Putting Theory To The Test On Election Day

Voting is a waste of time. I've written on it before - how not one single person I have ever voted for has won their seat. And today - Saturday, October 9, 2004 - sees me being forced to vote again.

What a sad state of affairs it is that a person is FORCED to vote under threat of a fine. When it boils down to it, that is voting at gun point.

How so? you ask.

Simple. If I do not vote I will be sent a fine to pay. If I do not pay that fine I will receive a notice to come to a nice little court gathering. If I fail to show up at court a warrant will be issued. If someone comes to serve that warrant and I tell them to go fly a kite, then I will see the guns.

The guns are always there.

It's just that they are not visible on the surface.

Anyway. Today, I am not going to vote for anyone on my ballot. I am going to cast a vote for people not on my ballot. My vote will be considered a donkey vote. An "informal" vote. Not to be counted. Just because I choose to vote for people not on the designated ballot form.

Then I will watch the election coverage and see who wins my seat. I will take note of how many votes they win by - and how many "informal" votes there are. And then I will post an entry revealing who I voted for and what the actual outcome was. And you will see first hand how utterly useless voting is.

I've already got my list of candidates written and will be taking it into the polling booth with me. Once there, I will cross off the names on the ballot and replace them with my choices. And I am certain someone will get a good old laugh when they read my ballot.

And the extra silly thing about the voting system I am forced to vote in is, that I am also forced to vote for more than one person. I suppose the govt can claim some kind of legitimacy that way - because as low number candidates are removed from the pile, those who voted for them will see their vote go to their number two choice. And then their number three choice. And so on until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

What a farce. In reality, the winner is not the one who has 50% of the vote. In fact, the eventual winner under this system, was not wanted by the majority of the people.

Forced to vote. Forced to vote for many people. And I am told I am free. What a joke.

Let the sheep buy the, "this is your chance to have a say how the country is run" bollocks. What good is it to help decide who wins office if I can't control them once they are in. But besides, I can't even decide who wins office, as my little rebellious voting escapade will reveal. So stay tuned. It should be fun.

Oh! Who do I think will win this election?

John Howard. I don't think the majority of people give a rats ass about going into Iraq and not finding any WMDs. I think they are glad Saddam is gone and that is all that matters. It is the far far left which keeps pushing the "no WMD" thing. Normal Australians just want to get on with their life.

Also, Latham hasn't been around long enough. If he had been at the helm of the opposition for the last three years, then he would have a better chance as people would feel they know him better. But due to his short time in charge, he comes across as a bit fake (not as fake as his predecessor) and a bit of an agro bugger. And Aussies don't want that in a leader.

Anyway. Let the voting begin. I'm now off to cast my invalid vote.

My wife, on the other hand, is not as cynical about voting as I am and is casting a valid vote. All I can say about how she will vote is: Liberal/National for the House of Representatives (with Labor and Greens as last on the ballot paper) and Pauline Hanson for the Senate. It will be interesting to see the results when they are in.

It Shows How Much They Really Care

Regular readers will know I think little of politicians. And especially the leftist ones. So it should come as no surprise I think Mark Latham is a socialist scumbag who would lie and cheat to get whatever he wanted, no matter how many people it screwed.

For instance. His ads keep on saying how much the ALP is putting families first.

That single statement shows the hypocrisy of the leftist ALP. For it has been independently PROVEN that under a Latham govt, people will be worse off! Plus his workplace reforms will see wages increase due to massive union involvement - which will be passed on in the form of higher prices. The resulting increase in inflation will undoubtedly be matched by an increase in interest rates. Resulting in higher mortgage repayments. And somehow I am better off with higher prices and higher mortgage payments.

It reminds me of when the former leader of the left, Kim Beazley, failed to win the election he contested. In his sore-loser speech he asked the winner to look after the average Australian. Failing to realize that it was the very same average Australian who had voted against him.

How much does Latham care about families and the aged?

Well, the seat I live in is a strong Liberal seat. Has been for some 20 odd years. It encompasses several large "average Australian worker" suburbs and includes a whole bunch of old-age pensioner types. Not what you'd call your typical Liberal seat. More like what you'd call a safe Labor seat. Nevertheless, the Liberals have something like a 12%-13% margin in this seat. And for all intents and purposes, Labor has NO CHANCE of winning it. (This same federal seat makes up two state seats and votes overwhelmingly Labor in state elections.)

