Despite reports that oil continues to leak into the gulf at an alarming rate the continuing pressure on the stock of BP and the need for other oil companies to stay afloat has forced one man, a judge in the US, to overturn the Obama moratorium on new oil wells in the Gulf.
Oil companies say the government has not proven the need for a blanket ban on deep sea drilling and warn it will lead to major layoffs. Judge Feldman agreed and in his ruling on Tuesday sharply rebuked the U.S. government.
The downward pressure on BP’s stock price has now been linked to pensioner funds in the UK. So the global impact of our neverending thirst for stuff to put in our cars rewards the capitalists but punishes the workers potentially affected by the moratorium, undermines the financial security of retirees and still costs the earth.
Of course it is easy to suspect the motivation of a single judge delivering a decision that favours the oil companies despite the explicit wishes of the President. Even from Oz you can easily imagine various scenarios that would explain it. Local pressure to keep local businesses afloat, traditional distrust of the north by the south or straight out graft and corruption.
But there’s a far more troubling dimension to this news. It connects somewhat arbitrarily to the local mining reaction to the election of Julia Gillard as PM. Both outcomes seem to illustrate that public politics is subservient to other forces. Our democratically elected representatives can do no more than ask the capitalists to play along. When the capitalists decide not to play the game is up.
And just in case you thought there was some vestige of the socially progressive spirit alive in the US consider the news (both fair and balanced) from Fox News that in the US the minority Republican extreme right has somehow defeated an Obama bill that would extend unemployment benefits and provide financial assistance to the states to avert unemployment. The reason, government debt. Of course government expenditure on defence in the US has nothing what so ever to do with government debt, let alone the billions of dollars routinely handed private enterprises like Blackwater.
Oops just watched a trailer for Unrivalled…urgh what is going on with the world or am I just some latte drinking trendy overeducated and underpaid, indulging in some romantic sensibilities? Lordy lordy be.
It seems everywhere you have to have a position on something. Where do I stand on land rights for gay whales? Do I support the notional redistribution of capital into the hands of the rich at the expense of the useless layabouts bludging on the dole? What did Milton mean by promoting a straw man to finger Eve in the downfall of MAN? Jesus wept…a freakin decision please, just say where you stand!
Menzies took a stand 60 years ago against the evil communists who were in the words of the then Country Party like a poisonous snake, kill it before it kills you. Never mind the implications of outlawing a political party in a democratic state, some people are just too dangerous to let loose on the streets. 2001 and some bloody ideologically motivated nutbags fly a few planes into a few buildings and the whole world goes into shock therapy while governments aided and abetted by the media keen to broadcast a plethora of shocking images to the unsuspecting goes into legislative overdrive labelling any dissent no matter how trivial as an act of TERROR! For Fuck Sake! Get a grip a people.
What happens? The US leads a coalition of very unwilling in arms against a bunch of third world Arab states who happen to have the misfortune to be sitting on a large chunk of the known oil reserves and a whole shitload more people die, most of them innocent poor nationals of Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile private security multinationals collect a fuckin windfall in government money as they covertly roll out the next police state at home.
Here’s a bloody position for you dear reader. The acts of 9/11 are over. Sure they have echoed a few times around the world but they didn’t and don’t herald a new wave of popular armed insurrection that transcends national boundaries. In breaking news it appears that most people just want to eat sleep and be fuckin merry. The last ten years has handed back power to private interest after any social gains that might have occurred in the preceding 100 years. Wealth is increasingly disproportionate in its distribution, a very important consideration if you subscribe (as I do) to the belief that the usefulness of money is proportional to its distribution. In other words, money becomes more useful and powerful when it is not distributed evenly.
Oh and then there is the little matter of global warming. Remember a few years ago (I do, I went to Al’s little film one night in a George Street movie house)…global warming was going to get us and the culprit was humanity’s greedy consumption of all things carbon. The scientists, bless their little empirical socks, happen to by and large agree. The powers-that-be got a bit nervous, what if widespread populism actually motivated people to act? Well government can’t have people acting for themselves and the economy certainly wont put up with people absconding from their consumer responsibilities so let’s have a RECESSION and remind the wavering where their loyalties lie, with the economy!
