March 29, 2005

• They sure don't vote that way though, what with John Howard re-elected last year.
• Even supposing the election was a plebiscite on the US alliance, you think 58% wouldn't carry the day? OK, no more moderating my own post now.
• It's pretty amazing - amongst all the discussions I've ever seen online, nobody voted for bush, and nobody voted for howard. [Definitely an indication of what websites I visit and not really proof of their non-existance] There may be a relationship between the number of people you know from a country and how you rank it. As I don't personally know any americans, my opinion of america is based on some media-based stereotype I've developed over the years (i.e. america sucks). However, I know a bunch of people encompassing most of the rest of the world, and (this is hardly scientific) I'd probably rank the countries the way I'd rank the people.
• Well, if you want to form an opinion of America based on Americans, here's a quick guide: half of us are too glued to our TVs to bother to vote, and a little over half of the remaining are in love with George W. Bush. It is too bad that many world governments (and their economies) are too strongly allied with the US to impose any real checks on our excesses. I hope in a few years, as we drown in debt and theocratic nationalism, the rest of the world will find it easier to sever these alliances, perhaps impose some long-overdue sanctions. At this point the only thing that will jolt us out of our haze is a solid dose of irrelevance.
• Why did the Aussies vote for Howard? Was it in spite of his embrace of Bush, or was that a factor in squeeking out his narrow win? I apologize for being an ignorant semi-American but Howard's election got scant coverage here because, of course, OZ doesn't matter to the US. Re: this report. Isn't this the same pattern repeated almost uniformly througout the world? That is,where the general population despises Bush yet the politicians continue to bow down to him (Germany and France excepted). It's ironic that Bush is pushing democracy when it would seem that the majority and therefore "the will of the people" have concluded that he is a danger to the world.
• kamus -- I suspect that the politicians in control of many of these countries fancy themselves "realists" and while perhaps privately disliking the regime - er - administration, think it's best if they capitulate a little. Look at my country's willingness to buy into a hugely expensive defence boondoggle (until the fortunate media debacle). The reason given (and leaked) was always the same: ok, it doesn't work, even when set up for demos, but buying in will help us maintain good relations.
• Maybe the dingo ate your sense of perspective?
• kamus -- The fact that there wasn't much of an opposition helped Howard immensely. You're not likely to get change without a convincing alternative. lamearse -- My mum and dad and their friends voted for Howard. I suspect they are not members of MonkeyFilter, but in case they are: 'Hi mum and dad.'
• Sure, there's a fair amount of evidence that China has been moving in the right direction on human rights issues and the like (I suspect mainly because of Beijing 08), and it's also fairly clear that the US is moving backwards on many if not most useful metrics, but I find it quite difficult to say that China as a nation has much that is superior to the US aside from population.
• fuyugare, I myself have been irrelevant for years now, yet the haze surrounding me only seems to have thickened. How to explain? chimaera: also in terms of percentage of folks who commute via bicycle (though I've read this is changing).
• kamus: You need to appreciate some factors in Aussie politics. As tellurian notes, the major opposition party is a joke at the moment, and still is. They look incompetant most of the time, which is hardly attractive for the electorate. A second is that Howard is not directly elected; he's just another MP in the most popular party (or , more accurately, alliance), and that's determined by seats won in individual electorates. There's no proportional representation in Aussie, so winning seats is what counts, not the popular vote. In extreme cases - for example, New Zealand in the late 70s and early 80s - this Westminster style system can see the main party get re-elected by focusing on the handful of marginal seats that determine elections and get into power with as little as 30-something% of the popular vote (in New Zealand, the Muldoon government borrowed literally billions of dollars to buy votes in marginal, usually provincial/rural areas like New Plymouth). Howard is very good at getting support in the smaller centres and rural areas, and appealing to the Aussie equivalents of the redneck vote, playing up fears on immigration, Aboriginal rights, and, heck, brown people generally. His ability to tell flat out lies and get away with it probably makes Karl Rove envious. He's genuinely a big sports fan, which helps his great pitch as the common bloke's man in Canberra. I'd be willing to bet many of his supporters are unconcerned if "a bunch of poofs in Sydney and Melbourne" don't like his policies, and that's the kind of social split he plays on. Finally, things are generally pretty good in Australia in a lot of areas. They didn't get hit by much of the economic downturn that affected the States from 2001 on, for example, and they've got good unemployment, bouyant property market, lots of international sporting success (which Aussies care about a bunch and affects the national mood), etc. So a lot of people who might loathe many of Howard's policies on things that are intangible in their day to day life (foreign policy, race relations) aren't going to rock the boat on things that are.
