I am now ready to consider options for the future. My anger has subsided a little (note the absence of swearing), but I am still deeply depressed by the outcome of the election. I have spent the last two days like most people I know; in bed with a bottle of wine.
I have read on other sites lots of comments to quit our whinging, to accept the result, learn from our mistakes and move on. We will do this. We have managed to smile under a Howard government for eight and a half years, and we will smile again… but please give us a chance to grieve.
I throw the comments section open to ideas and suggestions for the next three years.
Giovanni says:
I have not spent the last two days in bed with a bottle of wine.
Sunday morning I got up at 8am and paced around the house. I woke up my housemate Alex and our two guests after preparing them a vast breakfast. Around the table we ate heartily and schemed, plotted and planned. Already preparing for the next three years, already planning our tilt in 2007.
That day I sent a message to a friend and comrade who had worked on Kim Wilkie's possibly ill-fated campaign in Swan. It was a call to arms to which she rallied. I have formulated more detail and today sent it on to over eighty associates (I stayed late at work). TWO HOURS LATER AND FIFTEEN PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY ARE IN. We're meeting at my place this Sunday. Our three year plan begins this weekend.
Part of our planning is winning all WA seats except Pearce, Curtin, O'Connor, Tangney and Forrest for the ALP.
Part of the plan is fighting the Howard-Costello agenda every inch of the way over the next three years. We'll fight to keep unfair dismissal laws, to stop the sale of Telstra, to protect the rights and powers of the organised labour movement, for a better deal for East Timor, to stop the government excising more islands from Australia's migration zones and we'll fight for better health and education - especially in aboriginal and Torres straight islander communities and underpriviledged areas.
It starts small, maybe 20 of us round a table, but it will grow. We'll be an army. An army for progress and social democracy.
The darker the night, the brighter the star. Watch this space.
Waste no time mourning - organise!
(with thanks to Joe Hill)
killer says:
Two things are certain:
1. The religious right have entered politics in a big way… this is an extremely dangerous development. We must rally the traditional support base of the Left; students, artists, musicians, intellectuals et cetera to counter this trend.
2. We are going to need a <a href="http://www.kilbot.net/mp3/karatekid.php" target="_blank">theme song</a>.
Giovanni says:
Traditional support base of the Left?
I think you mean the working class.
You're spot-on on the theme song though. Too bad Andrew Bartlett already took Release The Bats.
killer says:
Ah yes… the working class. Funny how a lot seem to have voted Liberal this election.
I did fuck up on the 'traditional' bit.. I apologise.
What I meant was;
The religious right is a powerful and very vocal support base for a conservative government.
I see musicians, artists, etc as their opposite number on the Left.
Barney says:
Great work on a perfectly apt theme song, Killer. I think that may be my new favourite song. Again.
Geeves - I imagine you're familiar with MoveOn PAC in the US, who started as 5 or so people determined to take their messages to the people and motivate and mobilise action against the Republicans and everything associated with them (with a major focus on human rights in domestic and foreign policies). They're now a massive organisation with hundreds of thousands of members, and it's thought that their work will have a significant impact on the upcoming US elections.
And I think that all started with a hearty breakfast also.
killer says:
I think we need to get one of our film savvy friends (Davison Bros?) to put together a little montage of Latham with that theme song… an eighties style training montage (signing papers, smashing cabbies, reading to kids), maybe with some split screen action.
Broadcast it everyday day until the '07 election.
Barney says:
The split screen would be genius. With occasional freeze frames on alternating sides like a good Starsky and Hutch (the tv show not the movie remake)opening sequence.
killer says:
A few Liberal voters have started to surface over the last couple of days, which is not surprising, we know they are out there, but the sobering thing is that a some of these people are close, some of these people are among our friends. If we couldn't make our case against the government clear to our friends, what chance do we have of ever changing this government.
