Monday, February 13, 2012

"Free speech" should be honest speech

I've been thinking about the media, as I am sometimes known to do. The most recent round of thought was sparked by this blog post by Russell Brown on publicadress.net.  In it, Russell looks into how the New Zealand Herald has repeatedly used an audience rating figure for TVNZ7 that is incorrect. Worse, the Herald has ignored attempts to inform it of the error or correct it.

The incorrect information supports the Herald's editorial line that no one watches TVNZ7. This view is less supportable when the real viewer stats are taken into account...and we see that TVNZ7 has at 3 times the viewership the Herald has reported.

So what do you do when the major news source in your town proves - again  - to be 'economical with the truth' when the truth is contrary to their political agenda?

Owning mass media should not be confused with the right to free speech. If you do blur the two, then "free speech" effectively becomes the right of billionaires to spew propaganda at us....and we are powerless and effectively silent....as we don't own a voice of comparable magnitude. We can talk all day and no one hears us for all practical purposes. There needs to be a powerful check on abuse by the owners of voices so loud and so powerful they drown out all others.

Media who lie or deliberately mislead (very subtle difference) should be accountable. An outlet that consistently behaves this way should be prevented from owning media, just as we prevent dishonest people from owning pubs, casinos, banks or brothels. 




Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Almost Time to Vote!

It's almost voting day.

I'll be voting Green because they are the only consistently reality-based party with respect for evidence.

I'll be voting to keep MMP because it's the only system that ensures the real majority governs and that I was able to actually elect people I want to represent me.

STV will be my fail-over choice. It's the only proportional alternative.

What will you do?

Monday, September 26, 2011

Copyright, You are Dead to Me.

As of now I do not give a rat's bleeding arse about copyright. It's obviously become a scam allowing corporations to steal from all of us. It's not for me or anyone like me.

I just tried to upload a video I made that was made up of bits of video shot at the Auckland Lantern Festival in February. Amid the thousand people talking in the background someone, somewhere was singing some very bad karaoke.


My camera's mic picked it up for a few seconds (30?) and braindead YouTube laid a copyright infringement claim against my video before it had even finished uploading. 
Fair Use is being trampled completely. These corporations are stealing from us all with impunity. 

I now officially do not give a flying monkey's toss about copyright. These corporations clearly do not care about my rights.

Let's call that even. 
It's over. 


Copyright, you are dead to me. 

Monday, September 5, 2011

YouTube and Fair Use

A couple of weeks ago I was walking up Queen St in Auckland and came across some young people break dancing in Aotea Square. Some of them were pretty good.

I had my 3D camera with me (Fujifilm Finepix Real 3D W3) and I shot some stills and video. Later, I made a video of the best efforts by the best dancers and uploaded it to YouTube. Two days later they notified me I had infringed copyright because of the music the kids were playing on their sound system. YouTube restricted the ability to see my video on some platforms (mobile, in particular) and in some countries. They advised me I could dispute the claim if I wished.

I definitely wished.

The videos were recordings of a spontaneous, unorganised, non-profit event in a public place. The sound track includes chatter, clapping, cheers and laughter. The segments of the video aren't in chronological order. Parts of several songs are included and not necessarily in the order in which the incidental music was played by the dancers. I have no idea who the artists are or what the names of the songs might be.

If this isn't Fair Use....then YouTube have allowed it to be killed by the RIAA.

I have disputed this claim. I don't know how long the disputes process takes, so will be interested to find out. I'll post more information as it comes to hand. 

Here is the disputed video. [Update: I deleted the video off YouTube. You can see it at 3DF33D.TV if you're interested]

(The embedded player doesn't seem to include 3D support. You may wish to click through to YouTube for other 3D modes.)

VIDEO DELETED


Friday, August 12, 2011

The Long Emergency gathers pace....


Coverage of the "Global Financial Crisis" appears to suffer from a lack of perspective. Most of it is focused on the most obvious and immediate elements and lacks any real attempt to understand the event (if a process can be called an event) in a wider context. 

In 2003, James Howard Kunstler correctly anticipated that what he calls “The Long Emergency” was imminent and unavoidable. His perspective was based on the consequences of Peak Oil hitting the global economy and societies everywhere, initially producing a bumpy plateau of recession and recovery as energy prices fluctuate on the event horizon of growing scarcity. 

