during the 80's, two readers wrote to the sydney morning herald, congratulating oz, and themselves, on living in a democracy. both chose to refer to lincolns famous characterization of democracy from the gettysburgh address:

(government) "of the people, for the people."

on neither occassion did the editor note to readers that what lincoln actually said was:

(government) "of the people, by the people, for the people."

as a mistake, this would have been breath-taking in any literate english-speaker. but since it occurred twice and needed co-operation of several people, this was not a mistake, it was policy. the writers, and/or the smh editor(s) were re-writing history to fit the "received truth" of the australian oligarchy.

as a blatant and significant example of removing 'thought-crime' from view of the proles, it would be hard to improve on this. it's not that ozzies choose to be sheep, they simply aren't allowed to know what real citizenship is.

Demos,

The strangest thing about US democracy is that what they have now was certainly not the system that was originally intended by their Founding Fathers.

They did not want "the masses" to have any say in electing or appointing government officials but wanted to bestow this privelege onto a chosen group of wealthy and influential private citizens.

Likewise, the intention that their Constitution should be updated every generation (because "a man should not wear the clothes of a child") seems to have been ignored and has left their system open to abuse and reinterpretation.

The use of subtle editing of the historical record is no surprise to me, particulalry when the bigger picture has been sugar-coated and mythologised for generations.

rache, you are quite right, the major writers of the us federal constitution knew what democracy was, and didn't want a bar of it.

their goal was to transpose the society of georgian britain onto the colonies, with elections taking the place of heredity in ensuring 'the right people' ruled. but there was a democratic tradition as well, which resulted in the bill of rights and later amendments.

federal america today is no democracy, but about half the individual states are. (ex-senator) mike gravel is trying to install democratic function to the federal government, using his presidential candidacy to publicize this movement. he's not making a visible impact.

i'm trying to do something similar here, with even less success. ozzies grow up as political blanks, no discussion, no participation, no formal attachment to political society, except every 3 years there's a mustering where they can choose 'a' or 'b', and that's their democratic duty done.

but the gathering stresses of too many humans on this planet are likely to result in a '1984' dictatorship. so i keep crying out: "the sky is falling, get your democratic umbrellas here!" i even bore myself, but somebody's gotta do it. or so i think.

AS I DID FIGHT A 5-YEAR LEGAL BATTLE AND SO SUCCESSFULLY ABOUT ELECTORAL MATTERS I AM NOT ONBE OF THE SHEEP THAT FOLLOWS BLINDLY.
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in the County Court of Victoria against the illegal federal elections held in 2001 and 2004. I proved that regardless of Section 2456 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act purporting voting is compulsory constitutionally it is not. The Court upheld my position!
.
I am BOYCOTTING the purported federal election again!
.
See my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH sets out in detail the issues about elections.
.
All writs are “defective” and so ULTRA VIRES;
ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
The authority state:
The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
Here the Court held that the period of 14 days for the notice had been one day short and the notice therefore was invalid!
1st day 2 November 2007 Friday (declaration of candidates)
2nd day 3 November 2007 Saturday – (start counting for polling)
3rd day 4 November 2007 Sunday –
4th day 5 November 2007 Monday

21st day 22 November 2007 Thursday
22nd day 23 November 2007 Friday
23rd day 24 November 2007 Saturday
24th day 25 November 2007 Sunday (not being a Saturday polling to be held following Saturday)
25th day 26 November 2007 Monday
26th day 27 November 2007 Tuesday
27th day 28 November 2007 Wednesday
28th day 29 November 2007 Thursday
29th day 30 November 2007 Friday
30th day 1 December 2007 Saturday (only possible polling day
.
Again, I succeeded in Court on 19 July 2006 in two cases on this type of calculation