I have read a few articles that suggest that there was an arrogance about the Labor campaign. Perhaps Labor thought (like I did) that everyone was relatively well versed with the issues and the reasons to vote against the Libs would be obvious. Unfortunately not everyone reads <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/" target="_blank">crikey</a>, or the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/index.html" target="_blank">smh</a>, or <a href="http://www.johnquiggin.com/" target="_blank">John Quiggin</a>. Unfortunately not everyone watches the 7:30 Report, as Hugh Mackay said on last night's show, "People would prefer to watch home renovation programs than current affairs programs on television."
On election day I was (in hindsight) unreasonably confident. Speaking to voters I was willing to entertain the idea that the Liberals would get back in, but I was almost certain that their majority would be reduced and the Greens would hold a balance of power in the senate. I would have been better served to explain why it is important the Greens have a strong presence in the senate.
KL says:
Watching the 7.30 Report and 4 Corners and Media Watch last night was certainly a sobering experience.
And what the fuck is up with Ricki-Lee getting voted out of Idol?
Australia has gone ape-shit crazy, man.
B-Diddy DubSac says:
Methinks, from a passionate laypersons view, that three things are evident from this election (followed immediately by the farcical voting out of Ricki-Lee on Oz Idol, nearly making me lose ALL faith in our democracy):
1) Incumbents *lose* elections/ Oppositions do not win them
Never has it been so true, esp this time around. That being said, you woulda thought breaching all international conventions to launch pre-emptive strikes + that whole lying to public incidentS, etc. would be sufficient reason to oust the conservatives…. more the pity that this election shows that at the end of the day, "modern" Australia is more passionate about a GST/bottom line, than, say, war and human rights…
The only way this can be resolved is through the ocean rising 10metres and for Sydney to start submerging, and for Palestine to start launching missiles at our capital cities….some 20-odd years away, but obviously our country is all about the Short-Term Gains…
I guess you have to take it all into perspective, in terms of there only being about only 4 major party shifts in the last century…the overall picture is that Oz have voted conservative for a majority of the century, and these are the same genius's who had no opposition to the whole White Australia Policy - but goddam it, the economy was a pearler!!
From a distance, it appears that at heart, us Ozzies are fiscal-minded rednecks - but also heartening is the fact that the same suckers who stood by whilst all non-Whiteys were persecuted are the same suckers who have the greatest influence over the vote at the moment - basically, the bright spot is that its gunna take a generational change to change mindsets, and, hopefully, those of us who grew up with Crazy Lies Howard will keep the hate burning and inject this into our small minded friends…
ALso on the topic of history repeating - let's just recall what got Labour ousted the last time they reached the end of their run. An unpopular fiscal-wizard talking down to a bunch of uncouth Aussies…..here's hoping the Costello-Succession Plan comes into full effect and we see some of the true qualities that make up a non-elected leader of Aust, lead a flailing party to sweet, sweet defeat!
2) "Peter Garrett" does not a campaign make
It was too little, too late - Basically, I still reckon Labour avoided an unmitigated disaster (as opposed to a "crushing defeat"). This time last year, Labour had no recognisable policies and Simon "White" Crean was doing, ahh, stuff. Now, we have an energised leader, but there was no way 9months or so was enough to unify the public behind - as is evident, stability was key in this election (in these times of uncertain boats and fridge magnets) - and the policies were revealed 3 days before election?!! WTF?!?
3) Liberal voters, no matter what, *are* fuckheads!
Its not like its a whole question of "mutual respect" - coz you KNOW that deep down, they take pity on us ideological fools - but how, in the fuck, am I meant to respect a party whose policies now include "breaching international covenants for sake of political pandering, with NO JUSTIFICATION"…. I mean, its not like they could come back with "yea? well what about that time Labour…" ahh, did what cockblock?
And the Winner's Speech - god, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall with rubber bullets and an M-16…like when Howard was keeping "a lid" on the cheering ("settle down, alllright, settle down") and then one 'battler' waits until its real quiet and manages to squeeze in the epic/ immortal line:
"you little BEAUTY!"