We can add to this the gathering effects (and huge and growing costs) of climate change and the economic and fiscal consequences of a decade of outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labour which has destroyed literally millions of manufacturing jobs in the West and / or converted them into lower-paying service jobs….whose workers either pay less tax on lower incomes or have no income and rely on state assistance or family members who still have an income. At the same time, taxes were cut for those on the best incomes, making matters even worse. De-regulation of the banking sector in the late 90s appears to have been a catalyst in exaggerating the consequences of bad debt due to poor (or non-existent) risk assessment. This failure with respect to risk appears to remain unresolved as central banks everywhere continue to use interest rates to manipulate money supplies apparently divorced from any concept of risk.  

The fuller picture, very broadly, is one of people on a declining income base (thus shrinking the tax base) being offered cheap credit secured by whatever assets they had on hand to maintain a lifestyle that isn't sustainable by any measure with the global economy on the threshold of a transformation driven by the twin engines of climate change and ever more expensive energy. 

So here we are…and this civilisation-changing process is only now getting underway and gathering pace. Our world is on the cusp of huge change and our leaders (and most voters) haven’t got a clue….eyes riveted to the rear-vision mirror in their feeble attempts to chart a viable course into the future.

People need to start paying attention. Sleep walkers everywhere will end up road kill on the highway of life. 

Monday, July 18, 2011

Epsom for the Lulz


So the two main candidates for the National Party nomination in Epsom were:

1. John Bank's biographer, Paul Goldsmith
2. John Bank's mayoral campaign manager, Aaron Bhatnagar

LOL....

...and now John Banks, a newly faithful ACT party member, awaits his rubber stamped destiny from the voters of Epsom.

Anyone need any more proof National took over the ACT party?


Friday, June 3, 2011

Letter to the Herald 2011-06-02

Wrote this letter to the New Zealand Herald yesterday in relation to their editorial about Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, rejecting Auckland City's case for the CBD rail tunnel.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

ABC report on Peak OIl

Have you got your head around this yet?
ABC Catalyst Peak Oil Report 28-04-2011

Monday, May 16, 2011

Why is public service TV important?

Brain Edwards tells Broadcasting Minister, Jonathan Coleman, why public service broadcasting is important.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Not ready to change, thanks. I like MMP.

Over on "Dark Brightness", Chris Gales says it's "time to change from MMP....to anything".

I read it through and left a comment which I'll post here, too:


MMP gave me a vote that actually lets me elect people I want. Under FPP I managed to reach the age of 30 without *ever* electing someone I had voted for. I always seemed to end up living in a safe seat for the OTHER party. I have no wish to return to any of that.

Interesting you see MMP as dominated by the small parties. This must be a “Princess and the pea” sort of thing. I know the Greens ONLY have Metiria Turai on the South Island – based in Dunedin. How you think one MP can “dominate” the South Island is an interesting perspective. I’d say she was there to represent the people of the South who vote for the Green Party. I’m sure they are happy she’s there for them.

One of the interesting things I notice in discussions about MMP is how concerned some people are about MPs for parties they don’t even vote for. For me, I’m most concerned with the MPs from the party I voted for…and any other MPs can be the “problem” of whoever voted for that party. It’s their business. But there does seem to be this tendency to denigrate MPs from parties people don’t agree with any anyway. I don’t get that.

Then there is the accountability meme you raise….about people not elected locally getting on the list. I don’t see that as a problem either. In my local electorate, pretty much any of the candidates standing from a significant party would be good MPs. Unfortunately FPP only lets one person win…and that’s a shame and a loss to the districts concerned. MMP often allows more than one person from an electorate be elected via the party vote – which is, in effect, used to elect multiple members from a single national electorate. But the benefit to places like Dunedin or Horowhenua or Nelson is that MMP lets these places have Mps from more than one party. I love that. It means if the local MP is a complete drongo who I KNOW won’t listen to a word I have to say, I can go to someone else locally based. First Past the Post *never* let me do that.

On the acountability front, MMP beats FPP by miles. Back in the old days, my one little vote only had any effect at all in just ONE electorate. It had no effect at all in any of the others. The *best* I could hope for – and only once *ever* achieved – was to elect the person I wanted locally. If the MP in the neighbouring electorate was a complete twat….there was nothing at all I could do about it. But with MMP, my party vote has *national* effect. It can help to elect multiple MPs from all over New Zealand. Plus I also get my local vote….just like I always did.

Two ticks is definitely better than one. Especially when the MMP tick is the one that lets me vote nationally…..and not just in my one little electorate.

The funniest thing I can think of is a National Party voter in a safe Labour seat in Dunedin, or a Labour Party voter on Auckland’s North Shore, voting to get rid of MMP ….and thus ensuring their local vote never again is in any way relevant to the future fortunes of the party they support as their local seat will always go the other way.

