I'll be shifting focus now to the NSW state government, however it will inevitably involve discussion about the Federal government.
Case in point, the NSW Primary Industries Minister, Ian Macdonald has called on the Federal government to launch an extensive inquiry into what he is calling a 'biosecurity breach' regarding some horses imported from Japan.
A fair enough call I'd say - this equine flu is going to have massive consequences in many areas of Australian life. Firstly, the economy and employment. The government makes some serious dosh off Australia's cultural gambling. Also, coming from Newcastle, I've listened to a lot of worried stud farmers concerned about their breeding programs which are due to start at the beginning of September. If there's no horses, there's no work for many people in areas such as Scone.
Another major consequence of this flu is, for some, probably the most important - we can't go to the races! I'm sure every CSU student can appreciate the frivolity and general dizziness of a day at the races. The night before is like Christmas Eve, you can't get to sleep because your mind is in a frenzy of colour and excitement at the day ahead. The drinking, the laughing, the drinking, the hats, the suits, the drinking, the stilettos flung over the shoulder while hair is whisked out of the face making way for a steady stream of vomit, more drinking, oh yeah and the running horses... Those poor people at Birdsville this weekend, I'm sure they'll think of something...
But back to the politics, after all this is a very serious blog! The effects of the equine flu are also extending to APEC with all 32 of the police horses in lock down somewhere in Redfern. What will the riot squad use to trample on protesters now? Maybe they could use the wives of the delegates? I'm sure their faces are just as long, their hooves just as dangerous and their mounters just as vicious...
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Taking the Social out of Social Media
Following a previous posting about the censorship affects of the Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007, another story has emerged regarding the government's manipulation of public information - this time in the form of Wikipedia. Now, we all now that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source of information - certainly if you referenced it in an assignment you would no doubt have earned that big fat 'F'. But it does serve as a resource for developing a foundational understanding of many topics and with over 1.95 million English entries, it is a resource which is widely used.
The government, now waking up to the power of social media (i.e. John Howard's recent YouTube cameos) has decided to manipulate the very basis with which Wikipedia is based - it's a wiki. The information on this site is completely user created and controlled - a two edged sword; on the one hand users get to have their work published for potentially millions to read, on the other hand as an SMH article pointed out today: "The site has come under fire lately due to the apparent ease with which anyone can add biased, erroneous and libellous information." It's no wonder the site has come under fire with the Australian Prime Minister's staff editing out information on the site which casts the government in a bad light. Articles focused on Peter Costello and the children overboard scandal are but a few which have been altered by government clickers.
Thank God for this new technology WikiScanner which can pinpoint organisations who have edited the information on Wikipedia. This has the potential to uncover astroturfing campaigns as well, as the technology can identify if the editor has worked through an organisation's network or through a ISP for home users.
Check out the article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pms-wikipedia-whiteout/2007/08/23/1187462441687.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The government, now waking up to the power of social media (i.e. John Howard's recent YouTube cameos) has decided to manipulate the very basis with which Wikipedia is based - it's a wiki. The information on this site is completely user created and controlled - a two edged sword; on the one hand users get to have their work published for potentially millions to read, on the other hand as an SMH article pointed out today: "The site has come under fire lately due to the apparent ease with which anyone can add biased, erroneous and libellous information." It's no wonder the site has come under fire with the Australian Prime Minister's staff editing out information on the site which casts the government in a bad light. Articles focused on Peter Costello and the children overboard scandal are but a few which have been altered by government clickers.
Thank God for this new technology WikiScanner which can pinpoint organisations who have edited the information on Wikipedia. This has the potential to uncover astroturfing campaigns as well, as the technology can identify if the editor has worked through an organisation's network or through a ISP for home users.
Check out the article:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/pms-wikipedia-whiteout/2007/08/23/1187462441687.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
That's so Gay!
Isn't it sad that the only reason politicans like Joe Hockey and Brendan Nelson are only interested in reform to the laws discriminating against homosexuals because they want to secure the gay vote in their electorate. I understand that they have to be conscious of securing as many votes as possible in order to stay in power, yet I feel that in this context politicians should be pushing for reform on the basis that these laws boil down to blatant discriminiation!