So there. Three positions. The War on Terror is morally, legally, socially, ethically, emotionally completely WRONG! The re-distribution of wealth to the rich and the ongoing preoccupation with making and selling shit is utter FOLLY. And the mainstream political system in cahoots with big business should all be sent to Antarctica so they can bask in the new found warmth of a carbon enhanced globe. Cus sure as shit stinks, these things will bite us all on the bum one day, and probably sooner than later. Call me a greenie, a socialist, a lapsed hippy or whatever label comes with the position, frankly I don’t give a damn.
Oh and I think Milton was a closet misogynist who found it easier to attribute evil to women then admit it in himself.
Posted 3 months, 4 weeks ago at 12:37 pm. Add a comment
How to you defeat an idea? Shall we put two ideas in a ring together and see which one is victorious after a number of rounds? The two ideas can slug it out for the amusement of punters and the financial benefit of the promoter.
But the metaphor is inadequate since a defeated idea can simply go away to lick its wounds and come back another day. No, defeating an idea is not that easy, if it was a lot of human history might never have happened.
Carl’s article is the war on terror Version 2. The enemy is now within, no one can be trusted. Who is thinking what ideas? Perhaps there is a terrorist in the minds of people already, maybe our teaching system is exposing children to the risk of an unwanted idea. And how shall we defeat these ideas? With money and public policy?
Part of the liberal western tradition is founded on plurality of free ideas as opposed to say a more doctrinarian approach. Supposedly the liberal approach to ideas creates a more flexible and more durable society which is evidenced by the dominance of the west so it is strange to see anyone in the west advocating a more tyrannical approach to what can be thought. Frankly it seems to indicate a faltering of the western liberal tradition to be discussing how to kill any idea.
In the contest of ideas it isn’t the worst ideas that are killed off, rather it is that better ideas prosper. The failure of the war on terror and what could become the war on ideas is they have not defeated bad ideas with better ones. The extreme questions the terrorist have posed to the west have not been answered with superior ideas and until they are, the idea of terrorism and its actions will continue to prosper. Spending money and devising policy might be a response but it’s never going to address the heart of the matter.
Why do the champions of the so-called free enterprise system consistently clamour for fair and open markets yet consistently ignore evidence of market failure? The Institute of Public Affairs is well funded right wing think tank that specialises in spewing out free market libertarian thought bubbles that frequently find their way into the mainstream media. That’s why they exist, to propagate a view the encompasses
the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, evidence-based public policy, the rule of law, and representative democracy.
Strangely they don’t like Mark Scott’s idea of a expanded trans-national ABC, particularly since Sky News (33% owned by news.corpse) has thrown its hat into the ring, calling for “an open tender process” in the federal government’s soon to be expanded public diplomacy program.
Is it reasonable to observe that Foxtel itself has a complete monopoly on the Pay TV market in Australia? Is that an example of a fair and open market? Of course there is a pretty good argument that Pay TV in Oz is only a big enough market to support one player but all that does is underline the weakness of the free market idea, ie they tend to monopolies like Foxtel or duopolies like Woolworths and Coles.
Besides the opportunistic rhetoric of the IPA there is another problem with the Sky News idea. Sky News has long had the ABC news service in its sights. Historically they have piggy backed on the ABC TV service for much of its nationally significant coverage and operated their Parliament House bureau out of a shoe box, relying on contributions from the rest of the press gallery (particularly the Seven and Nine networks who also have a stake in Sky News as well as News.corpse) to offset their shoestring approach. All good free market stuff, taking from the publicly funded ABC and achieving cost efficiencies in cooperation with other free market players.
But there is a worry here. TV has already done much to trivialise the news agenda and is also guilty of reducing its both the quantity and quality of news and current affairs in response to the profit imperative. Is Sky News somehow exempt from this consideration; are we expected to believe that its shareholders are different to the shareholders of other profit making corporations, that they do not expect a return on their investment? Well that would run counter to the idea of free flowing capital so how else might we rationalise the aggressive Sky News expansion? Could it be part of a long term plan with the intended outcome being one of market dominance?
