30 November 2008
"But now the Federal Government's great broadband gift is floundering in the waves of the financial crisis and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing ahead with an internet filter that will dramatically slow Australian internet speeds.
The biggest problem is a little word that Mr Conroy slipped out in the middle of a Senate committee hearing. The pilot filter program will not only target the existing blacklisted sites, most of which are child pornography, but will also target "unwanted" content, whatever that means.
It's a bit embarrassing that we're discussing censoring the internet at all. What does it say about Australian politics that the reaction of both major parties to such a liberating technology is to demagogue about its dangers? Our politicians rave about evils online more than any other liberal democracy. As a consequence, the Federal Government's proposal is far more extensive than any other internet censorship scheme outside the totalitarian world."
::View Article::
As this article points out politicians harp on to un-proportional degrees about the negatives of the internet, i.e. child pornography, in order to scare us into giving them more control of the internet. Whenever the possibility of the government controlled filter blocking legal material is raised, the discussion is directed back to child porn.
What does Senator Conroy mean when he says that the internet filter will block 'unwanted' content in addition to (already) illegal material? Who will decide what content/information is unwanted?
On a broader level, why do we need the government to increasingly direct our behaviour in new spheres of life such as the net? Is it because we don't have the community bonds (i.e. consensus/values) which might better promote the avoidance of child pornography, sites on anorexia, and other material the government is sighting in order to worry us?
30 November 2008
"The Productivity Commission has recommended a taxpayer-funded scheme that would provide 18 weeks' paid leave at the adult minimum wage of $544 a week, costing the federal budget about $450 million a year and businesses $74 million in extra superannuation payments.
In a draft report, the commission argues that such a scheme would "yield community-wide gains in the long term", including better child and maternal welfare, greater workforce participation by women, and improved work-family balance and gender equity.
Although Labor has talked up the prospect of a scheme for years, it is now signalling that the policy could be dumped or shelved because of the financial crisis."
::View Article::
No doubt the Productivity Commission recommended the scheme which the government now seems likely to sideline, because the benefits outweigh the costs.
The benefits are two sided. On one hand working mothers themselves will be able to spend more crucial time looking after their new born children. This could only increase child mental and emotional well-being which would mean less government resources going towards such areas.
On the other hand mothers who have had suitable time away from work after giving birth will still have a job, and won’t be unemployed. This will boost economic activity and all the tax and other benefits to the government that go along with economic activity. Under the current situation that delivers no significant amount of government funded paid maternity leave, potential mothers often have to leave their jobs completely in order to give birth and look after their new-born:
"The report on global gender equity, released last week by the World Economic Forum, shows Australian women are the most educated in the world — ranking equal No.1 alongside Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, New Zealand and the US — but are ranked 40th in terms of female participation in paid work."
::View Article:
26 November 2008
"Sexpo is the third biggest annual Victorian show behind the Royal Show and the Home Show. It attracted 70,000 visitors at the weekend. Sexpo, (or as my mate Dan calls it, Christmas For Perverts) originated in Melbourne 12 years ago. Our licence plates should say Victoria: Home of Sexpo. Or Victoria: A proud porn-loving community. Or perhaps, Victoria: We're gagging for it.
The commodification of sex is depressing. Capitalism cultivates dissatisfaction. Sex sells by making us feel there is some sexual nirvana available that we could experience if only we had the right outfit, toy, partner or lube.
The only other expo I've been to this year was The Bridal Expo. Both struck me as advertisements for some ultimate experience that didn't exist. Which won't stop us searching, feeling dissatisfied or wondering if we're getting enough."
::View Article::
It might be unfair to say that Capitalism, or more precisely our consumer culture, cultivates "dissatisfaction". That's a value judgement I'll leave to the individual. However consumerism does cultivate desire. Our society is filled with marketing campaigns alerting us to the existence of new products and often their social status in the hope we will develop the need, not harboured before hand, to buy them.
So what? Well the society-wide cultivation of desire, now penetrating into the realm of sex, is not necessarily as hot as might be thought. It might be good for overall economic activity, but not necessarily overall wellbeing. To quote the 19th century Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, "All willing (desiring) arises from need, therefore from deficiency, and therefore from suffering". Translation: more desires = more feelings that something is lacking in life.
The sex industry seeks to inflame our desires by making us feel that toys, outfits, porn, other products are needed for a fulfilling sex life when in fact most of us need just a partner we love and are attracted to.
