Internet Purity
|
Posted:Apr 9, 2012 10:48 am
Last Updated:Feb 27, 2015 9:02 am
9390 Views
|
An internet purist is one of those annoying wankers who keep crapping on about the real world possibilities that will come about because we have the internet now. I hate internet purists. There is a problem in this for me because one of the bachelor degrees I am studying for seems to have been formulated, designed and implemented by the biggest internet purists on the planet. They fervently believe that the internet is going to bring about world peace, democracy and make everyone rich, with nothing more required than to sit behind a computer screen and like or un-like a product or world leader or business. And despite every indication that they have been wrong in this belief from the past twelve months, they have cherry picked the apparent success stories to back their claims.
None I find more frustrating than the current crowing over the success of internet campaigners in getting Apple Inc to do something about the deplorable state of their sub-contracted factories in China. The internet has failed on such a massive scale in this case that it defies belief that anybody could assume that there was any success. The payout from the efforts, according to the parties involved, will be improved conditions for workers- that is the headline. In the fine-print, however, is the provision that the Apple and it sub-contractors have agreed to a set of standards that are about the average in China. Given that the average in China has been repeatedly criticised by even the Chinese government, this is aiming low with a vengeance. Of course the ‘success’ of the whole campaign for the internet purists was largely fictional; while they managed to generate a bit of publicity it failed to dent Apple’s reputation or its revenues. But perhaps the biggest indictment of the whole concept of internet effectiveness is that the second most powerful computer hardware company in the world, a company that should, theoretically, live and breathe the whole internet purity concept, failed so dismally to uphold those standards from the outset. It would be like one of the auto companies was caught out funding another company to put potholes in the roads.
The internet purists claim success in Egypt and Tunisia when the internet had precious little to do with it- Egypt shut down its internet within hours of the protests starting. It was because brave men and women went out onto the streets of Egypt at the risk of death for themselves and their families. As can be seen in the failure of Assad of Syria to buckle, the Libyan revolution owes its success entirely to the backing of the West. The regimes in Syria, Bahrain and Iran look as strong as ever.
Perhaps the biggest indication of the powerlessness of the internet came this week when those trendy radicals over at Anonymous claimed to have brought down the British Home Office website. A majority of people will, no doubt, interpret this as a demonstration of the power of the internet. However, it will most assuredly not stop the extradition of the three men at the centre of the ‘protest’. Moreover, if the trendoids at Anonymous are so all-powerful, why are they not turning their online rage against China and Russia for their support of the regimes in Syria, Iran and North Korea? Or, better yet, why are they not going after those three nations directly? What is disturbing, however, is that this group can be activated so easily to support a known arms-trader and a known copyright pirate. Perhaps it is because the really effective hacking attacks originate in China and Russia, and the last thing that Anonymous want is for their access to the internet to be blocked- or for the assassination teams to find out where they live. So they make do with their puissant attacks on Western targets in favour of dubious victories; real heroic stuff.
The Chinese threat, in particular, is behind the Australian government’s decision to block the Chinese IT company, Huawei, from participating in the national broadband network (NBN). Unlike most governments, Australia has had some rather disturbing evidence that what is supposed to be private in China is not as private as it should be. As Stern Hu languishes in prison for stealing state secrets on behalf of employer Rio Tinto, we need to remind ourselves that the ‘state secrets’ came from a private company; that private companies and associations collaborated with the Chinese Government to put him there; and that the ‘importance’ of the Australian relationship with China was not so important as to see leniency for Hu or his Chinese colleagues. To suggest that Huawei, which the Chinese government has designated a strategically important company in a designated strategically important industry, is anything other than the long finger of the Chinese Government is to be blind to reality- and to the dangers of having Chinese hackers so close to the heart of our national computer network. To argue that we have nothing to fear from China is to forget the 500 or so attacks that originated in China against the Department of Defence or the 200+ against each of our major iron ore producers, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. Indeed, the Chinese attacks against the miners, amongst other businesses, is all the proof anybody should need that the Chinese government is not above involving itself in what should be straight-forward deals between businesses.
As an aside;
While most people remember his Inaugural Address (Ask not what your country can do for you…), my favourite Kennedy speech is the Moon Speech.
We will go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Kennedy committed the United States to an ambitious agenda- to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade (the 1960s). We all know that the drive and determination of the United States government was to get there before the Russians did; we all know that the Space Race was a small part of the Cold War.
But the inspiration that drove so many of its participants was not beating the Russians or winning the Cold War. Our imaginations were not captured because it was an American flag that hung on the moon or that the Russians never made it. We love space exploration because we came out of the caves and walked to the horizon. We crossed the oceans and took to the heavens. It is what is next. We are, by nature, probers and delvers and dreamers and explorers.
Without the stimulus of the Space Race, the United States has judged the burden of its space program to be too great to sustain. Many have criticised this decision, pointing to the funds spent on this or that could be used to finance space exploration for however many years. Perhaps the better question should be- should any one country ultimately have to bear the burden of the dreams of humanity? For far too long, we in the West have explored space through the agency of the Americans. As the richest country it may be fair that they carry the greatest burden- but the whole burden?