If that’s the case what does that mean for diversity in the marketplace of ideas, how would a single dominant news provider benefit the Australian public because ultimately, this is the likely long term strategic goal for Sky News, to be the dominant source of news and current affairs in Australia. Perhaps dominant to the point of a near monopoly. Given the pedigree of its owners (particularly the predatory news.corpse) it is difficult to see an alternative motivation, which, in conjunction with other developments in the online news space could see a scenario emerge where all content, broadcast or online, remains quarantined by boundaries that reflect the capacity of consumers to pay.
Given the degree of vertical integration in the mainstream news media industry and the sentiments recently expressed by Rupert Murdoch regarding copyright and fair use together with the financial fallout from collapsing newspaper empires in the face of online competition, the Sky News vs ABC flashpoint look likes becoming a serious test between the so-called free enterprise model (based on advertising and subscription) and the publicly funded model. Historically the free enterprise model had some claim to an imaginary fourth estate but it fails the public good simply on the basis that it is completely dependent on a major player in public policy, the free market system. On the otherhand, the publicly funded model which struggles to maintain independence from the source of its operational budget must at the same time deliver an acceptable point of view to its constituent audience, who are in part, conditioned to expect what the free enterprise model produces.
The Mark Scott plan sounds ambitious and probably is, especially given the the ABC is not exactly renowned for its frugality, however if Murdoch does declare the equivalent of a media war and pursues his dogma on fair use and copyright to a successful conclusion then the cosy little sharing arrangement between the ABC and the other players in the mainstream news industry will be greatly overshadowed with legal uncertainty. It might be seen as a content battle between the big media players but it also speaks volumes about the idea of a public right to know. In a game of poker, this is raising the financial stakes on the one hand and then pretending that all the players have the same chance in a game that’s anything but fair.
A monopoly on news, especially a Murdoch inspired monopoly has dangerous implications for freedom and representative democracy, something the IPA should consider the next time it advocates public policy.
Posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago at 4:47 pm. Add a comment
So it begins. Its all about security of course. Just like the millions of cctv cameras and ongoing growth in state security apparatus which was all about terrorism and security. According to Kaspersky
“The internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the US military. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong”
The good people won’t have anything to worry about.
Imagine, you’re a Chinese dissident and you want to let the world know about something via the web but the minute you use your internet passport everything you do on a computer can be traced straight back to you, regardless of whether you use an anonymous internet cafe or some masking service.
Of course in the west such an idea would never work or would it?
use Windows Live ID to sign in to MSN Messenger, MSN Hotmail, MSN Music, and other sites and services! Windows Live ID works with Passport Network sites.
Biometric Technology analyses and measures certain biological characteristics of an individual to create a unique identifier which can be electronically stored and retrieved for positive identification.
Biometric Security has the benefit of running on Windows…
Maybe face recognition software is your cup of tea…
Lemon Login uses your face to log in to your computer.
Needless to say it too runs on Windows.
Do you feel safer? Its all for your benefit, really.
Have you ever wondered what’s behind Twitter or Facebook? The people at TechCrunch have put together some data on the companies as well as some comparative analysis.
But looking into the crystal ball for Facebook, what are we to make of “Facebook Connect”? If you listen to Josh Elman, at the end of his video he makes some predictions about the great experience of sharing you online activity with your friends, presumably also online – bringing experiences online…
“in the past you usually had to make this trade-off between sitting and watching something at your computer, by yourself or at your office or your dorm or maybe go with friends and maybe watch something on TV, or try to crowd around a little screen. Now what’s great is that you can take everybody sitting in their dorm rooms, sitting at their offices, watching something and interact with them real time and really share with what they’re doing…by making that experience that used to be solo totally social we will see a lot more people sharing and exploring online”
Posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago at 9:26 am. 1 comment
According to Uncle Fatty (I know insensitive language alert) – “It is important to bear linguistic history in mind when one attempts to nail down what irony is, as it clears up why the word means specifically things phrased to bury connotation behind denotation. Irony has nothing to do with something coming back to haunt one; it’s about doubletalk, two-faced speech and the sly underpinnings of sarcasm and trickery through misphrased honesty.”