24 November 2008
The need to maximise the growth of the economy seems to be perceived as a self-evident truth in Australia. We don't just want a dynamic and well-oiled economy, we want one that is at all times getting bigger and bigger. At the 2020 summit held earlier this year, 1000 of our best and brightest got together to discuss the nation's future. A key topic was how to 'maximise economy growth'. Ross Gittens from The Age reports.
"[One] of the summit's blinding insights was that "Australia should be the best place in the world to live and do business" which would require "urgent action to increase economic capacity".
::View Article::
It's obviously being assumed here that the size of the economy and amount of economic activity determines whether a certain place is the best one in which to live.
Is this true?
"What we are looking at here is a period when immigration numbers have been really very high and population growth been quite sharp. Like in 2002 the population grew by 237,000. In 2007 it grew by 332,000."
"So it has really grown quite fast and that is fast enough for people to actually see the effects of it. Especially in pressure points like Sydney and Melbourne, where most of the migrants go."
"What happens is that people in Sydney are moving out at a much higher rate than they are from Melbourne and the reason for that is the high cost of housing as far as we can see," she said.
"It is quite unusual that opposition to the immigration intake should rise during a period that was economically rosy, because you have to remember the people responded to this in late November and early December last year."
::View Article::
Far from indicating that the worship of economic growth is making us happier one symptom of this worship, booming immigration, is making us move due to population congestion and housing shortages.
Another way we can maximise economic growth is by working more again. But is does this represent a higher quality of life?
"Then there's the changed attitude to leisure. For 100 years to the beginning of the 1980s, falling working hours - from the 44-hour week to the 38-hour week - were regarded as a sign of social progress. We were happy to take part of our greater productivity in higher incomes and part in more leisure. Yet all that has changed."
::View Article::
We are becoming more economically productive due to better technology and production methods which is great, but instead of using this as an opportunity to enjoy non-working life a bit more we're using the surplus in time and money to propel production further. But for what? Is the economy simply a means to an end or is it everything?
We're even extending the strange quantity over quality mindset into the realm of the arts:
"Even the summit's creativity stream fell into the economy trap: "We will aim to double cultural output by 2020," it concluded, as if the quantity of artistic product trumps its ability to stir our passions or let us see into the human condition. The Government was urged to "recognise the centrality of the arts and creativity to the whole economy"."
::View Article::
Will the arts now have to be justified in terms of their contribution to growing the economy? Will we axe them if they are not 'efficient' enough?
21 November 2008
"Despite continually proclaiming the importance of educating young Australians, our political leaders all seem to have overlooked the fact that today is World Philosophy Day. It is a day we should not allow to pass unmarked.
Given Prime Minister Rudd's call for a responsible and egalitarian future, what is our Labor Government doing to promote World Philosophy Day and the importance of philosophy in the lives of every Australian?
I think we've reached a critical mass. My suggestion is that today, our political leaders, and indeed all Australians, should read the UNESCO study,
Philosophy: A School of Freedom, and make an immediate long term commitment to encouraging our children to be curious and to think critically."
::View Article::
We live in a democracy and we pride ourselves on being a young and, most importantly, 'free' nation. But surely 'freedom' entails the ability to be able to think critically and objectively.
True freedom is considering all the alternatives for oneself and then decide upon a course of action as an autonomous agent. It's not simply doing what everyone else does because everyone else is doing it. It's not voting a certain way simply because one's parents do it. It's not leading a certain life simply because it's glorified by television and marketing empires. All these are not examples of freedom because the motivations are coming more from outside rather than from within.
Philosophy is not simply theology or the study of different ideologies. It is the study of the logic and the reasons behind different assertions and it helps one develop the ability to analyse other people's arguments, consider different modes of society, and generally be more of a 'free' agent in the world.
19 November 2008
"AUSTRALIA and China will accelerate negotiations to clinch a free trade agreement to stimulate their economies in the face of the global economic crisis.
Speaking in Washington after a meeting with Chinese president Hu Jintao, Mr Rudd nominated increased trade and fiscal stimulation as key weapons in the fight against the crisis, which began on credit and stock markets but now threatens jobs and has plunged much of the world into, or near to, recession.
"We have great interest to greater access to China's market in goods and in services.""
::View Article::
On one hand free trade with China might stimulate our economy, but at the same time it might contribute to a decline in jobs and conditions here in Australia.