It may be time that the West came together to find new ways forward. If we are to share in the adventure of space, perhaps we need to be more honest about the contributions we make to the burden of running a space program. We have treaties for defence and trade and climate change; perhaps it is time to have a treaty for the exploration of space.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Notable
|
Posted:Apr 9, 2012 10:46 am
Last Updated:Feb 27, 2015 9:02 am
9102 Views
|
Veritable
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
Time for a Dialogue
|
Posted:Jan 27, 2012 10:38 am
Last Updated:May 7, 2024 8:57 pm
9259 Views
|
Several years ago an Aboriginal woman collapsed at a bus stop. She had exhibited symptoms not unlike that of being drunk, and her fellow commuters mistakenly assumed that the effects of the alcohol had finally caught up with her. Upon finally being admitted to a hospital, it was discovered that she was, in fact, suffering from a medical condition and had nearly died. The cry went up: RACISTS! Her fellow commuters had not seen past the stereotype to see that she was actually unwell. It became a symbol, for some, of all that was wrong with Aboriginal affairs in this country. And, in a perverse way, it was. While most Australians, probably, ruefully admitted that their experiences with drunken Aborigines would doubtless have led them to the same erroneous conclusion, one thing struck me as inherently odd about the whole situation. Even this Aboriginal activist had seen enough of her people in such a condition that she did not berate the others for their lack of care in toto- merely that they had failed to ascertain the facts of her condition. In other words- she was okay with the idea that had her fellow commuters found her to be another drunken Aboriginal in a similar situation, she should be left to sleep it off.
Strong emotions are a guaranteed aid to memory, and there are few stronger emotions than fear. From an early age, non-Aboriginal Australians come to know Aboriginals and their culture through a perspective of fear. Not some amorphous concept of racism or xenophobia but personal encounters. The elites of this country, media, political and academic, exposed as they are to Aboriginals within their own milieu, are able to see Aboriginals as they could and should be. Most Australians have experience only of the other sort- the stereotypes. And as we can see from the above, this is not a perspective wholly limited to non-Aboriginals. Indeed, the levels of domestic violence, abuse and self harm in Aboriginals would suggest that they are far more likely to know the failings of their own people.
The continuing plight of the Aboriginal peoples in this country should be a national disgrace. The events of the last forty-eight hours are a clear demonstration of why this country is able to avoid facing up to the fact that the plight of the Aboriginal peoples is worse now than when the nation voted to invest Aboriginal affairs with the Commonwealth Government. After fifty years of failed policies in pursuit of a failed philosophy at the cost of untold billions, the nation needs to invest in a conversation on the future direction of aid to these people. The events of the last forty-eight hours are not the type of conversation the majority of Australians are willing to engage in.
It is clear that there are two types of Aboriginal leader. The first type has come to see that the old policies are not working- that they are in fact detrimental to the welfare of their people and only serve to give people, white and black, a power and influence they do not deserve. The second type derives power and influence from the old policies and seeks to perpetuate them even at the expense of the Aboriginal peoples. We saw the second type of leadership over the last forty-eight hours.
The efforts to support the interests of Aboriginal peoples are being ultimately defeated by the Aboriginals themselves and those interested in perpetuating the existing system. By subscribing to the myth of the Noble Savage, supporters of the current policies are not merely allowing, but are encouraging a degree of savagery that should be insupportable in a modern nation. The levels of abuse, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, etc that blight these people are not done at the behest of the White Man, but at the hands of the Aborigines, many of whom are supposed to be leaders or future leaders of their communities. The valid and necessary steps being taken to weaken this culture of violence and brutality are opposed at every point by people not seeking to alleviate unnecessary suffering, but only to maintain a system that ensures their own power- and too often it is a power to inflict these very brutalities.
Tony Abbott was entirely correct in his assertion that the Tent Embassy has served its purpose, that it is now detracting from the need to engage in a long overdue conversation on the needs and plight of the Aboriginal communities. It is now serving as a reminder that these people see themselves as a nation apart- and the events of the last forty-eight hours serve only to confirm that impression. These events indicate that the Tent Embassy is representative of a mindset that is not merely in support of the Aboriginal peoples but is demonstrably anti-Australian. It will elude the vast majority of Australians, even those who might feel sympathy for their position otherwise, how the events of the previous day in any way justified the burning of the National Flag. The pleas of the leaders of the Tent Embassy that they were in no way provocative will fall on deaf ears when set next to such an act of provocation.
Such actions only serve to alienate support; continuing this vein of offensive, provocative and belligerent protest will merely serve to solidify support for those who believe that enough is enough and it is time for the spigot of public funding to be shut off. The special treatment that comes with being Aboriginal will end. Gone will be the advisements that Aboriginal recipients of social welfare programmes are to be handled as a priority, with more support and funding than that available to non-Aboriginals. And the national conversation, already long delayed, will be delayed even further.
The victims of this situation will not be the protesters at the Tent Embassy. They will not be the civil servants at the various Ministries associated with Aboriginal welfare. It will be another generation of Aboriginal youth condemned to living out their lives under a savage regime in their communities and their homes- doomed to ultimately perpetuate that cycle of violence on their own .
As an aside-
Whatever happened to the intelligent conservative argument? One could very well ask the same question of the Left, but being a conservative the continuing failure of the Left to articulate even the beginnings of a cogent argument is not unwelcome. Having become more organised between work, studies and personal life, I am also catching up on my reading. And whether in Quadrant or Review or even in the conservative media, there seems much too much focus in conservative writings on the failings of the Left and not nearly enough on articulating an Australian conservative idea worthy of the appellation, much less a whole suite of them that could carry the nation. And, as previously noted in other posts, there is an increasing trend by many to co-opt American ideology on issues that have no place in Australia- or at least not in the way that an American, with their own constitutional traditions, would understand them. The very idea that Australian conservative opinion should spend even a moment in contemplation of the concept of Intelligent Design is a crime against conservative supporters in this country.
What is particularly galling is the faux intellectualism adopted by many of the writers. Patrick Morgan tries to use psychology to paint a picture of the Labor leadership but invariably comes across as someone with an outsider’s perspective writing of things as he imagines them to be. John O’Connor tries to use cosmology and ends up with more or less the same sort of article as Morgan.