• Excellent comment! Thanks rogerd. Sounds like the US and OZ politics are more alike than I thought in terms of Redneck appeal, lack of an educated electorate, the "common man" image type instead of an sophisticated civil servant, sports over reason, and a really crappy opposition.
• At least we dont make pee-pee in people's Cokes. That's just wrong.
• On a more serious note: W. was a textbook one-term precedent until we got hit by 9/11, a truly shocking and unprecedented event. So Australia, UK, et al.: what's your excuse? ps God save the Queen.
• Even supposing the election was a plebiscite on the US alliance, you think 58% wouldn't carry the day? Well those low ranking ozzies have for the usa isn't enough for them to want to, say, elect a government that would take Australia's troops out of Iraq. Howard took his victory and increase in seats to mean vindication for his support for the war, and wants to send another 450 troops to Iraq That poll doesn't mean a whole lot if Australians are going to complain on it but then decide to vote for the status quo.
• John Howard keeps interest rates low it's the gospel truth, he told me so and as the interest rates begin to rise he said "block your ears and cover your eyes, just remember who keeps giving you more and stopped those reffos from coming ashore. Take the advice of the wise Andrew Bolt that if things go bad, it's not my fault." He made me feel comfortable and relaxed my doubts stopped firmly in their tracks 'Cause I knew Honest John is never wrong as I should well have known all along
• Read rodgerd's comment again, Bruise Brubaker. Australians are not voting for Howard as much as voting for his party. It is the same reason that Tony Blair will be re-elected in May, despite the fact that the majority of UKers (Sedgefielders excepted) probably don't like him.
• Yes, I did read that post, and then I read it again. Ok, so Australians reelected a party that will continue to participate in the Iraq war. Look, I dislike the war as much as anyone else here, and I agree whole heartedly that Bush and Howard are assholes, but you shouldn't look at that poll and think it demonstrates any change in Ozzie sentiment that means trouble for the boys in either Canberra or Washington. Hell, in the US, you had plenty of people polled that were uneasy about the war, economy, deficit, future, and everything else, and the fucker still won. Plus, there are tidbits like these Sixty-one per cent said they regarded our alliance with the US as "very important" to Australia's security... ...70 per cent of respondents feel safer under the US alliance The polls shows that most people like the USA anyway, they just like it less than some other countries. From the looks of that poll, there would be only three countries Australians don't like.
• I'd like to see the figures for a few other countries. I know that here in Canada, rejection of the invasion of Iraq was strong enough to make quite a few polls indicate a pronounced dislike for the U.S. "It's ironic that Bush is pushing democracy when it would seem that the majority and therefore "the will of the people" have concluded that he is a danger to the world." Agreed, except I don't think he's pushing democracy, but rather foisting imperialism and labelling it Democracy® in some transparent attempt to appeal to people even more stupid than he is.
• Despite the fact that I disliked Howard and was opposed to the war, I still voted for him since I cannot (could not)stand the alternative, Mark Latham. I agree with the point that Howards success can be attributed to the popularity of his party, rather than his personal popularity but that's the way the cookie crumbles. To be honest, I don't like any of them and was loathe to make a decision either way. And in terms of Austrralia's decision to send more troops, I think people need to realise that we are going to be there a VERY long time. And although I am vehemently opposed to Australians (or anyone) going there in the first place, now that we have created that disaster we cannot just pack our bags and leave. We need to sort that mess out. At the end of it, I think many Australians resent the USA but at the same time they still realise that they are an important ally. The two feelings need not be mutually exclusive.