As taxes on imported goods and services from China are removed it becomes cheaper for an Australian business or company (or even consumer) to buy these foreign products instead of buying Australian equivalents, because they are often produced under lower pay and working conditions (and hence are offered at a lower price). The result is often Australian jobs like manufacturing disappearing. The only way Australian producers can compete is by lowering domestic wages and working conditions (leave/breaks/safety etc).
Free trade generally makes our economy dependent upon the import of cheap products that we can't compete with, and reduces things to the lowest denominator.
18 November 2008
"AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.
The plan was first created as a way to combat child pornography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Mr Conroy said trials were yet to be carried out, but "we are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material."
::View Article::
'Illegal'? That's a subjective value judgement. Even at this early stage is looks suspicious. Child porn, fine, but euthanasia (an issue surrounding the control over something as fundamental as one's own life span)?
Anyway, who will decide what constitutes 'illegal' material? The Government, of course. But simply because the government is democratically elected does not mean this internet censorship plan will turn slowly turn into something other than arbitrary intrusion. Democracy is seeing power become increasingly delivered to central authorities behind the smokescreen of all the elections and 'unique' candidates.
17 November 2008
"Neighbours and Home and Away have been branded racist for consistently failing to feature families from ethnic minorities.
Now academics and politicians fear that international viewers could get the "wrong impression" about Australia.
University of Queensland Aboriginal studies lecturer Sam Watson said the dramas were operating an "exclusive white family club" that didn't reflect Australia's true demographic."
::View Article::
Last time I looked, Neighbours and Home and Away were not bastions of reality! If they are representing the nation to other countries, then I think i'm moving to New Zealand.
If I were Asian, Greek, or Aboriginal I wouldn't want my ethnicity represented by Home & Away: It sure wouldn't be multiculture anyway :p
15 November 2008
"ANTI-poverty campaigner Sir Bob Geldof charged $100,000 to come to Melbourne and give a speech about world suffering.
Geldof, 54, spoke about the tragedy of Third World poverty and the failure of governments to combat the crisis, at a Crown casino function on Thursday night.
But the Herald Sun can reveal the outspoken human rights activist charged about $100,000 for his trouble -- a speaker's fee that included the cost of luxury hotel rooms and first-class airfares. Fellow activist the Rev Tim Costello, World Vision's CEO, spoke for free. An event insider said the Geldof payments included the costs of a minder."
::View Article::
Assuming this is true, I wonder what that $100,000 could have done if it was used for something other than symbolism.
Charity too often seems to me to be all about ego and appearances rather than reality: Be seen associating with the right group, buy a 'make poverty history' wristband, and compete with other people for social status. All the while problems in poverty stricken, war torn nations escalate because throwing money at them is not the solution.
How about addressing overpopulation, for starters?
14 November 2008
"KEVIN RUDD will cash in on his first anniversary as Prime Minister by hosting a Labor fund-raiser likely to be one of the largest and most lucrative in Australian political history.
Hundreds of lobbyists, business figures and true believers have been sent invitations offering the chance to secure a 10-seat table, with a federal minister in attendance, for $15,000. Tables with no minister are going for $5000. Sources say that, assuming most Labor ministers attend, and the convention centre's Bayside Grand Hall is filled to capacity with 1550 guests, the event could gross more than $1 million, making it one of the biggest political fund-raising dinners in Australia.
It comes after a warning from Mr Rudd this year: "You don't want democracy for sale." Referring to recent election campaigns in the United States that have cost more than $US1 billion ($1.5 billion), Mr Rudd said some democracies had reached the stage with political fund-raising at which "you've got to say, 'Oops, I think this has actually gone too far."'
::View Article::
Those who think that democracy is the one shining beacon in the midst of political darkness need go no further than this dinner. Leaders depend on lobby groups for financial clout and then sway the political climate in a certain direction (favourable to development, for instance) as payment. This mirrors totalitarianism in so far as leaders respond to interest groups rather than the public.
This sort of thing might not be as bad here as in America where leaders are almost totally dependent on lobby groups and political donations (for example to fuel their campaigns) but the difference is simply a matter of degree.
hink of it all - of the life that is! Study your friends and foes!
Study the past! And answer this: "Are these times better than those?" The life-long quarrel, the paltry spite, the sting of your poisoned pride! No matter who fell it were better to fight as they did when the world was wide.