…HAHAHA hahahahaha oh god, hahahah, cying please….hahaha please save me hahaahahaha apparently the funniest thing Howard and Cronies have heard since the whole Rodent thing hahahahaha
God there's only one thing worse than A Liberal, is a goddam Young Liberal….
and the only thing better than a Young Liberal? A DEAD YOUNG LIBERAL YOU PONCY, WINDSOR-KNOTTED, PRIVATE-SCHOOL-TO-UNIVERSITY-TO-DADDY'S-OFFICE, CONSERVATIVE, SHEARERS-MENSWEARIN, ATKINS-DIETING, JET-THE-BAND-LOVING, UNORIGINAL, FISCAL-FUCKFUCKS!
3 Things Funny About The Actual Voting:
1) Why do Labour's "How-to-Vote" cards NOT have Bishop (Liberal) and National candidates dead last?? They were like, listed 4 and 5 out of 7?!?! I made damn sure they came in dead freakin last!
2) Man, doing the Top 40 becomes a full "lesser-of-2-evils" thing, when u have to choose between who you hate least out of the Christian Democrat Party, Liberals for Forests ???, One Nation and Family First…pretty sure I rated On Nation above Family as they are dead in the water…
3) My girlfriend saw a Torana-load of students rock up to the front of the polling booth, like, literally falling out of the car…and were shouting key "slogans" such as,
"Alright! *claps hands* GAME ON MAN!!!"
Gold
KL says:
Now that is a frickin' golden rant, plated in platinum, and encrusted with shiny diamonds.
Well done, B-Diddy. I agree with everything you said.
Maybe next time you should run for office.
Taco says:
Hi all,
Despite my depression which is particularly massive, I have been putting a lot of thought into politics at large. I think a major problem with this election was the Labor party and their inability to make up their mind who the hell they are and what they are doing. I have always believed the 2 party system is particularly flawed, now more than ever given the general shift to the right and parroting of economic maxims which mean nothing. Can anyone tell me what'economic growth'means beyond increased private spending, 'real wage growth' beyond a lower marginal tax rate for the top 5% of earners)? Despite Labor's 'large target' election, they just threw up random policy (some of it very good) in a desperate bid to get the vote of no-one in particular. This article for the Age today kind of says what i'm getting at
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406497681.html
Might I suggest that there is a refusal by almost everyone to take a bigger picture look and the only party to have made any attempt are The Greens, a party without the finances to really do this. There are also major structural changes which in education institutions which mean 'large thinking' no longer happens. Institutes for Social Research basically are funded on publications and respond only directly to policy announcements. What we need is a real, well funded, intelligent left wing think tank.
I am worried that Labor will see their failure in this election as a result of trying to put forward policies. Let's hope they don't try to challenge the Liberals even more on their own turf, a battle they will always lose.
Until we start thinking and acting in a very different way, we are all screwed; and if we don't we are all fucked.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense, I'm still pissed off and reeling a little from this weekend. What I want is something beyond response and confrontation. I want some real, intelligent debate for a change and maybe some real change.
What sort of society do you want to live in? Why didn't Labor ask this question?
Giovanni says:
Hola!
Good news from the West. The response to my battle cry has been more than healthy, with contacts sending it on to further contacts. There's a buzz.
I'll give you some kind of report on Sunday night.
fancy dave says:
Labor didn't ask "what kind of world do you want to live in?" because they are falling into the conservative trap of underestimating the electorate - in this case assuming that they'll think that to ask questions is to lack answers.
This is a major feature of neo-con philosophy - representing liberals and lefties as sophists, sipping chardonnay and pontificating on "questions" rather than grappling with realities and providing "leadership".
