What we really voted for
By Shaun Carney
October 30, 2004/the Age
Australians gave John Howard unfettered power without any checks and balances.
... Howard has secured unfettered control of the Senate. Presumably, it will take a bit longer before the ramifications of this spectacular achievement are fully understood.
What it seems to mean is this: Australia has confirmed that it has set sail on a new political course, one where controversies over such things as propriety, ethics and honesty are likely to be dismissed - if they occur at all - as boutique sideshows, of little concern to the great mass of voters.
.... The majority did not opt for checks and balances. They want the Coalition to be able to do whatever it wants. They did not want the country to get caught up in discussions about which advice got through to which minister, or whether it is appropriate for ministers to come down like a ton of bricks on the head of the Federal Police for making the simple observation that being a combatant in Iraq makes us more prone to terrorism, or any of the other revelations about ministerial behaviour that sprang up regularly in the past three years.
That is second order stuff to most voters and they are unlikely to want to hear about it during the Howard Government's fourth term. This situation poses serious challenges for the media as well as the Labor Opposition. When most Australians are saying with some force that they are not overly concerned about process just as long as their economic circumstances aren't being disturbed, how are questions of right and wrong in public life decided?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/29/1099028206529.html
... 3 trips up the freeway with it (to my tech) were necessary to repair it ... & in the process I was up-graded! Much faster than my old 98 program, i can tell you! 