On the whole, constantly harping on about the failures of the Greens or Labor, suggesting policy positions straight out of Newt Gingrich’s or Ron Paul’s campaign material or just out and out engaging in unsophisticated propaganda does not amount to a satisfying immersion into Australian conservative thought.
Conservatism is not about being opposed to ideas or change. This is the sort of imagery that Leftists like; a rendition of the dictionary definition. If the central ethos of the Australian experience is mateship and the fair-go, then pursuing policies that sh*t all over your mates while elevating yourself at their expense are not likely to find traction in this country. The Australian conservative voice needs to become distinctly less American and distinctly less focussed on the shortcomings of the Left. It needs to build ideas that allow for the changes we are experiencing in our society while, at the same time, seek to build on the foundations we have inherited.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Guitar Solo
|
Posted:Jan 27, 2012 10:29 am
Last Updated:May 7, 2024 8:57 pm
8819 Views
|
Typing left handed
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Wilkie Dilemma
|
Posted:Jan 23, 2012 12:30 pm
Last Updated:May 7, 2024 8:57 pm
9154 Views
|
The Honourable Andrew Wilkie, MP, is demonstrating he is a man of principle. So say the commentators and admirers. In sticking to his guns on the poker machine debate; the Honourable Mister Wilkie is demonstrating the dangers of the extremist- unable to get his way on his matter of principle- blind to his failure to carry his colleagues by the means of his arguments- he is willing to tear it all down. The Honourable Andrew Wilkie is willing to plunge the nation into Constitutional Crisis without even looking at the alternatives to the failure of his self-imposed mission. No compromise is good enough for the Parliamentary Member who is staking the stability of the nation on an all or nothing gamble.
One is supposed to admire the stoicism and courage of the Honourable Member. Here, say his supporters, is a man of principle- the type of person we need in this hour of crisis. Yet, were he to bring down this government and force an election, the result is likely to see a government unwilling to entertain his notions of gambling reforms while the Honourable Member is likely to no longer be the Honourable Member. It is only by a preference deal with the Liberal Party that he has his seat; bereft of preferences from both sides he is unlikely in the extreme to maintain his seat at such an election. Moreover, such an election is likely to topple the only other Member of Parliament given to strong support for Gambling Reform: South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon. The total result of his insistence on an all or nothing position is likely to be destruction of any hope of gambling reform, even the compromise effort being proposed by Comrade Julia. His moment of relevance and importance is fast slipping by and rather than pitching in and finding solutions to the vexing social issue of problem gambling, he has opted to take his bat and ball and head home.
Yet such childishness is being held up as the positive actions of a man of principle. We are to admire him, this paragon of extremist attitudes. Once again the notion of compromise is being derided as the avenue of the weak and the feeble. Once again the notion of actually achieving some good is thrown aside in the mistaken belief that extremist posturing is the answer to a road block. Theroux wrote that two roads diverged in the woods and that he took the road less travelled. Had the Honourable Member encountered the diverging road we might expect that his ode would be to the act of standing at the fork and willing a path to open up that allowed him to continue his journey without having to choose between the alternatives he is faced with. While Theroux found the difference of the road less travelled exhilarating, the Honourable Mr Wilkie would still be at the fork in growing frustration.
Let us not admire the Honourable Member overmuch. Let us question his motives in this action. Let us deride his fanaticism. For it is appalling to believe that a compromise is the greatest of evils.
For the likes of the Honourable Mr Wilkie and his supporters would have us believe that while any action to rid society of the ills of problem gambling is acceptable, the one action likely to alleviate these ills is not. If any action is a help to these unfortunates, then the Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to climb down from his pedestal, open his mind and make the best of the dwindling opportunity he now has. The Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to understand that his inability to get all that he desires is no excuse for failing to achieve all that he can. What an incredible waste of an opportunity to achieve some good, perhaps great good, simply because he is too stubborn to accept most of the dream in favour of hoping for the world to spin on a different axis. Such are the perils and risks of extremism.
As an aside-
In the wake of receiving the Order of Merit in recognition of his lifetime commitment to public service, the role John Howard played in the Republican Referendum has again become the focus of scrutiny. In the eyes of the disillusioned true believers, Howard perpetrated a terrible crime, single handed, in bringing down the republic. No mention is made of the many doubts and reservations of the people; no mention is made of the pathetic attempt to sell the merits of the model put forward; no mention is made of the strong reticence of the outer states to more control from Canberra. In the mythology of the Republicans, John Howard destroyed the hopes of a Republic almost as if he had personally stuffed the ballot boxes.
There is an asinine quality to the republican movement that can only be described as childish. If, as they maintain, we are destined to become a republic, when exactly will they begin to describe their vision of the form and constitutional arrangements of that republic? When will we be told about the arrangements for the appointment of State Governors? When will we be told how they expect the President to be appointed? What will happen to the Executive Powers?
Instead of providing information to allay the concerns of the electorate, the republican movement are relying on emotive appeals to chauvinism and xenophobia they would decry in anyone else on any other issue. Instead of offering reasonable dialogue on the merits of their models of governance, the republican movement relies on puerile attacks on the personalities of its opponents and the Royal Family. And any reasonable objection to the republic is invariably met with a dialogue but one step removed from a childish exhortation of- Awwww; you’re just a poo-poo head.
There is an undercurrent in republican appeals that says that these issues will be sorted out later on; that the important aspect is that we get rid of the foreigners at the head of our political system and put an Australian in their place (could you imagine any other scenario where pushing such a statement would not be shouted down by cries of racism). Yet we would do well to learn from the experience of the Americans. Some of the finest minds in history, much less the era, worked upon the document that would define the governance of that nation not just for the time being or for a few generations, but for all time. For all their vision and determination, its mistakes are glaring and often its provisions rely on the things we hold to be true and beyond words on a page- respect for the rule of law. Yet it has been the focus and glue that has held that Republic together through the trials and tribulations of its long history- it has not only formed the foundations of the Republic as it was and as it is, but it has also been adaptable enough to preserve hope for the Republic as it could be.
