I don't like making my first post in reponse to another post, but wouldn't it be best to not use the site to make comparisons between Howard and Hitler?

Slinging mud will not change the facts for those people in detention.

It does seem like an odd moment to raise this particular, um criticism, but I'm inclined to agree. In fact it's crucial I think to be clear that any new fascism will look unrecognisable from the versions of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and - only slightly stretching things - Stalin, as indeed these had significant differences from each other.

It does concern me when the sometimes high-pitched 'Howard is not Hitler' is used as a screen for the uncontroversial historical phenomena of social democracies unfolding in increasingly totalitarian directions. We've seen it before - not as an isolated incident but as a sweeping phenomena in the early 20th century. And no doubt we'll see it again in some form.

On the other hand, I'd argue that the Indonesian system is a form of actual fascism, and Australia seems ever more ready to work with it and cover for its crimes.

My point is that the argument has nothing to do with whether Howard is too close to Hitler. The argument is about what direction our society is heading in. And to many of us the direction is very clear under Howard. So far his legacy will leave our society closer to a fascist condition and further away from a social democratic one. That was not his mandate.

I don't understand how anyone can claim we are moving towards fascism in Australia. We keep having elections - at state and Federal level, even by-elections where the government doesn't win - and the government seems to be reacting to public opinion on many issues. Granted, the government doesn't react to everything and that some of the issues it doesn't react to (lets be honest: most of them) are issues that could be held to be more to the left than the right, but that doesn't make them fascist.

Moving the country to the right doesn't mean we are tending towards fascism any more than the ALP getting into power means we are tending towards some kind of Castro-style communism. If anything, that the government is reacting to the electorate is a sign that we are nowhere near a fascist state - unless of course the electorate is tending fascist . . . in which case we have a bigger problem.

But I don't believe that the government or the electorate are tending that way or moving in that direction. And unless all of this movement has occured post-2004 election, I can't agree with you that Howard has no mandate. After all, being re-elected for a third time (a fourth altogether) is a sign that he has got sort of mandate from the people, isn't it?

I enjoy reading lefty writing for the reason that it can challenge my own thoughts on issues. However the Hitler=Howard, Hitler=Bush and "We are becoming a fascist state" discourse does nothing to challenge anything except the patience of others. Like both of you, I think that this site will be better without it.

"When the President starts lying he begins to need evidence to back up his lies because in this democracy he is questioned on his statements. It then percolates down through the bureaucracy that you are helping the Boss if you come up with evidence that is supportive of our public position and you are distinctly unhelpful if you commit to paper statements that might leak to the wrong people.

"The effect of that is to poison the flow of information to the President himself and to create a situation where a President can be almost, to use a metaphor, psychotically divorced from the realities in which he is acting . . ." Daniel Ellsburg to the US Senate on Foreign Relations, May 13, 1970.

Mr Ellsburg, "whistleblower", risked imprisonment when the Pentagon Papers were published in the U.S.A. because he had information that proved their democratic society was being eroded by facist doctrines. (1970) Our "whistleblower" Mr Wilkie, also had evidence the erroneous information Mr. Howard was voicing to involve our country in an illegal war with Iraq was "divorced from realities" and therefore undermining our democratic society. (2004)

The posting above plus other research on legislation and proposed legislation in the U.S.A. and Australia has convinced me that Mr. Bush (2005) and Mr. Howard (2005) are both leading us to a facist condition and away from a social democratic one.

Hamish, you say that this site is faith based ("based on a faith that everyday citizens, when they are well informed, are capable of making rational decisions about how their society should be managed") and that it is "over to you" to fill the "blank slate".

So why will there be the same moderation of posts "in the tradition of Webdiary?"

At Webdiary Margo Kingston freely inserts her comments, in bold, into posters' comments or deletes them entirely and when questioned about this replies along the lines of, "its my site I will do what I like."

This isn't democracy, it's autocracy.

Doctor's Wife, you ask, "why will there be the same moderation of posts "in the tradition of Webdiary?""