You might be wondering what this is all about, then again I might just be avoiding the picture theory of language. Well it might be about John Winston Howard, former Prime Minister of Oz who is only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat in a Federal Election articulating his objection to a Bill of Rights on this basis – “I’ve always held the classical view that the public elects members of parliament, who pass laws hopefully in the public interest and those laws are in turn interpreted and enforced by courts…That sentiment is at the very heart of my unconditional objection to a bill of rights…It would deprive Australians of their current right to decide issues of great importance.”
Ironic? Perhaps. Another view is that Little Johnny still hasn’t completed the five steps so any comment of his belongs in the catalog of self help for beginners. Now Anna Winter also observes that PJ O’Rourke isn’t above a bit of hyperbolic irony from time to time. But you might have a biased view of PJ O’Rourke. You might think he’s an outspoken right wing libertarian whose tired humour is used to attack his political opponent and as such found few fans on his relatively recent tour of Oz. On the otherhand you might like him…your choice. My view is he’s not funny, but then I think thisis so what does that tell you?
Now someone smart will quickly spot that Little Johnny and PJ are apparently on the same side of politics, ie the right. The smart person would then spot the inconsistency between their two points of view on the same subject. PJ even helps out the slow learners – “you’d have to be fairly stupid to believe democracy could be preserved by democratic means” but there’s no help for the really stupid who then fail to apply that to the sentiments of Little Johnny.
Ahh the irony. Maybe it needed an Alanis Morissette reference.
I was asked to look at whether or not citizens should give up their civil rights in the War against Terrorism. This is problematic because the proposition is logically flawed and the actions of governments around the globe are riddled with instances where they have not acted in the best interests of the public. Why should the public allow for further attacks on individual rights and freedoms from the state, premised on faulty logic?
Firstly, the proposition involves a serious nonsense of language. Terrorism is a violent tactic used by combatants to achieve an outcome. The thing it is is a tactic, it is not an entity like another state (say North Korea). The accepted use of war in the language sense is to describe an action of armed conflict between states, involving loss of life, territorial gains etc. The term “War against Terrorism” is logically a nonsense of language yet the term is widely used and spoken. It is hardly surprising that George Bush famously coined the phrase when responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, he was after all a man hardly known for his towering intellect. Yet the term has survived without any major criticism since and is still common in various forms which suggests that its continued use signifies something else.
One such explanation for the longevity of the expression might be that it is convenient symbolism. The mass media thrives on such conveniences, they provide easy stereotypical concepts which the media industries can use to communicate a message to a broad audience. A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words in one sense but it often lacks order or rationale, its meaning is often augmented by cultural backgrounds. In the case of the “war on terrorism”, such disasters as 9/11, the London bombings and Bali have generated spectacular and powerful imagery which has been recycled endlessly across every known medium. Terrorism isn’t a particularly recent tactic by combatants and is unlikely to ever disappear from the field of human conflict so the role of the mass media industries in perpetuating the symbolism inherit in the terrorist attacks is curious. The convenience of such symbols and their role in modern mythology might be explained by its apolitical nature. Terrorist attacks are at their root, extreme criminal actions (1) which generally can be easily portrayed in the manner of poor victims (who we can sympathise with) and the faceless perpetrator (who we thus fear). In this situation most people will tend to emotionally relate to the victims, in a sense we become victims because we aren’t terrorists. Hence the widespread “appeal” of such stories and images in the modern media, they are essentially apolitical in the same way other crime stories are. Lacking political controversy has become a fundamental property of modern mass media news which sees this lack of controversy as proof of a balanced coverage.
It would also seem that terrorists are only too aware of the appetite of the mass media industries for sensation. Obviously global reach is paramount to any organisation trying to spread a message and sadly it seems the mass media conglomerates are only too keen to help the terrorists spread their message of fear around the planet. In the past there has been some perverse political capital generated for leaders in terror affected states, George Bush and John Howard both enjoyed significant increases in popularity polls during the height of the post 9/11 and Bali terror incidents, possibly a consequence of each political leader’s capacity to symbolise the ability to cope and act. (2) Some might also argue that spreading fear is a useful device for social control however it is likely to lead to social breakdown and alienation. Why the mass media continues to propagate such negativity is another topic however the response of the public and policy makers to the fear is predictably illogical since it is predicated on emotion.