Constitutional arrangements should never be made for the moment. A constitution should not be for the now or the near future, but for the forty generations that follow, and the forty generations that follow that. It is precisely because it was envisaged to last so long that the American constitution and the American experiment has lasted so long. Is the Australian experiment worth any less consideration?
It is an irony of epic proportions that one of the most politically aware populations in the world is being expected to make changes to its constitutional arrangements without due consideration of the effects of those changes. Until the Australian republican movement learns the lessons the electorate gave it in the referendum, until it begins to explain how the republic will work, its success will be a long way off. The fact that so many republicans are still peddling the myth that John Howard was solely responsible for the destruction of the republican dream suggests that they are a long way from learning those lessons.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
|
Content Piracy is a Social Threat
|
Posted:Jan 21, 2012 1:35 am
Last Updated:Jan 21, 2012 3:05 am
9085 Views
|
In an election year that is likely to be decided by which candidate has the best plan to solve the US debt crisis, it does seem somewhat ironic that a measure that will, as a side effect, make that task somewhat easier and less painful for the average voter has become the focus of such vitriolic protest. The US in particular, but the Western World in general, is moving away from the manufacturing base that led their pre-eminence in the world- the new economy, we are told, will be a knowledge economy- an ideas economy. An important aspect of this future economy will be the artistic output of videogame designers, musicians, movie makers, etc. Without protection of their revenue through copyright protection, then the simple fact is that it will become increasingly economically unviable to produce this content. Given the standards of some of this content, we might be moved to say that this is not necessarily a bad thing, however the success of much of this content would suggest otherwise for more than a few.
Although academics and economists like to paint a picture of a future world where economic activity exists without the stimulus provided by money, there are some deep holes in their prognostications- namely if we do not need money to buy products and services that satisfy our needs and wants, where is the motivation to go out and earn money by producing said goods and services? Leaving aside the debate about what ultimately drives economic activity, it is still a fairly obvious fact that money is a prime motivator and enabler of our daily activities. While it is true that money cannot buy happiness, it makes the search for happiness a little easier. But as the European debt crisis reminds us, we can live beyond our means for a while- perhaps a long while- but sooner or later we have to pay.
There is no doubt that the SOPA legislation before Congress is a ham-fisted attempt to resolve the problems of copyright infringement. There seem to be few, if any, safeguards for those caught in the middle, the ISPs and site hosts, from being maliciously targeted by competitors or even just the garden variety of ratbag. But to suggest that the underlying principle is a threat to freedom of speech is a big stretch. At its heart, SOPA is meant to ensure that the efforts of corporations and individuals are protected through a more stringent interpretation of the requirements of copyright law. This is not a situation where content is being banned from the internet in toto- it is a situation where pirated content is being targeted.
If, as its supporters maintain, the internet is a modern miracle enabling the production and dissemination of new sources of content, then such targeting should not be seen as a threat. While we might grumble over the details of the legislation and the protections contained within it for innocent third party hosts, there is nothing in the legislation that specifically targets other than pirated content. So to claim that such efforts are likely to change the internet for the worse, then we must treat the prognostications of the true believers with a bit more scepticism. To claim that the SOPA legislation is inherently flawed brings into question the prognostications of the true believers; if the internet relies on pirated content for its survival, then it is an ultimately doomed vehicle. The threat is in not protecting copyright, business is likely to pursue ever more extreme protections- perhaps even abandoning the internet as we know it for some alternative that allows them to earn money.
One of the more interesting facets of the book-reader revolution that has been overlooked is the ability of publishers and retailers to access your content and delete it. It is true that, for now, this threat has been largely undone by public outcry at the few instances when it was tried. Or, rather, the threat of public outcry. But if the alternative is bankruptcy, it will not take too much for this reticence to be cast aside. Indeed, there is something of a legal principle that you can take back or destroy property that is rightfully yours. While this might not sit well with the average person, a corporation that sets out to target illegally obtained content, as opposed to the device on which it is stored, is not likely to face too many problems in the courts. There could be an argument for trespass, but a corporation should be able to get around that by simply not trespassing- simply releasing the requisite virus into general circulation should take care of that.
At $58billion dollars, the loss of revenue from pirated content is something that should concern us all. The tax revenue on the profits alone is hardly likely to be small change, no matter how many tax loopholes corporate accountants are likely to find. Moreover, the multiplier effect from this amount of money circulating in the world economy, much less the US economy, would go some way to improving the outlook for the future. And it is the future that should concern us.
Economic growth and prosperity in the future is going to increasingly rely on the generation of knowledge and ideas. We are currently facing a situation in which the nations producing that knowledge and ideas are unable to find a way to make them pay. Yet the infrastructure that supports the generation of knowledge and ideation costs money- bucket loads of money. The education system, universities and so on are all reliant on the fact that government is able to pay for them. But if the government finds itself in a situation where it cannot generate revenue through taxes because individuals and corporations are unable to raise revenue because their content is being pirated, then the support mechanism for those ideas will dry up- and then those ideas will dry up. It can be a virtuous circle; right now it is a vicious circle.
We are all reliant on the generation of revenue. Individuals need the revenue provided by capital returns, salaries, wages, etc. Businesses need revenue provided by sales. Governments need revenue provided by the taxes on businesses and individuals. In order to generate this revenue, we need a healthy economy. If the future healthy economy is one reliant on ideation and knowledge, then it is going to be vital to protect them. It is not a threat to freedom of speech; it is not an invasion of privacy. Ultimately, just as defeating the pirates on the high seas ultimately allowed 18th century trade to flourish, defeating the pirates on broadband will ultimately allow 21st century trade to flourish.
