Wow! There is a US Election tomorrow. Obama leads the polls. A black man. His competition? A three times cancer survivor Vietnam Veteran who was held hostage by the Vietnamese. The dude can’t raise his arms above his head. Poor guy. Being a Presidential candidate means lots of waving, cheering and shouting but is anyone listening or watching? If Palin has been media trained, lets hope their strategy is to dumb things down. Our compliance with recent events is ironic in the context of almost 15 years of conservative Government in the US, Great Britain and Australia. It’s good to step back and think about the positive of 50 years of equal rights work. That’s an achievement. And so it could be argued that one should give credit to the last 15 years of Government. Did the left ever anticipate that its opportunity would arise from the failure of capitalism? I see recent developments as the end of an empire. In the context of social media the American message and its MO have been exposed. It now has no credibility and no power. Not to mention being bankrupt.But put this in the context of the virtual world where America is hugely dominant. What will replace the financial markets as the arbiter of influence and power? Anyway, getting off track. May God be with Barrack Obama. How would Palin expain that? My election party has been cancelled but tomorrow is a huge day and I am excited and scared.

Senator Stephen Conroy and the Labour government are espousing an Internet filtering plan, which is likely to be ineffective and seems to run counter to their strategy for a digital economy and plans for a national broadband network (NBN).

Plans for a mandatory Internet filter were announced by Conroy back in December 2007 and in the lead up to the last election as an election promise. The plans fall under the Content Services Code, which is a ‘new industry code of practice for providers of online and mobile phone content’.

Conroy seems to be re-visiting his filter plans during the NBN lull as telcos get their bids together for this major project. Bids have to be submitted before the end of November.

The filter would aim to restrict child pornography and illegal content with black-lists for the each but no opportunity for users to opt out.

Experts argue that Internet filtering will reduce Australian broadband speeds by 25 to 75 per cent. This would be somewhat counter-productive given the fact that Australia already lags the rest of the developed world when it comes to broadband speeds. Any gains delivered by the $4.5bn investment in a broadband network will be wiped out - hampering Australia’s ability to establish a true digital economy.   

Experts also argue that the plan will fail to achieve its goals:

• It cannot control peer to peer networking - providing an easy get out for those that want to access illegal content (and are probably already using peer connections). P2P traffic represents 30 to 55 per cent of all traffic.
• Technology for by-passing Internet filters is freely available.

 

The Aussie filter plan has been compared to censorship systems in Iran (less severe) and China (equivalent). Civil libertarians are concerned. Will this be the start of censorship creep? Who decides what is illegal? What precendence does it set for other countries? What if the Government begins to determine inconvenient content as illegal to further their own agenda and to stimy debate in this country?   

The following passage is from ZDnet on October 27:

The IIA has been a long-standing opponent of mandatory ISP filtering in Australia. Its stance on the issue since 2000 has been for ISPs to provide customers with filters or an optional filtered service, not to filter the entire network, according to CEO Peter Coroneos.

“Only the most repressive regimes in the world have attempted such an approach,” the IIA said in its 2006 statement regarding mandatory ISP filtering.

We have every right to be concerned if the Government’s recent actions in relation to Mark Newton, an Internode network engineer and opponent of the plan, are to provide a guide. An advisor to Conroy contacted the IIA to request that they control the views of Mark Newton. Internode - Newton’s employer is a memberof the IIA.

So what is the point? This looks like a case of a Government that is influenced by a desire to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Visit the Anti-Filter campaign here for more on this, including the following video by Winston Smith. And have your say here. Other sites and bloggers of interest on this topic:

• No Clean Feed - official campaign website
• Electronic Frontiers Australia - not for profit representing Internet users
• Somebody think of the children - blog
• Stop Australian Censorship - petition
• NetAlarmed - information & resources
• Internet censorship and civil liberties in Australia - forum & community

 

Arguably, well intentioned this policy is ultimately ineffective, misguided and wasteful.

I’ve seen a few bloggers comment that parents should be responsible for their children’s Internet habits and usage in the same way that they are for TV, computer games, music and movies. I think that’s the bottom line. The Government already gives away free Internet filtering software to parents.