What this amounts to is Labor joining in the dumbing down of political discourse. And it's hard to blame them. Where the fuck are they supposed to go to take difficult, subtle issues to the people for informed, rational debate?(e.g. the fact that a budget surplus is only one indicator of a healthy economy, and not a very good one). The ABC? Not for long!
The coalition's handling of Labor's (admittedly minor) ideological threat has been masterful. Infiltrate and hog-tie the ABC, cuddle up to the commercial networks, provide nice, easy, black-and-white answers to tricky questions (or ignore them until people get sick of asking them), ALWAYS deny ANY wrongdoing or even fallability, decry any adverse media coverage as evidence of bias, and look smugly confident about any and every possible eventuality. This way you look capable and unflappable, while your opponents are carping, confused and out of touch with the common man.
This is all straight out of the Karl Rove neo-con handbook (along with tax cuts for business and the rich, of course).
Let's hope Bush's chickens come home to roost - in a global context this is obviously more important, but also for us. Any US president will pay lip-service to any PM, and make noises about wars on terror and their gratitude for our support, but with Bush and Blair gone Howard will look like the only remaining head of state with Iraqi blood on his hands.
Please please please please please.
My suggestion for a name for our soccer team - Honest John and the Hip Pockets.
fancy dave says:
Oh, wait a minute, you asked for comments AND suggestions, didn't you K-bot?
Some suggestions apart from hilarious and devastatingly effective team-name protests:
1) Stop playing the fucking game on their terms.
Actually mount a campaign of pointing out to the people how little conservatives think of "their" battlers. Strongly and in no uncertain terms REFUTE the portrayal of left-wing thinkers as out of touch university types. At the same time, ask people why we should be afraid to admit that a problem is difficult, that it requires thought, that solving it requires real societal change, which is difficult and complicated.
2) Point out that without such real societal change we can only continue as we have been - stumbling from crisis to crisis, going off half cocked, relying on our prejudices and resistance to change to guide our actions.
3) Point out that this is leading us and the whole planet towards a cultural and environmental catastrophy. It might not be much fun to think about, but for fuck's sake we better start soon. There are real and enormous issues at stake which go beyond mortgage rates (believe it or not) and which ARE going to fuck us up the arse. Soon. And I mean US!!! You and me!!! Don't fucking worry about your children and grandchildren, it's going to be US FUCKWITS WHO GET IT. Sure, it would have been great if OUR parents and grandparents had been a bit less gung-ho, but it's a bit too late for blaming them now. Just look at what they did, AND DO THE FUCKING EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!!!
Barney says:
Right on, Fancy Dave. Well said.
killer says:
hear, hear Gawain.
hear, hear Fancy Dave.
The immediate threat we face is the proposed changes to cross-media ownership laws (concentrating the media in the hands of a very conservative few) and the continued campaign to silence the unions. As you all are no doubt aware, this severely hampers the checks and balances that need to be made on the government/big business/those in power.
To counter this perhaps we should consider;
<ul><li>supporting what is left of our independent media (joining <a href="http://www.fabc.org.au/vic/index.html" target="_blank">Friends of the ABC</a>, subscribing to <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/" target="_blank">Crikey</a>, subscribing to your <a href="http://www.rtrfm.com.au/" target="_blank">local</a> <a href="http://www.rrr.org.au/">radio</a> station).</li>
<li>joining your <a href="http://workers.labor.net.au/latest/" target="_blank">union</a>.</li>
<li>joining a <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/" taregt="_blank">political</a> <a href="http://www.greens.org.au/" target="_blank">party</a>, to help them take their message to the street.</li></ul>
Taco says:
Yes, absolutely excellent comments Kilbot and Dave, I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately Kilbot, with regards to you political party link, the more I read the less time I have for Labor. I really don't think they offer up any hope of a real alternative, especially after this election. I hope I'm wrong but I think I know where they are heading and we are not going to like it.
