hell in a handbasket, or something similar i believe...
Yeah. So I promised myself I wouldn't do this, even though I always kind of knew I'd crack eventually. And even though I'm not really much on the whole politics thing (well, at least not in public), it's finally reached that point where I want to stab things. And people. And things.
And I just can't shake the feeling that this is going to get me into a lot of trouble from some people.
I'm so glad the election is tomorrow. I can't stand to watch another minute of what seems like ridiculously biased media coverage, blatant lies, and anti-Green propaganda (apparently their policies are "dangerous" now. Oh no!). It's sickening and depressing, particularly when it's apparently perfectly acceptable for major newspapers like the Herald-Sun to run full-page editorials on the day before the election that blatantly favour the Coalition, and which are sure to appeal to the
The media blatantly favours the Coalition (full-page pro-Howard editorial in todays Herald-Sun, anybody?)
Now, I know that there are at least a couple of people on my flist who are voting for the Liberals, but I just can't quite figure out a single reason why one would do so. I just don't understand it. As far as I can tell, the only two reasons anybody in their right mind would vote for Howard are 1) they believe that economics is the single most important thing in the world and they are either believe the nonsense fear campaign against Labor regarding interest rates, or they have taken the whole bullshit "hip-pocket" appeals to heart, or 2) they have a terrible, terrible fear of terrorism, and believe that Bush Howard will Keep Us Safe (TM).
I have so many major objections to so many of the Liberals' policies *cough*gay marriage*cough*fear campaign*cough*economic rationalism*cough*wedge politics*cough* that I don't feel the need to go into them individually, but rather, what annoys me more than anything, is that a large chunk of the media has been so shamelessly biased in this campaign, especially in the last couple of days.
I mean, of course the Packer and Fairfax media groups are going to have a vested interest in re-electing a government that is willing to allow them to keep their respective almost-monopolies, but (and feel free to call me an idealist, as much as I try to quash it) I'd like to think that there would be some standard of journalistic integrity (ha!) that would require at least an ostensibly impartial media. But any number of interviews I've seen are just so much more indulgent towards Howard than Latham, not mentioning any of the ridiculous number of times Howard has lied to the people, and allowing him to get away with simply reciting his mantra of how he's proven himself at economic management, and how inexperienced and dangerous Latham is, no matter what question he is asked, even if it has absolutely no relation to that topic, and especially if it is something he doesn't want to talk about. I suppose it comes from years of being conditioned to only report favourable things about Howard, lest he decide not to grace their network/newspaper with any more interviews. But still... it just leaves something of a bad taste, especially when quite a few of the interviews I've seen are rather harsh on Latham.
Hmm. I mean, is it just me? Am I imagining it? Because I haven't heard anybody else mentioning it, although, from over here, it seems really rather obvious.
And then there's all of that ridiculous propaganda against the Greens that's been going since it was discovered that they might be a significant influence on the outcome of the election. I mean, there was this one interviewer who was giving Latham utter hell for doing a preference deal with the Greens - calling them 'dangerous', and basically implying that, were they able to get the votes, they would be responsible for the downfall of society (and Good Heavens, they want to maybe consider decriminalising marijuana usage, and encourage people to *gasp* ride a bicycle instead of driving!?!!1!), but, when interviewing Howard, didn't even so much as mention the preference deal the Liberals have done with the far more reprehensible Family First party, whose policies include tearing down bottle shops, mosques, Masonic temples, and other "devil's strongholds", and reverting to an uber-conservative, 1950s-esque, fundamentalist-christian-centred society, or something.
It's just appalling. And utterly offensive. And so much worse, because Nobody. Gives. A. Shit.
And the fact that most people don't care that he has lied, or that his campaign is based on fear and distrust and wedge-politics, is probably the single most depressing thing I've witnessed for quite some time. I mean, aren't the US and UK governments getting utter hell for this whole Iraq thing? While Howard sits back and says 'meh, whatever', and the people go, 'meh, it's done now, no sense worrying about it.'
Ah well. They say you get the government you deserve, I suppose.
And apparently, as many as 18% of people are still undecided. *prays for some sudden flash of intelligence in the population*
Right. So I'm not going to be doing what a couple of other people on the flist have done, ie., not wanting to hear arguments for why people are voting Liberal.
I really don't understand, and I must confess a certain morbid curiosity. So, if you're voting for Howard, please reply to this post and explain it, anonymously or whatever. I just don't get it. Or just bitch, or whatever. :P
I can't promise I'll respond, because I don't want to argue it out - I'm just really, really curious to see if there is a valid reason (like, what I consider valid) that people have for voting Liberal.