Latham cares so much about the people in this seat and winning their vote so he can win the election and do his "good works", that he has NOT campaigned in any way, shape or form in this seat. Not one single flyer or personal letter has arrived. Not one.

The only campaigning I have seen of the ALP in this seat is posters in their campaign office windows. That's it.

I get more flyers in my mailbox from a real estate agent in the next seat, than the ALP trying to win votes in this seat.

So it would seem that Latham cares so much about the people in this seat, he can't be bothered asking them to vote for him. While I have received two "please vote for me" flyers each and every week from the Liberal guy since the election began.

Just this fact alone will see people vote for him because he is the only one they feel they know.

The View of Nothingness

Following my propaganda piece analysis, I did send an email to the Greens. Here is what I sent...

Greetings,

Thanks for your time during this busy period.

Got your flyer. Have a few questions I'd like clearer answers on please.

Question # 1: It says, "Protect natural river systems and restore water to over-used systems." How do you protect a river system? What does Protect a river system mean, exactly? How do you restore water to over-used systems? How is a system overused?

Question # 2: It says, "Phase out coal-fired power generation by 2050." What kind of power generation would you replace it with?

Question # 3: It says, "Adopt independent foreign and defence policies." What does that mean exactly? I don't understand.

Question # 4: It says, "Support a new peace process for Israel and Palestine." Would you clear this up and tell me what do you mean by "support" and what peace process do you propose?

Question # 5: It says, "Support self-determination, reconciliation and justice for indigenous people." As with my previous question, what do you mean by "support" and what do you mean by "self-determination" and "justice"?

I am also a little bit puzzled by the point about recognizing a women's rights to choose a career path. I am puzzled because I already thought women could choose whatever career path they wanted. So why does this - which I thought is already part of our society - need to be recognized. What am I missing?

Look forward to your prompt reply,

Sincerely,

Michael Ross

This was sent on Monday to their main state office email address. And today, after having received no reply, it was sent to the local Green candidate for my federal seat.

At the time of this writing, I have received NO REPLY from the Greens. I do not think my questions are hard. Unless, of course, they never had any answers in the first place and were just spouting off. And unless answering those questions would paint them in a bad light.

When you make a statement you should be prepared to answer questions someone might have about that statement. Otherwise you look weak. Like the Greens do.

I will let you know IF (and this looks like a dinosaur-sized IF) they should get back to me with an answer. I won't hold my breath.

Analysis Of A Propaganda Piece

It's good that this federal election is coming up. I get to see the various propaganda put out by all the parties.

For instance: The other day I received one cardboard flyer that had various interest rates attributed to the leftist Labor Party. It was put out by the rightist Liberal Party to show how high interest rates go under a Labor Govt. Problem was, it was missing a term by a rightist politician. Because it would have blown a hole in their argument. It would have shown a high interest rate under the righties. (Interestingly, that righty ex-leader is now a full-on lefty charity worker type guy. I guess those who have had the power never want to relinquish it and seek any place to get it.)

Anyway. The piece I will analyze in this entry is from the Greens. The Greens are a far left bunch of do-gooder radical environmentalists who would like nothing better than the world to go back to caveman days.

Here is one thing they believe: that extra health, education, welfare and environmental services should be provided rather than giving tax cuts.

Right off the bat they are telling us they want to increase taxes. Because that is the only way a govt can increase spending to "give" us things - take money from us first.

They want free public early childhood education, free university and no "do uni now and pay back later" schemes, and more money given for public health (Medicare). Again, all this would have to come from increased taxes.

They also want to spend $35 Billion to upgrade the public transport system - totally funded by the govt. (And remember, the govt gets its money by taxing us.)

And they want no free trade agreement with the U.S. And, in fact, want to abolish the one that just went into effect. It doesn't matter that a protectionist attitude never works in any place it has ever been tried in history. And only ever causes a decrease in living standards.

And this is all on the first half of one page of the tri-fold flyer.

Following those first few paragraphs there are nineteen bullet points. Some of which include...

* Protect natural river systems and restore water to over-used systems.