As an aside-
The decision by the government to again subsidise the auto industry is a matter of deepest shame. No matter the excuses trotted out by the relevant ministers and spokespeople, it was clear from the outset that this decision was meant to save a few parliamentary seats at the next election- or rather not lose them two years out. And despite the protestations of the Liberal Party to the contrary, there is no doubt that they would have made the exact same decision had they been in power for much the same reasons- the slim hope of gaining or retaining seats at the next election. How much is this latest effort likely to cost- although initial estimates are $1billion the broader question is how much is it going to cost in missed opportunities? What would $1 billion in subsidies mean for the tech sector or medical research or any one of a dozen more worthy industries?
We are forever being told that Australia’s future economic prosperity is going to rely on the establishment and support we provide future industries. Yet this decision is a lifeline to an industry that surely must be well past the used by date in this country. If it was an industry sector producing for export it might be a different matter- but it is increasingly an industry that is producing vehicles that Australians do not even want. Of course the real irony is that a modicum of intelligence and a bit of inspiration would suggest that a truly Australian motor vehicle, a vehicle designed to meet the challenges offered by this continent, would surely be an export winner. But these are qualities lacking in the motor industry more generally- international motor companies are now masters of preserving themselves by suckling at the teat of government largesse instead of through innovation and development.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Fit to burst
|
Posted:Jan 21, 2012 1:14 am
Last Updated:May 7, 2024 8:57 pm
8889 Views
|
I love the thought of using my tongue to trace the outline of her (or his)abs.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Judgements
|
Posted:Dec 10, 2011 1:28 pm
Last Updated:Dec 10, 2011 1:30 pm
9142 Views
|
You have to think that there is something really wrong with journalism when the award for the best Australian journalist of the year goes to Julian Assange. The first thing I wanted to do was put politics aside to discuss the merits of his qualities as a journalist, but the entire saga is, in reality, an exercise in politics- both in the theory of democracy and the actual leanings of supporters and critics. Of course the other thing about the situation is that Assange is a colossal wanker; it is hard to divorce the man from the situation because every time he opens his mouth I pray for somebody to put their fist in it. So, rather than try to take the politics out, I am going to do an Assange and just run off at the keyboard with every thought about the situation that pops into my head.
So let us begin with the aforementioned Walkley Award. It is supposed to be for the best reporter in the country. As such, it fails on a number of counts, not least that he does no reportage and does not, in fact, work for an Australian audience and certainly does not live here. There are, then, two ways of looking at the decision to award him the prize; it was a general decision based on the theory of democracy or it was a tool of the leftist media elite to show their support. In reality it was probably a bit of both- there have certainly been enough conservative commentators protesting his treatment to suggest that a general protest about the merits of the freedom of information in a democracy was a big factor in the vote. This is all well and good, assuming that the media was in a healthy position. Unfortunately, we already know that at least 70% of what is presented to us as news is, in fact, not reportage but a recycling of press releases and agency pieces. One would imagine, then, that, under the circumstances, the award for Best Australian journalist would be given to the best Australian journalist. However, Assange fails even on this score- he is by no means what most people think of when they picture a journalist- he runs a website that simply posts information received (which, when you think about it, does not really differentiate him from most of those people who call themselves journalists). When most of us think of a real journalist, we think of somebody who goes out and asks the questions that somebody, somewhere, does not want asked; it would be even better if the said journalist then presents a balanced bit of writing or presenting explaining why. Having somebody email you information that you then just load onto your website, regardless of the consequences, does not fit that description.
The free flow of information is an important element of democracy. Some would suggest that all information should be open to scrutiny; others have varying degrees of what should and should not be available for people to know. Obviously, the alleged targeting of Assange for releasing the information he has received has upset a number of people on both sides of the political fence. They will not be happy until the alleged victimisation stops. And it’s fine and dandy that people should think this way, even if I think it is an incredibly stupid position. But giving Assange the Walkley has served no other purpose than to devalue the award in the eyes of the general public- it has revealed the process as being driven by political considerations over talent or ability. The fact that most people already think that the media is a Lefty, self-congratulatory, anti-Australian club probably robs the protest of its impact anyway.
I might also add that this does nothing to resolve another point about the situation that needs to be addressed more honestly. Assange, or rather his lawyers, has effectively argued that he did not, in fact, commit sexual assault. And, as it applies in most of our own systems of law, he did not. But this is a long way from saying that he did nothing wrong or that, under Swedish law, he did not commit sexual assault. Swedish law is much more progressive than our own laws- though one could well imagine that in twenty years time our own laws may, in fact, look something like them. For one thing, and this has nothing to do with this case, Swedish law does not accept that a drunk person engaging in sex has, in fact, given their consent- that they are, in fact, incapable of giving consent. This situation is now being tested in Australia, and I would suggest that things do not look good for the alleged perpetrators. In Assange’s case, he has, apparently, gained consent under false pretences. This is, depending on circumstances and the nature of the pretence, a crime in many of our law systems- we just do not call it sexual assault or . The progressive Swedes do. While some, perhaps even the majority, of us think that that is silly; nevertheless, it has been Swedish law for a long time- it was not, as some of Assange’s defenders seem to suggest, made up just to catch him out. Nor is it particularly unique- the other Scandinavian countries have similar provisions. So if ever you head off to Scandinavia, be sure to remember that the only consensual sex comes from asking sober people if they want to have sex and getting an unequivocally positive response.