This is a waste of money, which will have minimal effect on consumers of illegal content, and maximum effect on the majority of users (consumers and commercial) that understand and enjoy a high speed, open Internet.

The driving motivation for this policy could well be political. Is the Labour Government appeasing minority interests (Family First & Independents) in the Australian parliament in an effort to secure its position of power for the long term?

Check out this cool site: If the world could vote  and have your say on the upcoming US Presidential Election.

Unsurprisingly, Obama is streets ahead on a global basis with one significant exception.

In Macedonia, the former Yugoslavian Republic, McCain is recording a landslide 86.8% of the vote.

On a global basis - at the time of writing - Obama takes the Presidency with the same share (86.8%) of the vote.

In 1861, the philisopher John Stuart Mill wrote: the exercise of any political function, either as an elector or representative, is power over others.

We live in tumultuous times. The United State Presidential Election is scheduled to take place on November 4 this year.

The question remains relevant today: Do voters have a moral duty to be informed about politics?

The majority of Americans rely on the television for their political information, not realising that most news networks are highly partisan, owned by corporations and biased.

John Stuart Mill argued that the impact of political ignorance should be offset by giving extra votes to the most highly educated portions of the population.

Who is responsible for generating an informed population? Is it the moral responsibility of the individual? Perhaps - It’s rarely (if ever) in the interests of the political elite or governing party to educate the electorate about its shortcomings and failings.  

Edmund Burke coined the term, the Fourth Estate. He is quoted in Thomas Carlyle’s book:

“Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all”.

Journalism is seen as having a critical role to play as an institution that holds the other institutions to account. Sadly, our society has lost faith in the media.

A Pew Research Centre Study found that 66 per cent of people consider the press “one sided” while only 9 percent of journalists are concerned with the media’s credibility.

Technology is challenging and transforming the Fourth Estate. 

The Internet is perceived to have democratised information. It has placed the means of production in the hands of the consumer, hence User Generated Content. It has enabled the audience to engage in conversation, to provide feedback and to challenge one sided arguments and vested interests.

The Internet presents fantastic possibilities and potential as means of sharing information and mobilising communities around a cause or issue but I don’t think its safe to assume that this potential will necesarily be realised to the benefit of all.  

I think we can draw parallels between free markets and de-regulation and the impact of the Internet on media and information. Recent events clearly demonstrate - if proof were needed - that a laissez-faire attitude does not always lead to a positive or sustainable outcome. Fundamentally, free markets (of information or finance) may be self correcting but often that process is too painful to bare.

We cannot claim that traditional print media has been effective in establishing an informed population (whatever one of those is) but my fear is that new media, digital media will have a downward effect on the degree to which the community as a whole is achieving an acceptable level of informed-ness.

Sure, it will expose active and aware audiences to a much wider and active array of content and opinion but that’s an echo chamber. A situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an “enclosed” space. This was one of the primary objections to the role of the media in the lead up to the Iraq War.  

History tells us that the general public has no inclination and accepts no moral obligation to be informed about events in the world and in the world of digital media where the reader is the editor this concerns me. 

For the majority of the population, the Internet means memes, it means funny videos, it means games, it means shopping, it means entertaining news and opinion. It has little or no relationship with political consciousness.   

The following table captures the characteristics of traditional print media as I see them and compares them with that of digital and new media.

My fear is that if we move to a world where the characteristics of the media and the way that we engage with media reside in the right hand collumn we will utlimely become less informed and not more.

I don’t know what the solution is to this problem given the fact that media is moving irretrievably  along a digital path but I think it’s worthy of discussion.   

Things are getting out of hand. Today’s move by McCain would be honourable if someone, anyone believed that he actually had something, anything helpful to say. We know he doesn’t.

The US election is very focused on the individual personalities of the nominees, almost to the extent of disregarding party politics and the recent past. But surely McCain tactics are so very Republican, it all feels very familiar.

McCain will have to deal with more than one thing at a time if he wins the Presidency, so why can’t he now? I think Palin should go up against Obama in the debate - she’s the veep and John is tied up (no pun intended).

In this video, Sarah explains that McCain is a pragmatic Maverick that is apt to talk about solutions while taking shots from his party and the opposition.

CBS News anchor Katie Couric drills Palin

One could argue that the current scrutiny of the global finance systems by regulators and enforcers is too little too late but I’m in the better late than never camp.