That’s just silly…yet there appear to be people that muddled. Life is strange.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Hone Harawera's by-election has nothing to do with MMP

This letter was sent to the NZ Herald on  May 5th:

Dear Editor

Can someone please tell letter writer "J Kent of Onerahi" that Hone Harawera was elected by First Past the Post in a local electorate and his election has nothing do with MMP? He wasn't elected as a list MP or by the party vote. Under First Past the Post he would still be right where he is. After 15 years of MMP the apparent ignorance and muddled thinking shown by some MMP critics in your letter columns to date is fascinating to behold.

Steve Withers

Party leader selection has nothing to do with MMP.

The full text of a letter sent to the NZ Herald on May 2nd. They published a truncated version the following day. 

Dear Editor

Letter writer, Ian Gerwin of Orewa (2/5/11) incorrectly blames MMP for Don Brash being made leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party did that all by themselves and could have done it just as easily, under First Past the Post. In Canada in 1983, Brian Mulroney went straight from being CEO of Iron Ore Corp to being the leader the Conservative Party. He wasn't an MP at the time either. His party arranged for a by-election and got him into the House of Commons. At least under MMP, Dr. Brash has to wait until November, assuming ACT don't entirely disappear. How parties pick their leaders has nothing to do with MMP. Exactly the same thing can happen under First Past the Post and there is no shortage of examples. 

Steve Withers

Monday, May 2, 2011

The Manifest Evil of First Past the Post

A last minute, pre-election EKOS poll in Canada shows that 65.6% of Canadians intend to vote for parties OTHER than the governing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).

The CPC had been leading a minority government. An election was triggered by the CPC losing a non-confidence vote after the government was found to have been in contempt of Parliament.

Yet the CPC may actually end up winning a majority of all 308 seats with an even smaller share of the vote than they got last time - thanks to the First Past the Post voting system. This is because the two major opposition parties - who together have more than 50% support - may split the anti-CPC vote and allow the CPC to win an outright majority of all seats with as little as 34.5% of the total vote.....less than they got last time. The latest poll shows the usual 3rd-place NDP are running a close second to the CPC and ahead of the Liberal party. In Canadian terms this is a huge shift in voter preference at the federal level. But what hasn't changed is the monster-majority (65%) voter distaste for the Conservatives.....yet FPP has allowed them to win elections due to a split opposition vote.

That could never happen under MMP. In November, I'll be voting to keep MMP.

(Canadians are voting on their May 2nd. So the polls will open in eastern Canada around 11pm NZ time tonight and the last polls will close in the Yokon Territory around 2:30pm tomorrow, NZ time. Canada has seven time  time zones.)

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Don Brash just bought himself a political party

Fascinating.

Former National Party leader, Don Brash, appears to have bought himself a political party - ACT - and they made him their leader. That pretty much says it all for me about the ACT Party. I've never understood why anyone would vote for them. After selling themselves off to the highest bidder, I still don't.

In case the original TVNZ story linked to disappears, this is the para that caught my eye:
"Hide joked that he did not pay Don Brash's membership fee, but did say Brash has made a generous donation to the Act party."
What this means for ACT or the coming election will be the subject of much speculation. For day-to-day parliamentary purposes, I'm interested to see who runs ACT in the House. It can't be Don Brash as he doesn't have a seat and wasn't on ACT's list in any position last time around. The earliest he could assume as seat would be following the November elections....assuming ACT is returned at all. Rodney Hide could resign and trigger a by-election in Epsom, to make way for Brash, but being so close to an election there likely isn't time....unless the government decides there is.

That raises the interesting question: If Hide was number 1 on ACT's list and Brash won Epsom....would they get to keep the extra MP? Or would a sitting ACT MP have leave parliament?



Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Kobo and Kindle - Almost useless at my house

I embraced ebooks on my Samsung Galaxy S (Android) phone with its 4 inch super AMOLED screen. I bought a couple and found it a very easy way to read in any situation. A big plus was the font size is adjustable, so I don't need to use reading glasses. A lot of book these days use smaller print to save paper. That's great...I just can't see it very well in low light. An ebook reader doesn't have that problem.

But I've struck a BIG problem and it renders these channels almost useless to me: Neither of them have the books I want to buy.  Well...not quite true. They - between them - will have perhaps one book in 5 or 6 that I would have bought in a heartbeat. Yes, I can buy all the latest mainstream novels and other pulp fiction, but that isn't what I read.

Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine"? Nope. Bill McKibben's  "Eaarth"? Nope. The list goes on and on. Then there are the books they have for sale, but won't let me buy them because I'm in the Asia & Pacific region. So I can be standing in a book store with the book on the shelf in front of me, but neither of these ebook purveyors will sell it to me. They either don't have it or refuse to sell it to me. I'm glad I'm just using the free apps and didn't spend any money on the physical readers.

This is why I was wary of ebooks in the first place (and I was): publisher lock-down. It wrecks ebooks as an option and keeps paper books in the top spot for sheer accessibility - either by me or anyone I lend the book to. Until ebooks are as easy and accessible as paper books, they will burn more people off then they attract.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Gave up on Twitter today.....

After the 'n'-th iteration of Twitter's 140 character limit resulting in people getting the wrong end of the stick and fluffing their feathers based on what they thought they read....I decided Twitter was a waste of time for purposes other than fast receipt of links to items of interest.

I've been considering it for a while now. Today was the day I finally made up my mind. I will have a Twitter account, but it will be read-only.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Auckland - 07:27 Tuesday

Looks like an awesome day kicking off.


Saturday, April 16, 2011

Thoughts on copyright

I'll cut to the chase.

The "Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act" is reminiscent of  King Canute commanding the tide to stop coming in. That didn't work for him, due to forces beyond his control. At least Canute knew this and this was the point he was trying to make. Our own lawmakers appear to lack this insight.

For any law to be obeyed without going to considerable and expensive enforcement effort, the relevant law must be seen by the vast majority to be required and thus legitimate and necessary.

The underlying problem I see for the "Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act" is the ongoing clash between what I see as human culture itself, which has always been heavily weighted toward sharing for mutual benefit, and the desire by a relative few to define and monopolise culture as property they own for their personal or corporate profit.

For millennia, people have shared information about growing food, making tools and building homes. Socially, they sang songs or performed dances and other people saw and heard them and repeated them if they liked them. Then, after the printing press came along, the idea of copyright arose, allowing someone to claim "own" what they created. The justification was that such ownership allowed the creator to earn a living and keep on creating.

That's not a bad idea if done properly as it does enable a creative space for an author to benefit from their creation. Originally, copyright was usually fairly short. For example, in the US in the 1920s, it was 14 years. After that time, the content passed into the public domain and we all shared it, as we have always done.

But today, in the United States in particular, copyright terms have reached absurd terms. Life plus 95 years for an author and 120 years for a corporation. The US wants this to be the law everywhere, presumably to be extended again as Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain. Their corporations want the content they pay people to create for them to be exclusively their property until our great great grandchildren are old and grey. Copyright terms of such absurdly long duration engender resentment because the law is obviously insensitive to cultural norms. It begs to be subverted.

There is no shortage of irony here. Try as they may, "rights holders" can't be justify this law to the wider public and thus its legitimacy is very much in doubt. So they seek ever more draconian methods of legal coercion to attempt to enforce what they see as their rights. While demanding that we not "steal", the incremental extension of copyright terms from 14 years to 120 years (or more) is defacto theft from all of us and the public domain we share. Thus, copyright is no longer about enabling creativity or innovation. Copyright law becomes hostile to the culture from which it arose and from which it feeds for ideas. There is no public perception of need for this kind of copyright law.

This corporate "rights holder" law will fail, as Canute failed. Larger forces are at work here.

It can't be a mystery why copyright law is now so widely ignored. It's become very bad law.

The additional loss to Kiwis in all this is that the New Zealand government - whichever major party is leading it -  has become the defacto agent and advocate for multi-national interests in conflict with our own.  This law does nothing to enhance the position of creative Kiwis. Instead, it risks undermining what support exists in the wider public for respecting the rights of local rights holders by associating it with outrageously bad law imported from elsewhere.  

New Zealand's existing copyright terms for music, literature and broadcasting are long compared to a human life span, though much shorter than those in the US.

People might be persuaded to respect the law if the terms were reasonable on the scale of a human life span. But the 120 year nonsense the US seeks to impose on the world (any NZ-USA FTA will depend on it) merely encourages people to ignore copyright altogether as a scam in which they are deemed to be the mugs.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

One advantage of walking to work....

At least I'm moving. Unlike these poor people on the Northern Motorway at Sunset Rd this morning.

 


Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Is the United States insane?