• The Australians didn't vote on the war. The war wasn't even an issue. The economy, housing etc were issues. Australia is very far away and the people are very apathetic.
• What Doris said.
• I like Americans. A lot. It's their stinking Government that gives me the screaming Heebie Jeebies.
• I wish I could post a picture of my cat that keeps interests rates low.
• I can't get the link to open properly here 9maybe contains some naughty references that the party's net nannies don't like) but it seems to make perfect sense for Australia to concentrate on their relationship with an emerging economic powerhouse and regional power. I notice your football team's going to compete in the Asia section of the World Cup in future too. Look forward to booing you from the terraces of the Worker's Stadium in the usual bitter Pom fashion :-)
• A pdf with fuller details of the poll is available here.
• Agreed, except I don't think he's pushing democracy, but rather foisting imperialism and labelling it Democracy® in some transparent attempt to appeal to people even more stupid than he is. Posted by coppermac You're correct. I did mean Democracy® new and improved and now with extra hypocrisy!

• PareidoliaticBoy: I like Americans. A lot. It's their stinking Government that gives me the screaming Heebie Jeebies.

  But that distinction is a false one. We Americans voted out government into power. When our government stinks, by definition that stench emanates from the will of the American people.
• Wow - you democrats DO hate America. Who knew.
• Whom are you calling a Democrat?
• "Hate" is such a strong word. I prefer "do my personal best to avoid," but then I'm no Democrat. Otoh, ranking America behind China makes no sense. And how did they miss Japan's descension into nationalism and xenophobia?
• "You're correct. I did mean Democracy® new and improved and now with extra hypocrisy!" Your rhyming couplet more than makes up for the oversight, kamus. I think the rankings make sense, kenshin. I'd probably rank both China and the U.S. lower, though. As for Japan, perhaps there are other nations more known for xenophobia and rampant nationalism right now. What begins with 'U' and ends with 'S'?
• Um, Uranus?
• there are other nations more known for xenophobia and rampant nationalism right now More known for, perhaps, but certainly not more in the throes of. No American mayor has called on the miliatary to maintain order if "foreigners" in the city riot after a disaster (and then been reelected by a wide, wide margin). No American jingoistic textbook comes close to such viciousness as doubting/denying the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese right-wing has been trying to justify Japan's role in WWII (the latest attempt: a textbook blaming China for provoking Japan into invasion) - that beats any American right-wing rhetoric by lightyears. On the bright side, nither Japan nor America is ruled with iron fist by a party that brought the Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward and considers the Tiananmen Massacre justified.
• So, the choice is between which economically stronger nation will have the companies whose shareholders will get them to dig stuff up to sell to another economically stronger nation to sell back to us in the form of electronic consumer goods, in the meantime doing all they can to convince us that 'free trade' is really great? That's what I love about choice.
• Everyone is misunderstanding the poll. Clearly the question was "please rate Chinese and American FOOD". In which case, China clearly kicks ass.
• I found the food a bit ordinary in China.
• I find Chinese food a bit hole-in-tummy inducing.
• kenshin: By all means, point me to the US school textbook that deals with the nation's atrocities in the Philipines with anything other than a glossing over. After you find it, go back to throwing rocks at the Japanese for ignoring their vile behaviour in China.
• Firstly, I'm too busy consuming J-pop, learning Japanese and planning trips to Japan to throw rocks. Secondly, there's a huge difference between glossing over historical warts (which every country does) and denying them/blaming the victims. Finally, depending on whom you ask, up to 20 million Chinese died in WWII. Please enlighten me on American atrocities in the Philipines or elsewhere that has comparable death tolls.