To make the site look better, and hence more functional. If you want a free-for-all, check out indimedia. But the moderation is not ideological. Think of it as sub-editing if you like rather than moderation.

Doctors Wife, my first instinct was to agree with you. However, on reflection, editorial control is not all bad. Sometimes contributors need to be kept 'on message'.

Editorial control (or moderation) is used in many publications in most democratic societies - so I don't think this is so different. There might be all manner of arguments about how editorial control should be exercised, and indeed, I would argue for less editorial control in parts of this site - the Forums, for example.

Perhaps we should open up a debate of this issue in the Forums?

Wow, Howard is not Hitler - rather he is some new undiscovered form of fascism. Good to see someone is conducting research in this cutting edge area.

Australia is "ever more ready to work with" Indonesian fascism. East Timor ? Whitlam and Suharto ?

Do some research.

How does anyone know that the "moderation is not ideological"?

Without displaying the moderated material in full, there is no way of your proving that statement.

"All posts are edited"

I came here because your preamble offered "This project is based on a faith that everyday citizens, when they are well informed, are capable of making rational decisions about how their society should be managed." So I viewed that as an invitation for me to contribute and demonstrate that I am capable of making rational decisions.

So at my first attempt to participate, I find that: "All posts are edited," justified with:

• "this editorial policy will enhance and abet good interactivity between users rather than impede it."
• "numerous editors, including bloggers editing their own comments like Margo does with Webdiary."

Now Margo Kingston edits Webdiary because she is a contracted content provider with an editorial responsibility. The editing makes the Webdiary more palatable to a readership and most probably ensures that the contract with smh is fulfilled - although I don't know what's in the contract.

While Webdiary has given many more than journalists a forum for their views, it in no way represents free, unfettered speaking by 'everyday citizens'.

Consequently, I refrained from submitting a comment on this site which I could not be sure would be permitted unfiltered - even if that filter is well-meant, it is still a distortion of my contribution - and made feedback to the site developer. For my pains I was told to contribute directly. Catch 22.

If you want democracy in action then you have to accept many voices, rough and smooth. Moderation, as with participation in any society - one which I would have anything to do with at least - should come after misbehaviour or inappropriate use of the cutlery. Only post-moderation will display tranparently the values of the moderator.

I claim my right to vomit in the parlour palms and feel up the judge. You can kick me out if you don't like me doing it, but you can't handcuff me before I come through the door just in case I might misbehave.

This site is therefore clearly not prepared for the hard stuff.

Who knows what the agenda is? All I know is that indimedia is what you don't like for this site. So?

As it stands, it appears that for this site, some tame doctors wives will be good for the publicity.

I will leave you with Groucho's feelings on not caring to be part of any club which wouldn't have me as a member and, as I told the dead hand of "feedback" (ps, the polite convention with feedback is to accept it with thanks - not to feedback to feedbackers you clutz), return after a break to see how you are coming along with democratic behaviour.

The preview doesn't agree with the formatting guidelines - but the guidelines are only useful to someone with experience in html.

One more strike against helping all to a voice.

It's just editing that's all. And all sorts of functional systems
have rules - the rules make them functional. No material is cut because
we don't agree with it.

Editing makes Webdiary a better, more accessible, readable site.

Hamish, maybe it would be better to say Make it happen; Make it Yours (subject to editing by moderators to preseve freedom of speech)

It may sound pedantic but so often advocates of rights also advocate control.

It's all in how you "frame the language."