Although I will say that I really will lose my last remaining scraps of faith in the Australian people if Howard wins again. Also, so leaving the country.
Also, Rocky Horror tomorrow night? Anyone?
And I just can't shake the feeling that this is going to get me into a lot of trouble from some people.
I'm so glad the election is tomorrow. I can't stand to watch another minute of what seems like ridiculously biased media coverage, blatant lies, and anti-Green propaganda (apparently their policies are "dangerous" now. Oh no!). It's sickening and depressing, particularly when it's apparently perfectly acceptable for major newspapers like the Herald-Sun to run full-page editorials on the day before the election that blatantly favour the Coalition, and which are sure to appeal to the
The media blatantly favours the Coalition (full-page pro-Howard editorial in todays Herald-Sun, anybody?)
Now, I know that there are at least a couple of people on my flist who are voting for the Liberals, but I just can't quite figure out a single reason why one would do so. I just don't understand it. As far as I can tell, the only two reasons anybody in their right mind would vote for Howard are 1) they believe that economics is the single most important thing in the world and they are either believe the nonsense fear campaign against Labor regarding interest rates, or they have taken the whole bullshit "hip-pocket" appeals to heart, or 2) they have a terrible, terrible fear of terrorism, and believe that Bush Howard will Keep Us Safe (TM).
I have so many major objections to so many of the Liberals' policies *cough*gay marriage*cough*fear campaign*cough*economic rationalism*cough*wedge politics*cough* that I don't feel the need to go into them individually, but rather, what annoys me more than anything, is that a large chunk of the media has been so shamelessly biased in this campaign, especially in the last couple of days.
I mean, of course the Packer and Fairfax media groups are going to have a vested interest in re-electing a government that is willing to allow them to keep their respective almost-monopolies, but (and feel free to call me an idealist, as much as I try to quash it) I'd like to think that there would be some standard of journalistic integrity (ha!) that would require at least an ostensibly impartial media. But any number of interviews I've seen are just so much more indulgent towards Howard than Latham, not mentioning any of the ridiculous number of times Howard has lied to the people, and allowing him to get away with simply reciting his mantra of how he's proven himself at economic management, and how inexperienced and dangerous Latham is, no matter what question he is asked, even if it has absolutely no relation to that topic, and especially if it is something he doesn't want to talk about. I suppose it comes from years of being conditioned to only report favourable things about Howard, lest he decide not to grace their network/newspaper with any more interviews. But still... it just leaves something of a bad taste, especially when quite a few of the interviews I've seen are rather harsh on Latham.
Hmm. I mean, is it just me? Am I imagining it? Because I haven't heard anybody else mentioning it, although, from over here, it seems really rather obvious.
And then there's all of that ridiculous propaganda against the Greens that's been going since it was discovered that they might be a significant influence on the outcome of the election. I mean, there was this one interviewer who was giving Latham utter hell for doing a preference deal with the Greens - calling them 'dangerous', and basically implying that, were they able to get the votes, they would be responsible for the downfall of society (and Good Heavens, they want to maybe consider decriminalising marijuana usage, and encourage people to *gasp* ride a bicycle instead of driving!?!!1!), but, when interviewing Howard, didn't even so much as mention the preference deal the Liberals have done with the far more reprehensible Family First party, whose policies include tearing down bottle shops, mosques, Masonic temples, and other "devil's strongholds", and reverting to an uber-conservative, 1950s-esque, fundamentalist-christian-centred society, or something.
It's just appalling. And utterly offensive. And so much worse, because Nobody. Gives. A. Shit.
And the fact that most people don't care that he has lied, or that his campaign is based on fear and distrust and wedge-politics, is probably the single most depressing thing I've witnessed for quite some time. I mean, aren't the US and UK governments getting utter hell for this whole Iraq thing? While Howard sits back and says 'meh, whatever', and the people go, 'meh, it's done now, no sense worrying about it.'
Ah well. They say you get the government you deserve, I suppose.
And apparently, as many as 18% of people are still undecided. *prays for some sudden flash of intelligence in the population*
Right. So I'm not going to be doing what a couple of other people on the flist have done, ie., not wanting to hear arguments for why people are voting Liberal.
I really don't understand, and I must confess a certain morbid curiosity. So, if you're voting for Howard, please reply to this post and explain it, anonymously or whatever. I just don't get it. Or just bitch, or whatever. :P
I can't promise I'll respond, because I don't want to argue it out - I'm just really, really curious to see if there is a valid reason (like, what I consider valid) that people have for voting Liberal.
Although I will say that I really will lose my last remaining scraps of faith in the Australian people if Howard wins again. Also, so leaving the country.
Also, Rocky Horror tomorrow night? Anyone?