"Ministers were also concerned at the expense of reforms, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in extra social security payments." Are you serious?! Oh, let's continue to disciminate against gay couples because it'll cost too much to treat them as equals! Being a gay couple doesn't make you an less Australian than a heterosexual couple and all Australians deserve the economic protection of the government.
Recently, singer Darren Hayes has come out (excuse the pun) against the Howard government because on a recent trip to Australia his new husband had to come here on a tourist visa and not a spousal visa. Hayes' husband wasn't recognised as such, just because they are homosexual. It's frustrating that in the 21st century, when science and other revolutionary forms of thinking have been allowed to lead to so many fantastic developments and yet so many people in power are still determined not persecute gays! Being a gay couple in Australia equates to not being officially recognised as such and being forced to pay at least double that of hetero couples to recieve the same benefits on schemes such as the PBS. Why?
I'd really like to know what people think about this highly contentious issue, so feel free to write a comment with any thoughts/feelings/feedback/etc.
The article that inspired this posting can be viewed at:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22292944-2,00.html?from=mostpop
"Ministers were also concerned at the expense of reforms, which would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in extra social security payments." Are you serious?! Oh, let's continue to disciminate against gay couples because it'll cost too much to treat them as equals! Being a gay couple doesn't make you an less Australian than a heterosexual couple and all Australians deserve the economic protection of the government.
Recently, singer Darren Hayes has come out (excuse the pun) against the Howard government because on a recent trip to Australia his new husband had to come here on a tourist visa and not a spousal visa. Hayes' husband wasn't recognised as such, just because they are homosexual. It's frustrating that in the 21st century, when science and other revolutionary forms of thinking have been allowed to lead to so many fantastic developments and yet so many people in power are still determined not persecute gays! Being a gay couple in Australia equates to not being officially recognised as such and being forced to pay at least double that of hetero couples to recieve the same benefits on schemes such as the PBS. Why?
I'd really like to know what people think about this highly contentious issue, so feel free to write a comment with any thoughts/feelings/feedback/etc.
The article that inspired this posting can be viewed at:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22292944-2,00.html?from=mostpop
Hear Evil, See Evil... Just don't Speak about it...
The Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007 has effectively gagged the entire notion of public debate, protest, boycotting and the main focus of this subject (COM318): lobbying. With all the readings so far pointing to lobbying as an essential element in a democratic system, this Bill seems almost counter-democratic.
My understanding of the Bill (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that if a someone protests or calls a boycott against an organisation (say for unethical trade practices or unethical treatment of animals), the ACCC can then sue these protesters on behalf of the organisation to recover lost profit resulting from the protest. It sounds like Nazis during WWII! 'We don't like what you're saying, so don't say it or we'll sue you!' This is sentiment echoed by Greens leader Bob Brown in an SMH article today.
So, next time you visit a factory full of pigs, who are cramped together like sardines, chained to the ground and have never seen the light of day - think twice before you speak out to others who may be ignorant of this practice. Because, you might just get sued for all your bacon.
The article which inspired this posting can be read at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/22/1187462353847.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
My understanding of the Bill (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) is that if a someone protests or calls a boycott against an organisation (say for unethical trade practices or unethical treatment of animals), the ACCC can then sue these protesters on behalf of the organisation to recover lost profit resulting from the protest. It sounds like Nazis during WWII! 'We don't like what you're saying, so don't say it or we'll sue you!' This is sentiment echoed by Greens leader Bob Brown in an SMH article today.
So, next time you visit a factory full of pigs, who are cramped together like sardines, chained to the ground and have never seen the light of day - think twice before you speak out to others who may be ignorant of this practice. Because, you might just get sued for all your bacon.
The article which inspired this posting can be read at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/22/1187462353847.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Monday, August 20, 2007
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?
