Shafted

“The neutrality of this article has been compromised by weasel words!”

The genius of Wikipedia is that those who hold minority, alternative or niche views can add their little bit to an article or provide an external link to a page they have created, giving readers an opportunity to savor a wide range of views and thus expand their horizons.

Unfortunately, the world is full of self-righteous individuals and organizations who behave like influence peddling warlords in their efforts to smother debate and eliminate any evidence of views they disagree with. Disciplines which are open to interpretation (i.e. everything) are fair game for these self-styled powerbrokers, who don’t accept that they don’t own the rights to whole areas of investigation and that their attempts to filter knowledge by their gate keeping activities damages the integrity of Wikipedia by creating an imbalance in the description of a topic.

Below are just a couple of articles on this issue. A Google search will reveal thousands of complaints. What drew my attention to this problem was the persistence of one of these misguided do-gooders in removing links to my articles on dreams. Why would anyone do that? What’s their problem?

The real bias in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia bias against Sathya Sai Baba.

“Even the most avid reader in this culture is invariably going to spend his or her time with other media – with games, television, movies or the internet. And these other forms of culture have intellectual or cognitive virtues in their own right – different from, but comparable to, the rewards of reading”

Steven Johnson “Everything bad is good for you” – London : Allen Lane, 2005, p22.

In order to accommodate and participate in the enormous changes currently occurring in communications, librarians need to drop old prejudices and embrace the new media.

Many libraries have or have had a policy which says that the audio-visual materials they purchase should be “literature based” – that is, based on a book. This is an argument created by librarians in the last century to justify the purchase of new media for their collections. Reactionary managers, nervous about overstepping their mark by purchasing items which weren’t primarily print based, thought they needed this kind of justification. Once they got the go-ahead from their governing bodies the doors were opened for the purchase of some of the great masterworks of children’s film such as the animated “Alice in wonderland” and for teenagers Francis Ford Coppola’s “The outsiders” based on H E Hinton’s remarkable novel.

Using “literature based” as a selection criterion no longer has any validity in the 21^st century. “Toy story”, “Finding Nemo” and “The Incredibles” have no literary antecedents. Does that make them dangerous?

By conducting a conscious campaign to avoid the purchase of Disney DVDs in the belief that the Disney Corporation is part of a broader globalisation conspiracy to turn all of us into homogenised consumers, is the same as arguing that Oxford University Press was used as a tool to advance British imperial ambitions.

The librarian’s role is to provide a balance. As well as fulfilling their primary purpose: “give ’em what they want” i.e. Disney and Dreamworks product, librarians must also select items which explain the world in which we live. DVDs such as “The corporation” and books like “No logo” aren’t for children, but can be well understood by teenagers.

 I think that the point that needs to be made is that we have gone beyond the information age. We are now in the marketing age, where almost everything we see and hear has been manipulated to promote sales. For example the news establishes the emotional environment and current affairs shows contain the pay-off – advertising pharmaceuticals and slimming products and warning against using independent contractors. Play it safe, be normal.

This is a personal view of modern propaganda. It is dangerous for librarians to allow their own prejudices to unduly influence the selection process. Written selection criteria are designed to give the bureaucrats and the public confidence in the librarians’ professionalism and I believe that their confidence is well placed.

But if, for example, a Disney gap suddenly appeared, which showed that the most significant works in modern animation were missing from a collection, questions would rightly be asked. We can’t say that it’s a load of manipulative rubbish, because that is a view that could be challenged by a multitude of critics and the public themselves. The budget of most public libraries is robust enough to allow for the purchase of popular DVD titles.

Some say that libraries are in unnecessary competition with video stores and taking away their business. The same is not said about other major competitors: bookshops and newsagents. Why?

 Is anyone suggesting libraries don’t buy Harry Potter because it would put Angus & Robertson and Borders in the poor house? What about mega-giants K Mart and Big W cherry-picking bestsellers and undercutting bookshops on their most profitable items? Libraries are small fry in this war.

The arguments are the same for DVDs. Those who can afford it will buy or hire them for a fee. Others will wait to borrow them, when available, from their local library.

 Advances in broadband technology will see commercial digital libraries appear on the internet and we will witness the decline and possible demise of the walk-in Blockbuster store.

Digital media copyright law will play a major role in the library’s response to technological change. And thanks to the Australia – US free trade agreement this law will be handed down from Capitol Hill, which has shown to be a good friend to the media moguls who contribute handsomely to the cause.

The printed word is most likely heading in the same direction.