In an ideal world the punishment for our greedy financiers would be severe destitution and hardship but its not going to happen. These people are bound to remain wealthy and the industry as a whole has been provided a secuirty blanket as a result of the enormous financial bail outs by Governments and reserve banks around the world.

Someone needs to be held to account.

The FBI has launched more than 500 investigations into senior executives in the mortgage industry and is probing records relating to the failure of Lehman Brothers and AIG. This story is covered by The Indepdendent and MarketWatch, among others.

I reckon it’s only a matter of time until these authorities expose an Enron style pandemic of lies, inflated expectations, fictitious profits, non-disclosure, shady accounting processes and fraud across the industry.

Sadly, we’ll be adding LIES to the list of wrong-doings for the finance sector, which already includes greed and bad judgement.

But does this mean that the US Administration will effectively be bankrolling criminals if it is successful in rushing through the proposed US$700bn rescue package? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the beneficiary of a multi-billion dollar Government buy-out, are both on the FBI’s watch list, along with 26 other companies. These investigations will take months and years while the rescue package could well be signed in this week.

The trouble is that Government and Finance are so intertwined and so inter-dependent that Government itself will have some difficult questions to answer if it holds the sector to account in a meaningful way.

This takes me back to an earlier post from January 2008, which included the following letter to the editor:

As a small investor, I’d like to wish all the Australian finance insiders - the fund managers, executives, merchant bankers and lawyers - a great year. Although I could never aspire to your earnings, it’s great that my investment funds let me assist your wealth by voting for ever rising executive pay and allowing more and more bonuses and payments to high-priced bankers and lawyers. That fact that you guys are all friends - and therefore know how to reward each other with my money - makes it even better.

“… bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and the right won’t solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will.”

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment.

To me, the way our two party democracies lurch from ‘left’ to ‘Right’ is insanity.

We must stop doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

McCain didn’t see this financial meltdown coming. Great post on this at Liberal Values.

We have a TV in the office - three actually. The Republican convention ran in the background today, which meant that I was witness to hours of innane cheering and flag waving. A baby called Trig slept through the whole event. Smartest dude in the room if you ask me.

What happened to principles?
I’m not talking about the high street fashion outlet.

The beauty of politics, PR and words is that you can find a way to justify any point of view any course of action, any change of mind.

I overheard Senator Ralph Seekins say something like this today:

“to have a conviction and to stand up to it is honourable…”

It’s now honourable to have broken the law - a fascinating about turn for a representatives of a Conservative political party (huge C) known for its obsession with law and order.

“Honourable”

The more heinous the crime the more honourable the convict - presumably. I’m gonna turn myself in…

Sarah Palin, Republican VP for the 2008 presidential election, has a husband - he has a conviction for driving under the influence.

Sarah and Todd have a daughter called Bristol - they apparently followed the Beckham’s family naming conventions. One wonders what Bristol’s baby will be called if she follows suit… ideas on a virtual postcard please…

I would (not for a few months though) unlike my mate Dale - he’d go there straight away except he already has a lovely girlfriend. Celebrity value.

The ridiculous cheering at the convention does my head in… cheering and whooping and flag waving after every sentence…

We need more objectivity in the world…

The Democratic Convention kicked off yesterday in Denver. Michelle Obama opened the event, which will officially nominate Barack and his veep - Senator Joseph Biden - to contend the Presidential election on November 4, 2008. The ongoing wrangles between the disgruntled Clinton camp and the successful nominee Obama continue to dominate much of the press coverage. Seems to me that the Clintonites need to accept the verdict. They have a system in place and that system nominated Obama. There are reports (like this one in BusinesWeek) that Obama has done little to placate Clinton supporters and fund raisers. His refusal to consult her for the veep decision seems like a major strategic error.  

The Clinton camp’s sense of entitlement (which we see again here) was evident throughout Hilary’s campaign. It reinforced the fact that the Clintons have had their chance and that they are an established - and therefore tarnished - political entity, which all played to Obama’s message of change and hope.

I hope that Bill and Hilary can help to unify the party over the next few days so that the Democrats have the best possible chance of unseating the Republicans.  

Here