This emotional state is the preferred territory of entertainment industries like TV. In his article on Rudd vs The Oz (3), Bernard Keene cites the comparative market reach for TV news and print with TV news reaching almost ten times the number of people compared with print media. This continues the trend reported in a Harris poll in 2007 (4) which listed TV news as the dominant source of news driven by time constraints for adults. The simplification of news by TV is not news, essentially TV content is simple and loaded with emotional effect. In this scenario it is hardly surprising that political debate is still dominated by responses to immediate situations since this is part of the short news cycles which are a feature of modern mass media. Such knee jerk reactions might therefore explain the hurried and procedurally complex raft of legislation that has been passed into Australian law since 9/11 and it illustrates the failure of the political process to rationally respond to a pressing social problem.
That the so-called “war on terrorism” has been an almost unmitigated failure is pretty much beyond debate. Not only is the concept flawed as noted above but the stated objectives are completely unachievable. Destroying terrorism by military action ignores the fact terrorism is a behaviour not a physical opponent. The inappropriate use of the military and the subsequent abuses of power that are illustrated by the such things as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, (5) and the countless civilian casualties(6) has only succeeded in building regional resentment to the US and its allies which in turn is fostering the very behaviour the invasion is supposed to arrest. The damage abroad is actually counterproductive to the concept that these actions are making the public safer. It is clear from the recent upsurge in terrorists attacks in Pakistan and Indonesia that foreign nationals are targets and consequently unsafe abroad.(7,8)
If the military policy abroad is a failure (9) in terms of its objective and outcomes, then the deprivation of liberty at home is equally hard to justify. The proposition is, that such things as enhanced police powers and state surveillance are supposed to prevent home grown terrorism yet there is little evidence that the laws are appropriate or even needed since terrorism is still a criminal act conceivably covered by existing criminal law. In a recent news article Australian Federal Police Association representative Jim Torr described the new anti-terror laws as “”procedurally very complex” and thus conducive to mistakes.” The article by Sally Neighbour (10) adds that “The margin for error has been compounded by pressure to achieve convictions. In October 2007 a senior AFP counter-terrorism officer testified that police had been told to charge “as many suspects as possible” in order to test the laws. ”
One of the problem with such laws is illustrated by the current slow progress in reforming them. Alarmingly the so-called reform process is even considering granting police the power to enter and search premises without a warrant. The issue of infringement and reduction in basic civil rights should be a concern of all yet the issue is essentially an intellectual exercise and easily displaced by emotional states like those propagated by the mass media. Furthermore the effects of the laws are not spread equitably, some social minorities are more adversely affected whilst social majorities enjoy the dubious benefit of feeling “safer” (11). Unchecked, such laws inevitably lead to a persecution of minorities based on race, colour, ethnicity or some dissenting political belief. Universal declarations of human rights, such as the International Convenant of Civil and Political Rights (12) are supposed to offer all of humanity certain fundamental rights however the blatant disregard of such human rights as demonstrated by the US in the War on Terrorism should serve as a serious reality check on any optimistic expectation of a free and liberal society anywhere.
The self serving complicity of the mass media with the terrorists and the deprivation of liberty by the state are very serious issues but any debate about these problems ignores the 800lb gorilla in the room. In 2008 the US Congress approved a budget of $864 billion (US) to fund three military operations in the War on Terror (13). In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explores the rise of what she calls “the disaster capitalism complex”. (14) She describes how private business interests are reaping a massive financial windfalls from government defence and security budgets which is simultaneously undermining the publicly owned state apparatus. Given the huge potential for financial gain, there can be little doubt that such private business interests have a powerful motive for perpetuating a farcical state of war against an ephemeral enemy that can never be eliminated by force of arms. The coinciding interests between the disaster capitalism complex and the highly corporatised mass media industry has extremely serious implications. I would argue these links deserve far more attention than the acts of terrorism or the issue of civil rights but given the circumstances, any 4th estate investigation is likely only in some other universe.