Peter Costello also received quite a flogging this week for comments he alledgedly made three years ago at a dinner with three Press Gallery journalists - "He can't win. I can". Obviously referring to his desire to lead to the Liberal Party.
Yet, this dinner was off the record. These damn journos! (n.b. this anti-journo sentiment will probably creep into many of my posts - i'll apologise now). I realise that in politics you can never take "off the record" for granted, but don't these journos run around screaming at PR practitioners about their lack of ethics - well in this case that a bit like the pot calling the kettle a big fat liar!
Even though John Howard was quick to sweep in under the carpet saying he and Costello had a harmonious and productive professional relationship (what about their personal relationship?) it still pisses me off.
Watching question time last week when Wayne Swan was grinding into Costello over the incident, it was interesting to see how these politicians operate. For example, when asked about the night, Mr. Costello replied, "As I remember I had the fish", while looking back at his front benchers to see who was laughing. I might as well have been watching Thank God You're Here.
Who cares if Mr. Costello wants to jump in the hot seat? As long as he and Johnnie can work well on a professional basis... everyone says how strong Australia's economy is at the moment and how we're in a better position than we've ever been - well Mr. Costello is the Treasurer isn't he? So he must be doing something right...
Yet, this dinner was off the record. These damn journos! (n.b. this anti-journo sentiment will probably creep into many of my posts - i'll apologise now). I realise that in politics you can never take "off the record" for granted, but don't these journos run around screaming at PR practitioners about their lack of ethics - well in this case that a bit like the pot calling the kettle a big fat liar!
Even though John Howard was quick to sweep in under the carpet saying he and Costello had a harmonious and productive professional relationship (what about their personal relationship?) it still pisses me off.
Watching question time last week when Wayne Swan was grinding into Costello over the incident, it was interesting to see how these politicians operate. For example, when asked about the night, Mr. Costello replied, "As I remember I had the fish", while looking back at his front benchers to see who was laughing. I might as well have been watching Thank God You're Here.
Who cares if Mr. Costello wants to jump in the hot seat? As long as he and Johnnie can work well on a professional basis... everyone says how strong Australia's economy is at the moment and how we're in a better position than we've ever been - well Mr. Costello is the Treasurer isn't he? So he must be doing something right...
Bad Ass Stripper
Kevin Rudd has received a lot of attention in the media this week due a drunken night out at New York strip club Scores. Now to me this is what make politics interesting, dare I say sexy! How did he swindle his way out of this incident? He was too drunk to remember what happened! How Australian is that? It's also an excuse I'm sure every CSU student is familiar with.
Of course, many media reports have suggested that this could work in Rudd's favour; making him appear more human. We know incidents like this worked in Bob Hawke's favour. Today's opinion polls showed little change to Kevin Rudd's rating, yet the incident only came to light on the last day of the survey, so a more accurate measurement will probably appear in the next published poll.
However human it does make Rudd appear, it also raises the issue of accountability when spending tax payer's money whilst representing Australia. I wonder, where do we go to find out exactly how politicians spend while overseas? What kind of ramifications are there for inapproproately spending the tax payer's dollar? I can recall Mr. Howard often hammering his key message of, "It was within the allocated budget" when being called up on the massive amount of money spent of government advertising... So Mr. Rudd - is that pocket full of $5 notes within the allocated budget, or are you just happy to see me?
Of course, many media reports have suggested that this could work in Rudd's favour; making him appear more human. We know incidents like this worked in Bob Hawke's favour. Today's opinion polls showed little change to Kevin Rudd's rating, yet the incident only came to light on the last day of the survey, so a more accurate measurement will probably appear in the next published poll.
However human it does make Rudd appear, it also raises the issue of accountability when spending tax payer's money whilst representing Australia. I wonder, where do we go to find out exactly how politicians spend while overseas? What kind of ramifications are there for inapproproately spending the tax payer's dollar? I can recall Mr. Howard often hammering his key message of, "It was within the allocated budget" when being called up on the massive amount of money spent of government advertising... So Mr. Rudd - is that pocket full of $5 notes within the allocated budget, or are you just happy to see me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