One might contrast the treatment of Assange on the one hand with the treatment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Strauss-Kahn’s dalliances with females are generally along the lines that Assange employed in Sweden. While in France he has escaped the attention of the law, the media has been quick to judge him and they are united in their condemnation. Assange, by contrast, has been largely held not to have committed any wrongdoing, much less a crime. Although a Socialist, Strauss-Kahn is seen as something of a traitor by the left simply because he is more left-of-centre rather than being an outright Socialist. Here we come up against the problems of extremist politics. Strauss-Kahn was, probably, the Socialist’s only real chance of capturing French Presidency the next time around. By destroying his career, the far left have effectively ensured that the Right leaning Presidency of Nikolas Sarkozy will be gifted another term- all or nothing. Assange, by contrast, is widely seen as a paragon of the Far Left, though most who know him report that he is driven solely by his own ego.
Unless the Supreme Court of Great Britain overturns its own decisions, it is a safe bet that Assange is going back to Sweden. And, despite what his supporters would have us believe, once there it is an equally safe bet that he will not be extradited to anywhere else. In fact, judging from what has been made known; it is a good bet that Assange is going to gaol. It will then be up to the Left to decide precisely where it stands. Similarly, Australia’s journalists will also have to make a decision, though in actuality the damage has already been done. Regardless of the facts of the case, the Australian Journalists Association has revealed for all to see that it is a political organisation and that all of its awards will be forever tainted with the question of how much politics was a factor in the decision.
As an aside-
I am finding it very difficult to get excited about the cricket this year. As Australia faces off against New Zealand and India against the West Indies, we are not seeing the best playing the best, but rather those left standing playing another team of those left standing. Between the betting scandals and the sudden proliferation of Twenty20 championships, it seems that cricket has lost its soul. Even the Sheffield Shield has failed to excite- the onset of yet another year where Western Australia loses every match before Christmas has become so predictable, the performances so embarrassing, that it is hard to maintain a positive outlook for the latter half of the year, though invariably the Western Warriors will smash everybody in sight and then just miss out on the finals by a handful of points it could have had from the start of the season if it had, heaven forbid, actually been able to win a game.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Hot today
|
Posted:Dec 10, 2011 1:20 pm
Last Updated:Feb 27, 2015 9:02 am
9404 Views
|
Hot again tomorrow
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
New Beginnings
|
Posted:Dec 4, 2011 6:42 am
Last Updated:Dec 4, 2011 6:44 am
9114 Views
|
The one thing I have discovered about working full time and studying for a double degree in Accounting and Commerce is that it does not leave a lot of time for sleep, much less anything like a social life or a blog. One of the great ironies is that you get told at the start of the year that the key to coping for students is being organised- and eventually you agree that being organised the key to doing better than you have been. With 13 units in 12 months resulting in three High Distinctions, nine Distinctions and one Credit, I can safely say that I am doing alright. Still, it rubs me the wrong way that I know I could have done better if I was more organised. I would also probably be more rested and healthier, but there you have it.
I am hoping that all the big mistakes are behind me. Things like mixing up the submission dates of various unit assessments and even forgetting to notify the boss I had a mid-semester test and needed the time off. But I have no doubt that the little mistakes are likely to continue; I imagine that they are part and parcel of the student experience. The worst of these is the habit where some assessments are posted without word counts included, only for word counts to appear some time later with the marking rubric or whatever. Of course by the time you find it, it is either a few days or even a few hours before the assessment is meant to be submitted. Now I work on the basis that all assessments are about 2000 words and then expand or contract my submission as required.
The other thing I have done is to place a little quote on my wall- “If you are unable to explain it simply, then you do not know the material well enough” (Albert Einstein). This has been, without doubt, my biggest failing- my inability to communicate an idea without qualifications. I am a pretty opinionated person; I am also, alas, a person who is unwilling to leave such opinions in the shed. I do not doubt this has cost me marks, especially in some of the more ra-ra booster units like Communications or Information Systems. Communications has become another word for ethics. I deplore cultural relativism and find it abhorrent that our students are being taught to simply accept some detestable cultural practices as fait accompli. If we are to have truly ethical companies dealing in respect for diversity, environment, corporate governance, etc, then some cultural practices from foreign climes need to be protested. Similarly, if I have to endure one more lecture or tutorial on the brilliant future of humanity promised by the internet, I think I may very well vomit. I could certainly go on about the other things that bother me, but these two are by far and away the worst.
Another issue I have is that my exam results do not seem to match my knowledge. Of course it is not always possible to get feedback on the exams, but what little I have had has generally focussed on my handwriting- it is atrocious. I have tried to go a bit slower, and this has worked, but only slightly, leading me to think that either I have not sufficiently improved the quality of my handwriting, or that there is some other, as yet unidentified, reason for my poor performance. Still, so far, it has been no great disadvantage-when going for most exams I already have a steady flow of High Distinctions from my assessments to ensure that I usually require less than ten points to pass the actual subject, which, as you can imagine, takes a lot of pressure off.
So the real challenge is to become more organised. I have already taken a number of steps in this direction, the least of which will be a honking great wall calendar to help me keep my assessment due dates in order. Another method I intend to lean heavily on is to continue using a new notes template I picked up from the Information Systems unit. Although suggested mid-way through the unit, I quickly adopted it for many of the units I completed over the latter half of the year. With some printing exercises and practice, it should hopefully result in an easier academic effort with better results.