I don't know if anyone else has been following the campaign on crikey [http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/10/12-0006.html] for Labor party reform (I'm sorry I can't seem to get weblinks working on this comment board) but I think it's quite interesting mainly because its suggestions (basically democratisation of the Labor party to stop factionalisma and union* control) are being pushed by someone who wants a move towards becoming even more like the Liberal party (It's The Economy Stupid kind of rationale). I had always assumed that Labor's membership and voting losses had been from the disenfranchised left, but I increasingly don't know what to think.
While I fully encourage everyone to get active and take on small (and not so small) issues as they arise, make sure there is a bigger picture. It's time… to stop having knee-jerk reactions.
*I think 'union'control in the Labor party is a bit of a misnomer. I think it is more Labor factions controlling unions (who then have a say in the Labor party) that has had a major effect in neutering Unions and leaving them toothless (sorry to mix metaphors)and irrelevant to a large number of Australians.
killer says:
You'll notice I linked Labor (political) and The Greens (party). The Greens clearly represent my interests best (free drugs!… just joking), but they are a long way from being a third party.
The Labor Party is by no means a spent force, they just need to make some hard decisions… as soon as possible. For my mind this would not involve getting rid of Latham, a party that continually changes leadership looks like it is uncertain of it's direction and as has been stated earlier, direction is exactly what Labor need. I think they should make sure their best public speakers are on the front bench and move their more 'wooden' hacks (I'm looking at you Simon) to do the behind the scenes work. (There is no question that Simon is more than capable as a politician, but he is death at the polling booth… much better he crunch the numbers in a back room while a fresh faced Julia Gillard fills the screen).
In terms of knee-jerk reactions.. we have a lot of people (including myself) who are now have an interest - more than an interest - a passion in politics. The trick is to harness that passion and turn it into a lasting change.
taco says:
Sorry all if I have distracted from the stated purpose of this discussion board with the last entry on Labor Party reform. I guess what I was getting at is that Labor doesn't have that sense of direction or vision that we seem to be arguing for here, and they are not going to get these with cosmetic reforms (and will possibly get much worse with major reforms).
I think we need to look well beyond current political practice and the major parties. We need a thirty year plan… or something.
ps I will actually try to be constructive from this point on.
killer says:
As a little aside, check this <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/10/1097406425742.html" target="_blank">article</a> to see how Family First managed to get a senate seat with only 45,204 first preferences (over David Risstrom from the Greens, who got 205,920 first preferences)…
Shame, Labor, Shame!
Giovanni says:
Grubby deals maate. Jacinta Collins wasn't worth it.
For the record the union I work for isn't affiliated. Nor is my beloved CEPU - where I did work experience ealy last year.
Ultimately it's a not a straightup controlling relationship either way between the Party and affiliated unions, it's a tumultuous love-hate power struggle.
With us, the ALP would be a rump. They know it. I think the decline in unionism is tied into certain key points -
1 - the accord and reliance on strategic unionism - i.e. big labour and big capital sitting at the table diminishing the rank and file activism and input
(if you don't use your muscles, they atrophy)
2 - the destruction of old union strongholds. The CES (now centrelink and a barrel of other monkeys) is a good example. all the grand state-owned enterprises that have gone private under the hawke-keating-howard governments were rock-solid union before being sold. just look at the difference between the govt dept I'm the new organiser for (which has 42% membership) and the average in the WA private sector 18%.
- casualisation. why join the union when you could get sacked next week and have no legal recourse to do anything about it regardless of if you're union or not? we now have the 2nd highest level of precarious employment in the developed world (after Spain)
just my theories…
Giovanni says:
Tony Abbott.
Julia Gillard.