Which sounds all nice and well. Until you realize the only way to "protect" a natural water system is to outlaw its use. So there goes the entire agricultural industry as there would be no water to drawn upon - except maybe bore water which could cost them hundreds of thousands to find, if they can find usable bore water on their land, that is.

* Phase out coal-fired power generation by 2050.

There is no mention of what they would replace it with. As they're against all damns, there could be no hydro power. And as they're against uranium and nuclear reactors, there would be no nuclear power. I guess the only thing left is wind power. But I doubt a city of 5 million people could be totally powered by wind. So this is just more rhetoric from the Greens.

* Adopt independent foreign and defence policies.

What do they mean by "independent"? They do not go into any more detail.

* Support a new peace process for Israel and Palestine.

This is like John Edwards' idea - work on a better peace process regarding Israel and Palestine. Just what this new process is, we are not told. But from experience we know it will involve the ultimate disappearance of Israel and Palestine owning the whole place.

* Support self-determination, reconciliation and justice for indigenous people.

This really means, give more money to the Abos. They do not go into any detail about what they mean by self-determination or "justice." From experience of listening to past spiels from the Greens, it means it will cost us a lot of money and the Abos will get even more welfare and more privileges the whites do not get.

* Increase funding for educational programs on sexual violence and relationships.

This is standard leftist speak. They think the solution to everything is education. Educate the sexual violence offenders that it is wrong and suddenly they won't do it any more. As has been tried with a myriad of other items, these "education programs" do NOT work. And are a complete and utter waste of money. Although they do have the effect of creating new govt departments.

* Recognise women's right to: undertake a career path of their choosing; equal pay; safer communities; and freedom from sexual exploitation.

I suppose only a woman has a right to a safer community. Sheesh. This is just a bunch of malarky. Women can choose whatever career they want to do now. Why do they need another "right" to do it. Unless, of course, the Greens really mean "affirmative action". And past experience tells me, that is really what they mean. Affirmative action in the workplace - Bob Brown, their dubious leader, has made such comments in speeches to parliament.

* Ensure same sex couples of rights equal to those of heterosexual couples.

On the surface this seems harmless. But this is an end around to enable lesbians and poofs to go through govt funded fertility programs to have children. They have been trying this tactic for years. Disguising it as they do in this flyer doesn't take away from its underlying meaning. Though it does raise an interesting thought: what would they tell you if you ask them for clarity on what they mean? Hmmm. I think I just might have to do that.

* Ensure honesty in govt by strengthening the Senate as a house of review, and by introducing proportional representation in the House of Representatives.

This one is a doozy. First, in a general election, the only hope the Greens have of winning any political position is in the Senate. As that is their best chance of being in govt, it would make sense for them to want the Senate to have more power. It would mean THEY get more power. Of course, they couldn't come out and say it outright. So they say it this way.

The last part, however, is the real killer. Bob Brown got into Tasmanian parliament because of proportional representation. And they know, such a system would be their best chance of getting more members into parliament. So, of course they would push for it.

Also, as their experience in the Senate shows, with both major parties fairly evenly split, they - the Greens - could actually hold the balance of power. And they would love to blackmail either party into doing what they want.

When George W Bush was in Australia, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle (the two only Greens in the Senate) were expelled from parliament for 24 hour because they kept heckling GW Bush and would not shut up when asked. There is a picture of the two of them on this flyer with the words underneath, "Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle challenge US President George W Bush in the Australian parliament." And they are making funny faces and arm gestures. Acting like little children who can't get their way. No respect for a visiting dignitary. Hence, no respect from me.

As I look over this propaganda piece all I see are tax increases (they boast about increasing taxes instead of reducing them in the first paragraph) and more control going to them. And, if what they want were followed, the entire nation would become an impoverished state working by candle light.

The Greens have my Hate Hate Vomit vote. They say Vote 1 Greens. I say, number all the boxes on the Senate election sheet and put the Greens last. Lets keep the dickheads out of govt.

One Man Of No Importance Repeatedly Given Media Voice

In Australian politics, no matter what the current incumbent party does (which is the conservative Liberal Party in Australia), the left leaning media always asks and telecasts what Senator Bob Brown has to say on the matter.

Bob is a homosexual (self-confessed in parliament - "I am homosexual") radical environmentalist and member of the Greens - a far left leaning political party.

