shit (i.e. revolution/liberal reform)and you would think that after this they would be content with their own proseperity and too liberal to force a war on an unsuspecting, lucrative trade partner. Even if they did want some desert and a couple of decades worth of coal, why not attack some of the weak, non-allied and conveniently close neighbouring countries?
b) America would protect us from China more than nominally. What's in it for them? They don't even
like us, and they must know by now that most of us damn well don't like them. They would have an epic war on our behalf and destroy their possibilities of dual domination with China? Uh-uh.
So what's the only other option? Instead of being an agressor, be a mediator. Tell both bullies and even some of the smaller kids that everyone would save themselves a lot of time if they just left each other alone.
Oh, and as for Libs being blatantly racist, perhaps a more accurate term would be xenophobic (although not Abbott, he is one bigoted fuckstick). Why do they treat refugees and immigrants some much worse than citizens? Give me one even quasi-logical reason. It is because the politicians are only pandering for Australian votes, and because Australians mainly care about Australians. So as we are caught in a vicious cycle of self-indulgence, thousands die.
Calculon said:
I notice you don't mention the fact that the government pays for a rabidly left wing ABC, or that Fairfax newspapers tend to be fairly left wing, despite being run by a big business.
Yeah, the government is overflowing with funding to the ABC. To the Liberals, the ABC is like an embarrassing little brother: you'd love to get rid of him, but if you try, Mum (i.e. the voters) will disown you.
Sure, Fairfax seem left wing, but how do we know that even their responses aren't peppered with a little Liberal favouritism? That's the whole point - no matter what they appear, it is impossible to tell if they are
already affected by bias. Maybe Fairfax would revisist Children Overboard, the failings of the GST, the complete absence of ministerial accountability more often if they didn't think that, hey, we keep a fuckload more money if Howard continues to reign in Canberra.
Calculon said:
If you have a parliament full of independent MP's you get a massive increase in NIMBYism, and nothing ets[sic] done.
Everyone always says this, but how do you know? Have you ever witnessed such a parliament? Sure, we speculate that a multitude of voices would lead to chaos, but maybe it would actually lead to, for once, intelligent debate. Instead of having two parties intrinsically opposed, utterly convinced of the validity of their own veiws before they even begin to argue and only finally coming to a decision by sheer weight of numbers rather than the value of the thing, you might have a lot of smart people trying to find a way to solve everyone's problems. Sure, you may get a bit more argument, but instead of it being pointless name-calling (watch Parliament on ABC, it's ridiculous) - which would indeed be futile because the guy you think is dim-witted this week you may need on your side next week - it would be actual "well, how good is your solution" talk.
Calculon said:
No, Howard has not been the best possible manager of the economy. No, he has not liberalised it enough to create prosperity, but he's done by far a better job than Beazley would ever do, because Bomber's not the type to make reform in the vein of Keating or Hawke. Also the ALP's pathetic economic record at a state level (read as: they tax like communists) hardly inspires any confidence in their ability to do a good job federally.
This is my point: no
politician will ever make the best economic manager: the politician is think of the economy in a 3-4 year political cycle, and the economist needs to think long term, i.e. decades. So why don't we just fuck it all and say: well, I don't paticularly care if a have to work three more hours next month to pay of the housing loan, because my government just saved thouasands of lives with aid donations? Being able to get by is essential, but, past that, why not help those who cannot?
Sadly enough, I have that little faith in the Australian people that I think that Howard will win out again. Even if Labor beats the odds, its just a tiny tiny step on the way to a better system. So, yes, I'll vote Labor.
Edit: Directly from the Liberal Party's website (apperently from the big horse's mouth itself) "Australia is the best country in the world. That's why we must do everything in our power to protect, secure and build Australia's future."
It's enough to make you want to convert to Christianity and start a new Crusade against the Liberal barbarians. Not that I'd need an excuse: the knights get all the chicks.