Champagne bucket.
curtis 'love' t says:
Thank you Killer for raising the point which I think has been too little explored. Labour FUCKED THE GREENS OVER, in this state at least. In doing so, they handed the Senate over. The Greens, alone in allocating their preferences ethically, could've done much better if they had cut some dodgy deals. It looks like ethics gets you nowhere in politics; but is that a reason to stop trying to do the right thing?
curtis 'love' t says:
I see here on this page too many angry voices. Yes, the media machine is rigged to work for the neo-cons, and increasingly so. But democracy isn't created by passively watching or reading other people's viewpoints, it is found in discussion, debate. If we can re-invest our lives with the political, link the effects of decisions to our own communities, make it RELEVANT, then perhaps people will feel truly engaged in the process. I'd like to think that people will want to become more informed about decisions that they can see will actually affect them. We can build a civic culture through talking and meeting each other in the streets and on buses and in the community; we can begin to build a sense of shared purpose to combat the selfishness that is fed by the consumer machine.
The Howard government has deliberately created the extreme polarisation of the public, seen in so many comments above. Sure, hate Howard, but love and respect your fellow man. With your demonising of a Liberal-voting public that are largely de-politicised by a lack of civic culture, we fall into the Howard trap.
Above all we must be wary of becoming the caricatures we despise. I have sensed a lot of elitism from friends of mine, derision directed at Howard's battlers, or any Liberal voter, or anyone who is underinformed. This is what Liberal voters sense when they talk of the 'chardonnay sets'. Even though we feel we are right, we need to let that superiority go and value all viewpoints. Don't blame the victims, blame the system.
I know I'm, an optimist, but I think that the selfish voting that we have seen this election is a product of a society that, through mass technology (such as kilbot.net), creates little insular worlds in which we do not need to see any arguments but those that have relevance to the individual. This also breeds short-term thinking.
Get out there. Talk to people. Go to your next local council meeting. We need to rediscover what we have in common. We need to reclaim democracy if we want to see it work.
killer says:
I agree with you on many points, CurtisT, I sometimes consider myself a bit of an optimist… which is probably why I taken this defeat so hard.
But (as you would probably expect) I have to disagree with you on one point. You say that mass technology has created an insular world, but I would like to see more evidence to support this claim. Admittedly on kilbot.net we hear the views of a very small group of people - our friends - but this is no smaller than we had without it… society is composed of little insular groups of friends/family/colleagues discussing matters of importance to themselves - with or without the internet.
I can point to at least four examples of mass technology (such as kilbot.net) creating a <i>less</i> insular world:
<ul><li>the internet allows us to be in daily contact with our friends in the west and overseas.</li><li>the internet allows our friends to alert us to interesting goings on around the world, look at the variety of sources we link to in the shoutbot.</li><li>The media machine is rigged to work for the neo-cons, and increasingly so… the internet allows us to read other people's viewpoints <i>and</i> particpate in the discussion and debate.</li><li>As a blog and news-site addict I can not think of a time when I have been exposed to more information and more points of view.</li></ul>Mass technology (such as kilbot.net) does not shut of the outside world. We can still talk to Howard's battlers on the street, we can still go to the next council meeting. Mass technology (such as kilbot.net) is just one of many ways we can communicate, and quite often opens up new dialogues… such as the new dialogue between me and Kim. I had never spoken to Kimbosa before the election, now we have an understanding :weirdo:.
B-Diddy DubSac says:
By "understanding" I assume you mean "bitchslap like a P.I.Y.A.M.P!"
…good to see some fiyare in the Killa belly! :batteredwife emoticon:
curtis T says:
Killer, we have been born into a post-mass technology world. I believe TV, and now the Net, provide easy colourful alternatives that prevent people from being engaged in their communities and talking to people face to face.
The Internet is part of the media machine. We are empowered by it, through kilbot.net etc, but so are neonazis, liberals… and the corporations who own the world are too. But they are a heck of a lot more empowered than you. They own the software, the hardware… They are moving to shape the Net into a perfect extension of that machine, and we, blithely assuming that the Net is the next bastion of democracy, stand by while it is twisted to perpetuate the status quo. Sure the dissenting voices are out there, but they are so very marginalised. 90% of Internet traffic happens in just four companies' websites. And they all have neo-conservative viewpoints.