He founded "The Wilderness Society in 1976 and was its director from 1979 - 1984. He was a member of Tasmanian parliament from 1983 - 1993 under the precursor to the Greens. In 1996 he became a member of Federal parliament as a Green. In short, for the last 28 years he has been a leech on society. Espousing to TAKE TAKE TAKE from the value-producers and give to the unproductive and for his "good works."

He did spend some time as a doctor. But as the time claimed overlaps with his position within The Wilderness Society, I deduce the time frame given as a Doctor is that as being a paid-up member of the medical association and not in actual practice. For he would have quickly learned, it was better to leech off the system under the guise of "doing good" than to actually live in the world of free enterprise where he would have to compete - something he is now definitely against.

Anyway. What is puzzling is, the Greens only have two members in the Senate - him and Kerry Nettle (and she is a radical just like Bob). And, they technically have no formal leader - although the media considers Bob as the leader.

So the question is, why does the media continue to ask the opinion of a man who is not formally a party's leader, and who has zero political power due to the abysmally low number of party members in govt?

Such low numbers indicates that the vast majority of Australian do NOT want the Greens at all. Because they know the Greens represent the far and radical left. And won't vote for them.

None of this seems to matter to the media. The media doesn't care that Australians care so little about the Greens, the only people who can get in are those who are well known in their states before-hand due to many years of being in the public eye. The media doesn't care that Australians do not want the Greens. They still hover over his every word and telecast it for all of us to hear. Could the reason be that he is a poof? And if they didn't telecast his verbiage he would begin to accuse them of discriminating against him because he is a homosexual. Or could it be the simple fact that the left stick together no matter how moronic they are. Hence, the left media can see no wrong in the left Bob Brown. Occams razor in action.

Sometimes, Scumbags Do Do Some Good

Just as Senator Palpatine (the Emperor) "loves" democracy, I love freedom. Oppressors of freedom go on my "hate hate vomit" list. And such oppressors are govt.

There are those who believe that govt is not Big Brother trying to control us more and more. But there are those of us who SEE that govt is trying to control us more and more.

Every action they take "for our safety" just so happens to restrict our freedom and make it easier for govt to track us and our money. And if you look closely, it is an odd thing to track a person and their money, while complaining about weapons in the wrong hands. Wouldn't it make more sense to track weapons? Or is it really that weapons are the EXCUSE the govt is using to garner more and more control of its slaves?

Anyway. One such broad sweeping govt freedom grab is The Patriot Act. This is an act you have heard much about. But maybe not specific things. And two such things you may not know about it are:

Thing # 1: What Patriot stands for. It is an acronym for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Of course, what is deemed "appropriate" is left up to the govt to decide. As is what is deemed terrorism. Which is why the act is so dangerous.

Thing # 2: In combination with an act of legislation passed in 1986 that allowed the FBI to get customer data from companies, the Patriot Act has given the FBI almost unlimited power without accountability.

For instance, under the Patriot Act the FBI could send you a special administrative subpoena (known as a "national security letter") and demand "request" you hand over ALL your customer data - including confidential data. AND, that you are also NOT allowed to tell anyone that you received the letter. AND that the FBI could do all of this WITHOUT a warrant or even consulting with a judge to determine if they do, in fact, have any grounds to get your data from you.

In simple speak. They send a letter to you without needing to show justifiable cause, and which you are not permitted to let anyone know you got. And you must hand over ALL your confidential business records.

If that is not Big Brother I don't know what is. Of course, the govt says it's all in an effort to fight terrorism. And like I said in a previous entry, "fighting terrorism" is the new "reds under the bed" ploy.

Anyway. One organization I despise is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) because they are always about infringing upon the property rights of others - individuals and business. But in this case, I stand behind them because, they took the Department of Justice to task over this arguing that the provision violated the Constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

And they won, as this article shows.

My only concern is that the judge delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an appeal that's expected to be filed by the government. Which should come as no surprise when you consider the judge is an employee of the govt.

I can easily expect a new law passed by the govt prohibiting rulings against the Patriot Act. And that would be the nail in the coffin as far as freedoms of the U.S. people are concerned.

Hopefully, the citizens will soon wake up to the realization their country is turning into a cold war U.S.S.R. And they are slowly being ushered behind a new iron curtain. Will they soon start calling each other "comrades" although disguise it as "fellow patriots"? We shall see.