As an aside;
How many of today’s popular musicians can actually sing? For much of the past year I have been something of a classical music junky; generally glued to ClassicFM on the radio and using it guide my purchases of CDs for home entertainment. Of course man cannot live on Bach alone and a recent foray into the mainstream stations was marked by a constant musing as to whether the person ‘singing’ was actually engaged in that act. Katy Perry stands out as the main example- she has a distinctive style that I liken to ‘attacking’ the song with her voice. I have also noted that not a few of the live performances of many artists are marked by poor breathing- the odd gasping lungful of air marring an otherwise acceptable performance. I realise this is a largely snobbish rant; few popular singers could afford the sort of lessons that would be necessary to make a talented amateur into a professional singer. But it would be equally remiss of me not to mention that one of my current crop of favourite singers, Madeleine Peyroux, had similar problems with her technique, which she resolved by taking lessons between her first and second albums.
I suppose my real aim in these musings is to determine just how much other people’s enjoyment of their favourite artist is marred by poor technique- or if they even notice? As Susan Boyle makes another sojourn to our fair shores, her horrid technique being the subject of yet another round of gushing praise, I am minded of the plethora of professional Australian classical singers who are all but forgotten by their home audiences despite their prowess on the world stage.
The sudden high demand for Australian classical singers almost the world over is another confirmation of the wise decision to do away with the Parallel Import Restrictions on music- and further proof that the PIR on books should also be removed. Once upon a time, Australian classical music threw up a diva every generation. Now, we seem to have a production line of Australian (with a heavy dose of co-opted Kiwi) artists, male and female, using their recording success to break onto the great stages of Europe and America. And aside from the occasional block buster tour, audiences seem more willing to support a major series by a purely Australian (and co-opted Kiwi) cast. My fondest hope, and the day cannot be far off, is that we will find an Australian of the calibre of Phillip Glass to compose the Great Australian Opera, as doing away with the PIR has led to a revival in interest in the great Australian composers of the past.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Oh Hai
|
Posted:Dec 4, 2011 6:40 am
Last Updated:May 7, 2024 8:57 pm
8871 Views
|
I did not.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Flat Earth Theories
|
Posted:Jul 30, 2011 9:13 am
Last Updated:Feb 27, 2015 9:03 am
9839 Views
|
So the world is flat? It seems funny to think that only a few years ago this was the considered opinion of, supposedly, one of the world’s best journalists. Thomas Friedman visited India and saw a miracle unfolding, and like all good miracle stories he failed to notice that there were holes in that story. Now, don’t misunderstand me. When it comes to India and South Asia more generally, there is no bigger supporter for the changes that they have made and the changes that they will make. While never having visited the country, I nevertheless maintain a deep respect and interest, and hell, it’s only a blog, a real love for that country that only real unfamiliarity can deliver. It is somewhat like the experience that we all have of seeing the object of our desire from far away- we can imagine their good points being more than enough to offset the bad points we notice without ever having to acknowledge that someone, somewhere, is tired of putting up with their crap. I am still at that stage with India. Mr Friedman, on the other hand, despite having visited the country, nevertheless left with a far greater impression than the one he arrived with. Of course the key to this mistake was the simple fact that he arrived expecting not much and found a revolution had overtaken the stereotype, which he put down to the internet. It would be like being set up on a blind date with the fat from your school only to find, on arriving, that ten years had turned them into a hottie, and thinking that it must be due to the vitamin supplements they mention during dinner.
Now, in the illustrative scenario, the guy usually walks away disappointed he didn’t score on the first date and the gal ends up with her ankles in the air (allowing for humorous stereotyping of course). Mr Friedman went away and published a book, gave seminars and interviews and generally built a career spruiking the benefits of the online world for India, and extrapolating this across the entire globe. If Mr Friedman was in our alternate scenario, not only does he have his legs in the air, but he also has a gag in his mouth and India is getting out the whip! A very apt description of it because the benefits that Mr Friedman thought would change India overnight have not quite worked as well as he foresaw. The internet is not even flattening India, so how can it flatten the world?
India is a country of two parts. There is the rich, educated south and there is poor, uneducated north. There are pockets of difference in both, yes, but we are generalizing here. But instead of the internet spreading the benefits, according to the theory presented by Mr Friedman, to the north, the northerners simply upped stumps and headed south. The financial, economic and cultural hub of southern India, Mumbai, is growing by a million people PER YEAR! In a city designed to cater for less than half of the current population, an extra million poor, uneducated people is creating burdens that the conservative Hindu state government is doing little to address, other than blaming the resident Muslims and turning the occasional blind eye to mob violence directed at them. Mumbai may be the city of opportunity, but it is a limited opportunity reserved for a lucky few people. And sorry though I am to say it, nothing that is written here is going to change that. Thousands of people may ultimately read this, but unless they turn off their computers and physically do something to help, 950 000 of that one million moving into Mumbai will have succeeded only in changing the geographical location of their poverty.
If India is one of the jewels in Mr Friedman’s internet crown (China being the other), and it has failed to enjoy the supposed benefits that come from the new flat earth theory, how does this affect the rest of the world? Well we can look at our shops, increasingly full of imported Chinese products. National figures are not kept, but in NSW there has been an average of 200 emergency recalls of products every year for the last decade, half of which involve food items. And we’re not talking about incorrect product labels or underweight items- we’re talking about goods that have been treated with or contain materials that are hazardous to the health in small doses, much less the massive doses that many of these products contain. We’re talking about stuffed toys whose heads are firmly affixed to the body with a nail! And as bad as that is for the consumer, imagine what handling these products are doing for the actual production people? In university we are being taught about ethical standards of behaviour that apply in the real world- except in the real world our corporations are outsourcing production of goods to foreign companies and turning a blind eye to how those suppliers actually operate. While we complain that the good old wagon wheel biscuit is smaller now than it was forty years ago, we are supporting an economic system that lets people work for 40c an hour every goddam hour they can work!