Besides these emerging realities, besides the fact that the Net is not magically free from the problems of the society that created it, and besides the fact that much of the poorer or undereducated world has no access to it, the Net also has a number of design constraints that make it anti-democratic to the max. It privileges speed over deliberation, information over knowledge and argument, the visual, not discussion, the unreal over the real, the gated over the open, time over space…
And the very nature of the Net, with so much information, is making things worse for the disenfranchised or underinformed. There may be a million places to go, but most people's web forays are confined to the familiar, to viewpoints that don't challenge them, or to the pages they are directed to by their proprietary browser. We are effectively able to live in little worlds of our own creation.
To return to democracy, however, I still feel that it relies upon a sense of shared humanity, a recognition of civic responsibility as well as civic rewards. And I don't think that comes from mass media. I think it comes from people, from communities.
We will always need to look up from the screen to see what we share, the world outside. Maybe at the same time learn to value what is outside that window and respect the environment too. Sadly, the truth is that the Internet, like TV before it, is keeping people from having the face to face encounters I think are requisite for true democracy.
As someone who is a political animal, I am sure that you would have kept up to date with news and the world prior to the Net. You would've found independent media, too, just as millions of people on the Net fail to find independent thought there.
And I'm sure you would've spent much less time alone in your bedroom.
killer says:
I agree that I have become a slave to the internet of late… I am always prone to excess. I just don't see the internet as being a negative, I don't see how it prevents people from doing anything… everything that was possible before the internet is possible now… and from my experience it offers a whole new range of possibilities.
I hope the humour of this situation is not lost on you CurtisT… we have been living in the same city for 8 months and this is probably the longest conversation we have had.
fancy dave says:
I would like to add, in an unusual display of mediative comment, that you are both right. The interweb (like many things) has both pros and cons for democracy.
The pros are mostly obvious, viz:
Anybody (with a computer, a modem and some spare dollars) can "have a voice"
Anybody (see above) can hear this multitude of voices
It is difficult (see below) to restrict the flow of opinion, ideally information, between anybody (see above) and anybody else (see above).
The cons are mostly just counter-examples for the above arguments, viz:
Only those with technological access can participate in having or hearing an interweb "voice"
It IS possible (by subtle, tried-and-true corporate methodology, combined with monopolies in service provision) to restrict the giving and recieving of opinions. There are a whole lot of people out there whose connection to the web denies access to certain things - regardless of their browser settings. Which things are precluded depends entirely on who sets up the server and the degree of their vigilance. Of course, talented savvy users of technology will be able to find a way around such constraints, but how many are out there? There is no reason to assume that vested interests will be any less effective at controlling the access of internet users than of television viewers. They do need to lift their game, especially in the "free" world, but hey… give them a chance! It's still pretty new.
These commonly-discussed problems aside, one aspect of the interweb concerns me above all. This is not so much a limitation of the technology as it is an unavoidable consequence of its major strength - diversity of opinion - combined with a major illusion - that of having "had one's say".
The problem here is not (as I've said) a limitation of the technology, but of humanity and society. While some of us may have the energy and drive to "voice" our opinions on the internet in countless blogs and shouts and surveys and so on, and to listen to various "voices" doing the same, and still get out there and do things in the real world, most of us don't. Which leads me to my conclusion:
Most of us have only a limited amount of our time and enthusiasm to devote to political activism. People with jobs and families, particularly. The existence of a communication medium which makes us feel like we have been heard without taking us out of our bedroom gives us an easy (read: lazy) way to feel like we've done our part.
I believe lots of people are on-line to achieve the "feeling" of having participated in democracy, while the streets are left empty and the universities increasingly docile and complacently apolitical.
This undermines true political activism, which in turn undermines democracy.
