Well this reads like the whinging negativity of the asinine.

Maybe if "Dee Dee" had ever been caught in an IRA bombing he might consider the issue a little more serious than suggesting the Prime Minister is using it as a publicity stunt to promote "fear" in the community.

Lets select just a few words from the article

"Ultimately, Howard is playing politics - and playing it well. Howard makes the politics of fear work: it is in his, and the Liberal party’s interests. But is it in ours?"

I would suggest terrorists are the ones "playing politics" and they are doing it with bombs - and whilst many people voted for the Lib/Nat coalition, NO ONE "voted" for the terrorists.

I guess Dee Dee should get to understand that a nation gets the government it deserves - and I for one certainly deserve the benefits that this conservative government brings compared to the stiffling inertia and stagnation associated with Labor or the death, bedlam and absolute misery created by terrorists.

This is the sort of rubbish we can do wothout.

Do we want a safe Australia? Of course we do.

Is John Howard working to keep Australia safe? Yes he is.

Is he right to be honest about not being able to give guarantees? Yes he is.

Get real Daniel!

Howard, and the right wing in general, is very good at using fear and other emotions as political motivators. (Children overboard, interest rates for the obvious examples.) That said, I think it is a bit of stretch to say that the Government's current statements are intended that way. They have to say something and they can't avoid talking about the risk to Australians.

I do think that the risk of terrorism has been overplayed, but by the media; which I suppose thereby allows governments the opportunity to exploit it for their own gain. The media's focus on terrorism is mainly the result of its sensationalist nature, arising from our inexperience with it. An unfortunate result of the current media environment.

If there is an attack, then the Government's anti-terrorism efforts will be evaluated, and I don't think it has much to show for itself.

Daniel - do you think Howard is as bad as the ACTU and its fear-mongering and bare-faced lies about the industrial relations reforms? Do you think Howard shows the same degree of delight that the MSM do when terrorists attack and kill in Iraq so they can use it to harangue the war on terror and conservative governments?
Can you tell us how the anti-terrorist laws have effected you in your daily business? Have they had a worse effect on you than the threat of being blown up by terrorist vermin?
Do you think the government should understate the threat of a terrorist attack here? If we did have an attack would you then bludgeon the government for that understatement and failure to prevent the event?
Do you think that sitting back in your comfy chair as you gnash your teeth and tilt your head is the same as actually coming up with practical solutions to serious problems that can be implemented in real life?
Just asking.

Well, Howard's strategy certainly seems to be working...

For anyone who cannot see why maintaining fear in the public is desirable for a politician, just think of George W. Bush's 37 point rise in popularity after September 11 - before he made any concrete decisions and certainly before any decisions were implemented which could provide a basis for rational judgement of how well a president is doing his job. In times of insecurity we look for guidance and a leader and the perceived threat of terrorism definately creates insecurity.

But I think Howard is not only maintaing axious sentitments to boost his popularity and to distract from other current political issues which are less beneficial for his popularity. He and his team also refrain from assuring us, such that if anything like a terrorist attack will happen in Australia, they can openly say, well, we did our best, we warned you. But this strategy too, is to preserve their popularity or integrity, rather than to serve the public. Advocating less fear rather than maintaining fear would help the public, as fear has created an atmosphere of suspicion and has lead to increased animosity between groups.

Your comment is, I fear, too true. For me it looks obvious when the PM steps up to the plate to give us another dose of his toxic approach to democracy designed to divide the Australian community. Without a vision for Australia, it could be that division is an easy alternative. Perhaps the polls prove me wrong since enough people are persuaded by his subtly corrosive rhetoric to continue to give him a comfortable margin of support in the community.

What is less apparent, because it is so pervasive, is the insidious climate of anxiety maintained by the media with its focus on the all the negatives of life ranging from the latest local traffic accident, and petty council corruptions, to natural catastrophes anywhere on the globe and, of course, the latest acts of terrorism. Even the stock market reports appear designed to maintain the fear and (am I getting paranoid?) the repetitive, fetishistic sports reports seem designed to keep blood pressure oscillating if only you could get beyond the impression that this was yet further proof of another groundhog day. With recently increasing focus on global warming even the previously innocent weather reports are suspect, becoming yet another source for our constantly mounting anxiety levels.

The media has learned that it can sell newspapers, gain listeners for radio programs and viewers in front of televisions with this approach to commentary on the world. Attracting audiences is directly linked to media survival and profits. The closest comparison I can make is with the apparently addictive power of pornography to hook an audience and keep it mesmerized to the point of oblivion.

If it works for the media why wouldn’t it work for politicians? Our political leaders of the right are demonstrating that it does work for them and they are getting better with practise.