But that’s okay, because according to Mr Friedman’s theories, the internet will fix that. We will become aware of the nature of these abuses and band together in the common bonds of humanity and boycott those companies. The only problem with that is that every company caught out in this way is still going strong. Nike was allowing fourteen year olds work in its factories overseas because local laws say it is okay- getting caught did not even dent their sales. Many Chinese and Indian factories still employ indentured labour contracts- a pernicious and degrading form of slave labour which has not stopped western companies from giving them supply contracts. Fisher Price does not seem to have had many problems from being caught out selling toys covered in lead paint! And it has not stopped us from buying this stuff.
Mr Friedman’s arguments rely on some pretty thin evidence- so thin, in fact, that he has had to revise what he meant to say on several occasions until he has reached the stage where the internet has the potential to flatten the world. Which is, interestingly enough, where we were when he started his love affair with the internet just a few years ago. The difference now is that there are whole legions of politicians, scientists, academics, economists and every day people who now think that the cure to all that ails the world is that machine that sits on their desks. People being tortured in Syria? Join Amnesty International’s facebook page. Civil war in Lybia? Subscribe to Greenpeace’s twitter feed. The Great Apes threatened with extinction in the DRC? Join the WWF email subscriber service. All fixed. And it would seem that we are really that stupid because a lot of people seem keen to get out of Afghanistan with a job half done because Bob Brown says so. When the plight of ten million starving Somalis, ruled by a terrorist theocracy, moves us to act in the same way we acted towards the people of Queensland, then the internet will have flattened the Earth. Until that day arrives, it is only a thing of potential.
Of course, in reality, Mr Friedman did not need the events of the world to overtake his theory- he could have looked around his New York hometown to see there were serious flaws in his theory. Black, Hispanic and immigrant Americans have anaemically low participation rates in online activity. This not only a matter of economic position, but also cultural biases that results in a depressing number of Blacks and Hispanics eschewing educational excellence for fear of being seen as kowtowing the white man’s cultural superiority. And things are set to get worse for the Americans; as their middle classes are increasingly decimated by having their jobs shipped offshore, economic divisions are going to leave the nation as a house divided- and as Abraham Lincoln noted, a house divided cannot long stand.
While the pre-nineteenth century was a long era of poor educational opportunities for women when compared to their male counterparts, the real dividing line was economic power. Even in medieval times, when the stereotype holds that all women were uneducated, it was not uncommon for the ladies of the upper classes to be better educated, if with more limited ‘career’ opportunities, than their male counterparts- many of whom were illiterate. In fact the medieval stereotype only really became a feature of society as the agrarian feudal economy gave way to the industrial revolution. Even then ladies of a certain station were likely to be far better educated, if only in a limited sense, than any factory worker could hope to aspire for their own , male or female. It is, in fact, an odd feature of the introduction of public education that the strongest opponents were the poor themselves, worried that loss of a brood of breadwinners could lead to destitution and ruin, unconvinced that even with a good education the doors of opportunity would open. Yet we are about to come full circle as the owners of capital will enjoy the benefits of wealth at the expense of a veritable army of servants providing the labour for creating that largesse.
Even in China and India, the exodus of jobs has begun as cheaper sources of labour are identified elsewhere. Hemmed in by more regulations on environmental issues and corporate governance, many of the suppliers to the West are shifting to countries in their region more interested in the investment that comes to their lands than the preservation of the environment and its people. Chinese moves to increase the domestic economy may be less to do with the economic stagnation of the west and the potential threat posed by their own newly minted corporate giants moving their production facilities to take advantage of the untapped potential of much of the African workforce. The risk for China and India is that, long before it reaches a per-capita GDP comparable with that in the West, their economies will stagnate as increasing numbers of home grown companies move offshore. The real risk for the rest of the world is that rather than the poor nations catching up to where the rich nations are now, both groups will simply grow closer together as Western economies go into decline.
Most introductory economics units at university will make the claim that potential GDP growth can only come about through increased workforce or through technological innovation. In fact, history has shown that the real facilitator of growth is the ability to safely transport goods. The Roman Empire basically came into existence in order to guarantee the safe passage of trade goods around the Mediterranean. The counts of Champagne and the Dukes of Burgundy grew rich on their ability to safely host the trade fairs in their regions, and then grew poor again as trade found a more secure route via ships. The current world economy has been built on two centuries of the oceanic dominance of the Anglosphere- first the British Empire and then the United States. American wealth itself was largely built on the trans-continental rail lines that joined the food producing mid-west with the markets of the world.
And this is the danger of picking out one element of the story and making it the story. By telling the world that its solutions were all online, Friedman ignored the fact that the reason India’s miracle has not been more widespread in its benefits has been the government’s inability to build infrastructure to take the jobs where they need to go. China’s problems have not been about building the infrastructure, but doing it so that it lasts more than a couple of years before sub-standard building practices and materials used while allocated funds were siphoned off by corrupt party officials. Even in Australia, infrastructure spending is the number one cause of delays in shipping but instead of spending money to improve the ports and rail facilities needed, it is spending $40billion on an national broadband network that is likely to be outdated by the time it is completed. At $60 per month subscription fees, it is likely that even the lower middle-class is likely going to miss out on the level playing field the thing is meant to be promoting.
While Mr Friedman may have changed his mind and adopted a more nuanced position, it is possible that the damage is already done. The internet was never going to flatten the earth, just as its precursors in the jumbo jet, telegraph and the steam ship were never going to shrink the world with promises not too dissimilar with those being made now. Even now, the internet is already beginning to splinter into networks that will ultimately determine the haves and have-nots of the future, assuming that they are not brought down by the plethora of growing security threats. The internet may help us do many wonderful things; perhaps it is time we started to look upon it as the tool it is rather than the carriage of our dreams?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (rm_mazandbren) use [blog rm_mazandbren] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
92
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