Well you can read Kate Lundy’s blog entry over here and it looks pretty much like the speech she gave at Glamwiki today where amongst other things, she argued the case for putting Australia’s cultural assets freely online. However her speech deserves a little analysis and context.
A key factor is the government’s current commitment to the National Broadband Network, which Kate and Green Senator Steve Ludlam both agree “changes everything” except the fact that Labor and the Greens still don’t control the Senate and both parties have a sniff of an election coming sooner rather than later. Senator Ludlam even quipped at one stage that all parties are “looking for creative ways to please the greatest number of people for the least cost” during the lively panel debate that followed Senator Lundy’s address.
Now some cynical folk will be tempted to see this exercise as more futuristic promises by the government and there are some grounds for thinking that in the current financial atmosphere the government is long on rhetoric but running a bit short on actual deliverables. The challenges in the digital age are immense and they are compounded by our rather quaint models of bureaucracy, some examples of which emerged today. Let’s assume 95% of Oz gets ADSL2+ speeds in the next five years after the NBN is rolled out (which is optimistic) then the cultural institutions represented at Glamwiki have a herculean job to get their stuff online and available. For example the National Archive has digitised approximately 2% of their assets, and they have teams working constantly on the process. Then there is the lack of uniform government strategy with regard to “online social policy” and copyright. Even the relatively simple and meritorious idea of converting Commonwealth copyright to something like Creative Commons seems like getting stuck in some lengthy interdepartmental argy bargy.
The government has announced taskforces to look at some of these issues which is commendable but as Kylie Johnson from Arts and Environment pointed out these are problems that require action sooner, not later. Ms Johnson concerns are highlighted by some global developments like the Smithsonian Institute’s recent Web and New Media Strategy which looks to be a fast track into the near future. Obviously strategies need to be co-ordinated but with so many different agencies pursuing their own agenda it seems obvious that the government desperately needs to get Gov 2.0 happening, preferably next week, before we all drown in the digital deluge.
The motivating factors for culture online are significant in the 21st century. Remote access, opportunities for education, and increased interest in preservation as well the open door to innovation all favour the push to put cultural assets online. Paul Reynolds who blogs here, stressed the importance of putting stuff where people need it or can find it. This approach acknowledges a key property of the web, it happens everywhere but it also happens contextually. To put this another way, making your digital assets hard to access or find means they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. Rather than “owning” online cultural assets collecting institutions probably need to reassess their capacity to act as authoratative sources with capabilities to track where their material gets used.
The Copyright Council weighed into the debate with doubts about the merits of giving stuff away. Ian MacDonald’s argument surprisingly enough seems to favour entrenched copyright interests but the link between copyright and the proper shepherding of resources seems tenuous at best. It also seems to assume that the public will be granted full access to preservation quality assets which is clearly absurd. However, one practical issue about copyright that did surface is familiar territory for the public broadcasters, that is, the mixture of rights that come with the assets in your collection. Even a blanket conversion of Commonwealth copyright to Creative Commons will still leave substantial assets out of the public domain.
Seb Chan from the Powerhouse Museum offered the example of the Australian Bureau of Statistics as “proof of concept” that free online assets do lead to innovation and better use by the public. There are also examples of online sources like Flickr driving the sales of high quality copies for various agencies. Given the physical scope of the challenges presented and the time frames involved, some of our naturally conservative institutions will have to undergo some serious risk assessment, the risk of doing nothing against the risk of doing something. Optimistically the web and innovations like Wikimedia will help put these collections into the public sphere but realistically, goodwill will have to break out all round for it to happen quickly.
Unbeknown to me there exists a universe of political bloggers awaiting discovery. Top marks for the right wing agenda of Leon Bertrand and his flatworld belief system although to be fair his perspective is the small “l” liberal approach with a good dose of libertarianism thrown in. I bet he was a serious young liberal at uni.
On the left we have a (naturally) more considered and pluralistic John Quiggin who apparently is “more intelligent than Britney Spears” How’s that for balance?
Posted 1 year, 1 month ago at 11:45 am. Add a comment
Well you can read Kate Lundy’s blog entry over 
How’s that for balance?