[i]text[/i]
fancy dave says:
That [i]text[/i] at the bottom of my post was meant to be a disclaimer. Now that I know how italics work, let's try again:
[i]*DISCLAIMER*
I am a prime example of such a lazy person as outlined above. I have nothing but admiration for those with enough time and energy to be politically active on-line and in the street. Let's isolate them and breed a race of super-people, with the acumen of Sherlock Holmes, the wit of Paul Keating, the idealistic optimism of Olly Watkins, the broad shoulders of a timber worker, the charismatic flair of Giovanni Torre, the strength of will of Hermann Goering, the dancing ability of Peter Garrett….[/i]
curtis T says:
Nicely put Dave. I think that is my point.
In answer to your latest, Killer, I don't necessarily see the Internet as 'bad'. But neither do I see technology as a value-free tool. It is a tool, but it is embedded in the same flawed society that created it.
And I think that society, in the current ascendance of a consumer, neo-liberal paradigm (that is deliberately created by neo-cons) is becoming fundamentally anti-democratic. And I don't think the Internet will, on the whole, do any more than perpetuate that.
I guess I also see democracy as being more about discussion and deliberation that information. The Internet delivers information, and here on kilbot.net we see how it can facilitate discussion. But a meaningful, deliberative discussion that engages people is the best way to learn. I was converted to socialist ideals by an empassioned discussion from Giovanni that had much more impact than his words here on these pages (powerful though they be).
As to this being one of our longest discussions, well, that's because you are always too busy masturbating in your bedroom to come out and play…
killer says:
I have to get back to work (click <a href="http://ezekiel.kilbot.net" target="_blank">here</a> over the next 12 hours if you wish to witness the birth of a webpage).
I have got many examples in my head of people on the web doing good things… but I'll just leave you with a few articles to read if you wish:
<a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2104087/" target="_blank">This</a> article looks at some collaborative efforts on the net, it's written by Clive Thompson who also writes a blog called <a href="http://www.collisiondetection.net/" target="_blank">Collision Detection</a> which currently has an article about a <a href="http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/001004.html#001004" target="_blank">robot drummer</a>. The article mentions the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> which I think is an incredibly interesting experiment, and a great source of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy" target="_blank">information</a>. Despite obvious <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/08/30/wikipedia_proves_its.html" target="_blank">concerns</a> about the accuracy of the content, all seems to be going well, and some <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/08/cnn_cites_wikipedia.html" target="_blank">major news organisations</a> have even used it as a reliable reference.
As for the "that's because you are always too busy masturbating in your bedroom to come out and play…" I know you are baiting me, but I have to say that is pretty rich. How many times have we had dinner parties at Queens for the purposes of eating and drinking and long discussion? You have missed many nights of fun, and I never once thought you were a wanker…
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs, insanity, the internet or masturbation for everyone, but they've always worked for me." (with apologies to HST).
KL says:
Don't feel too bad Killer, as it appears that Curtis and Fancy are only communicating with each other via your website these days!
Giovanni says:
I'm back.
Here's news - about 20 people attended our planning/campaign meeting, one of whom was a complete stranger and several of whom had no past involvement in political campaigning of any sort. In addition, another 18 people (who didn't make it) have expressed interest and asked for the minutes, which they received tonight.
It's on, and it's on now.
Giovanni says:
And the meeting went well in other ways too - vague plans and strategies, duties delegated… a beginning.
Robert says:
Also, Giovanni promised "Time to go John" but delivered "The Great Outdoors".
fancy dave says:
Hey Killer, you should archive some or all of this thread when you get version 2.0 up and running.
Giovanni says:
That wasn't my fault.
(And it was an awesome episode!)
science says:
julia
tony
champagne bucket
(insert mind-boggling silence)
was that why he was at confession?
killer says:
Yeah Giovanni, tell us more about your Tony Abbott-Julia Gillard-Champagne bucket fantasy… you sick little monkey.
Giovanni says:
Laurie Oakes, foaming at the mouth.
Anthony Green swinging a block of wood.