"No material is cut because we don't agree with it. " Read the material. I didn't specify **how** editing filtered things. I simply said that editing is a filter. I even helped you with the palm chuck metaphor. For example, you filtered my content by including some funny fat full stops and tabs with a couple of my quotes from your OP (originating post). I didn't want those two quotes emphasised any more than the other quotes in my post. Why did you emphasise them? I don't want an answer to this - the question is a rhetorical device. What about self moderation post contribution? Can I go and take those bullets out of your editing? Can I remove my comment after it has been put up on the site? And why should anyone trust your (whoever the 'we' is) editorial qualifications if you reckon the plural of 'medium' should be 'mediae'? At least that's what it looks like with your quasi latinate plural on 'forum'. Looks like it's okay for the boss to vomit on the palms but the rest of us have to go and use the dunnies. Probably better if we just don't come here to drink then is the message you are flashing. Editing is going to bog this place down as much as it appears that Webdiary got jammed and degraded on busy days. And if people remain contributors to Webdiary despite that, then why would they come here if it is the same as Webdiary? If you mean this site to be even moderately accessible, get real and open at least the fora to post moderation. If there is even a smidge of interest in the site, then you will get good timely advice from participants as soon as someone steps even an inch out of line. And pulling a post is an extremely effective instructional tool. As it stands, the only way I can distinguish Webdiary from this site is that you can probably get a new topic started on this site. How your emphasis is presented is a bit of a lottery it seems. Can I go now please sir or do I have to get a note from Mum? No offense intended in this post. It would be clear if I meant to cause offense.

Nice work Hamish,

Australia is one of the luckiest countries in the world in terms of democratic participation as it knows better than most nations that any problems experienced in democracies can only be cured by more democracy.

The word democracy derives from two Greek words: demos, meaning "the people," and kratos, meaning "rule." Democracy is a way of governing in which the entire body of citizens takes charge of their own affairs. In a true democracy, the citizens are the source of power. Lincoln defined it as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In terms of editing this site, regretably from experience some people fail to post in the spirit of the common sense rules and as a result most large political sites reserve the right to edit post in order to make them conform to the simple rules: Criticize ideas? Yes. Criticize people for holding those ideas? No.

Jay Rosen has recently compiled the following entry under From Meet the Press to Be the Press
The Economist just said it: the "the traditional notion that the media play a special role in informing people is breaking down." Rising up: government as a "purely neutral" news provider, credible where a sinking press corps is not.

As Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, has put it, the administration does not think that the press has "a check-and-balance function". This is a fundamental change of attitude compared with previous administrations and makes this one's use of fake news different.

I agree: a fundamental change is afoot, and we have to try to understand it. The Economist zeroes in on why the "special interest" charge matters. Listen carefully-- they're catching on:
If there is nothing special about the press, then there is nothing special about what it does. News can be anything--including dressed-up government video footage. And anyone can provide it, including the White House, which, through local networks, can become a news distributor in its own right.

Given the proliferation of media outlets and the eroding of boundaries between news, comment and punditry, someone will use government-provided information as news. The President represented the people, the press represented the public.

Why two reps, why these two words? Because the same Americans who believe in popular sovereignty (election to office) believe too in public opinion (government by discussion.)
• Your Democracy in Words

Jozef

This newish website (New Copia), Hamish, is filled with promise and potential for bringing extra battles of ideas into the legislative arena.

By way of background, one of the first bills linked on the website that is now before the Commonwealth Parliament is dealing with the statutory position of the Parliamentary Librarian.

The RSS for the New Copia was set up by the savvy staff of the Legislative Library. While the links to the bills are official, the New Copia website is run by a group of independent providers who have a knack for adding value to the virtual world of possibilities.

What is Newcopia?

Newcopia is a commenting system where people can come and discuss the
latest additions in Bills and Research from Australian Parliament House.

[PS: No one is better qualified to write about parliamentary libraries than Dr Cope. People like Dr Cope know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. As George Savile said: "The best way to suppose what may come is to remember what is past."]

Hey Kids, I don't know about heading towards fascism but elections are not a sign of either democracy or lack of fascism. I believe Zimbabwe just had an election. As did the Ukraine. Democracy? The USSR used to have elections too, with one candidate.

I don't think we have any real choice at election time either. Essentially we can vote Labor or Liberal/Nats. Any minor party voting ends up with one of those two except in a few seats where independents have a seat but no power and some Senate seats.

Even if you think we still do have a choice between the two parties, do you have any choice about who stands as a candidate? I don't think so. That's done behind closed doors where money is becoming the main factor in preselection.