Many observers of US politics have in recent years asked themselves if the United States is losing its collective mind. I have to confess I'm frequently puzzled by the claimed "certainties" in US politics that are very often far from certain. One obvious example is the claimed "weapons of mass destruction" then-US President G W Bush asserted were possessed by Iraq. "WMD" drove US foreign policy toward Iraq for a year prior to the 2003 invasion...and proved to be fictional. Whether Bush believed they were there or not doesn't really matter for this discussion. Whether a dreadful mistake or a cynical lie, WMD (certain enough to wage war over) weren't there.

The US is still in Iraq as a consequence of this fiction that "everyone" believed was true. The public largely lapped it up, stoked by a media machine that didn't seriously challenge the many weaknesses in the supporting "evidence". One news story might report the gaps in the evidence and then five more, plus an editorial, would declare a strong case in favour of WMD and support for Bush's invasion plans. It was bizarre to watch at the time.

As further support for a case arguing the existence of false certainties, I suppose I can merely allude to the "birthers" who are convinced President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya. A belief so strong (as with WMD) that no evidence can threaten it. The evidence doesn't even seem to matter.

Without going off at tedious length, this is the sort of thing that causes many to wonder if the whole country had gone la-la. It's just not rational as we understand rational, which is that conclusions should be based on verifiable evidence - tested and proven.

Without going through them all, I recognise there are many forces at work, cultural and social, in the US. It isn't a monolith. There are "red" states and "blue" states and people of all colours and political persuasions among and between. With all this in view, surely these diverse influences would be expressed (and mitigated) via a properly functioning, transparent and accountable democracy operating in the full glare of the light of day. So is the United States such a democracy? Does its ideological diversity find expression through its representative institutions? I don't think so. Here's why:

It helps understanding what is going on in America if we also understand that democracy there is barely functional and if often operates in form only, with function (meaningful/effective popular representation aligned with diverse public opinion and values) already degraded to the point of dysfunction.

For example, democracy implies some level of accountability to voters. Certainly, this still very much exists in the US Senate (2 per state, regardless of population, for a 6-year term). But there are really only two parties and they are very similar in most respects that matter, so voters can usually change Senate faces but have much more difficulty changing policies in many areas.

The House of Representatives is a different matter altogether. There are 435 representatives (same number since 1911, I think). A few of them can sit in the House, but can't vote, as they are from American territories that are not states: Puerto Rico, for example, with 4.5 million people and one non-voting House rep. They are elected every 2 years (says the US Constitution) from electoral districts the boundaries of which are defined by the relevant state legislatures. These legislatures generally 'cheat'. Legally, of course. They fiddle the district boundaries (gerrymandering) to favour one side or the other. The usual tactic is to split up areas where the other party has strength and tack the bits onto your strong areas. It can make a huge difference to the outcome overall. A good current example is the Republican Party-dominated Ohio state legislature is moving to eradicate the Cleveland district currently held by Democratic Congressman (and past Presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich. They will be carving his district up and attaching the pieces to neighbouring Republican-held districts and expanding those. The voters won't be voting any differently, but the way their votes are converted into representation will certainly be changed and the Democrats will lose at least this one seat, just by changing the boundaries.

As we can see, if one party (both Republicans and Democrats do this) has the majority in the state legislature and the state has several districts (some have only one - so no cheating is possible). The result of this is your average House rep is elected from a district with an average population of 750,000 (some smaller, many much larger). To do this in every 2 years while spending most time in Washington takes an enormous amount of money to reach your 750,000 constituents. Something has to give...and it does: It's a recipe for pandering to a few wealthy backers....and that is exactly what has happened in many, many cases.

The result? Thanks to state legislature gerrymandering, the percentage of incumbents re-elected each two years now hovers around the 98% mark. That is BY FAR the highest incumbency rate in any Western democracy. Remember also there are only two parties and they are very similar. This environment allows for cronies to be cronies and transparency to be reduced and accountability to, generally, be the exception rather than the rule. I'll note this can vary widely from state to state, particularly at the level of state governments where devices like recall petitions and referenda can mitigate the worst effects of wht I have described to at least some degree.

Perhaps now it is understandable why so many people don't bother voting in the US. The "fix" is in and has been for well over 50 years. America is in dire need of reform of its democratic institutions in a serious and fundamental way. Unfortunately, they have been subjected to a non-stop stream of propaganda from childhood extolling the supposed virtues of their deeply dysfunctional system of government. Most lack the vocabulary and understanding to have a sensible discussion about democratic alternatives and are left tinkering with trivialities like campaign finance reform....as though that would change anything at all that really matters.

If you think America is insane, bear in mind this is the product of a poorly designed system incapable of seeing its problems and usefully addressing them. That must surely drive even good people - and most Americans are very good people - around the twist.