It will not be long before the library will be a portable handheld device with access to everything.

New “books” will be either pay-per-read or contain advertising, which may be in the traditional internet form of banner ads, etc. or perhaps product placement in the actual content, customised for individual readers based on stored internet search preferences and credit and loyalty card details.

The content will be text, multimedia, interactive, anything you want.

Most likely this new library will come in a variety of sizes, just like today’s books, with touch or voice controls to let you navigate to anywhere you want.  

All this may be a long term threat, but there are still plenty of people out there who desire the human to human contact offered in a public library – some good old fashioned contact with a genuine human being who hasn’t been brainwashed into behaving like an always cheerful, “have a nice day” corporate marionette. Librarians recognize the importance of meaning, so understandably they are uncomfortable with the masks they are requested to don by the pen pushing weasels in senior management who are obsessed by image.

Libraries once contained clay tablets. The great library at Alexandria was filled with scrolls – bits of papyrus and animal skins. 1500 years later, books were the go. Today, the transition to digital media is well under way. Librarians must disassociate themselves from the Luddites and actively participate in this major evolutionary process and work out ways to ensure that access is guaranteed for all sections of the community.

“Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains. Discuss.” It’s time to bring back this 70s high school essay topic. It has never been more relevant as our way of life has never been more under threat.

It appears that to preserve Western democracy we must display a willingness to place the shackles on ourselves.

At every opportunity, from anti-terrorism to anti-vilification legislation, governments are attacking the freedom of the individual, and in the process enhancing their own power. Though these measures create a sense of unease, most of them will never touch the average person directly, however the level of regulation in local government is also rising, potentially turning yesterday’s happy-go-lucky citizens into law breaking fiends.

Let investigate one example. The Melbourne City Council’s Carlton Parking Strategy announced on 23^rd May 2005: “There are no plans under the strategy to install meters in Lygon Street.” In fact you can still go to the official City of Melbourne parking FAQ page today and read: “Lygon Street will be exempt from having parking meters installed.”

Unfortunately, in September 2006, (who said that in politics you should never say never), the unthinkable has happened. The council is raking in $2.00 an hour along the heart of Lygon Street, encouraging short term visitors to seek parking in nearby residential streets.

I’m certain that as soon as the webmaster in council’s PR department notices the discrepancy between statements on the official website and fact, the website will (along with our collective memory) be cleansed and certain phrases such as “Lygon Street will be exempt…” will vanish from the vocabulary, 1984 style.

Image driven public organizations are adroit at manipulating public opinion and a media savvy Lord Mayor is worth a room-full of spin doctors.

In fact does anyone recall our darling of the A list participating in a glamorous parking meter commissioning ceremony, perhaps by being the first to shove a specially minted gold coin into the slot.

High fliers can afford this $2.00 surcharge on a cup of coffee. It’s a piece of cake. But there’s a different view out on the street. “I’d much rather buy a coffee than a f***ing ticket to stick on my dashboard. What for?”

I’m sure the ideologues in council’s back rooms have sound reasons for the money grab and aren’t totally controlled by the bean counters.

One can see that by charging for parking a car, the tram ticket becomes $2.00 cheaper and your bike will pay for itself in no time. Judging by the type of conveyance parked outside Readings on a busy Friday afternoon, the council’s little piece of social engineering may already be paying dividends, both for the environment and for the city’s coffers.

The new conditions will certainly assist the parking officers who, according to the State Ombudsman’s report, were threatened with the sack if they did not issue at least 30 fines a day. One look at the ticket on the dash will verify the status of the parked car and infringement notices can be issued instantly without marking tires and lurking around corners waiting for the hour to be up. And if someone pays $2.00 for a second ticket, surreptitiously swapping them over, when the first one runs out, it’s money in the bank.

We’ve got to pay for Docklands somehow.

Remember the good old days of the “Free” library? Back when “user pays” was a swear word? Well these days you may be able to borrow stuff at no cost, but you have to get into the joint first….

Unfortunately for those who travel by car, and in the country that’s about the only way you’ll get to the library, there are only a handful on one hour spots for library patrons. For those who arrive late or need more time, you still get the free library, the only catch is, it’ll cost you 80 cents an hour!

As the sun approaches the end of the current stage in its life cycle, it will begin to expand and turn into a red giant. In consequence the world will heat up dramatically, all the surface water will evaporate and eventually every plant and animal will die. In other words, within 500,000,000 years the world will become a dead zone and it appears there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

If this is the case, it is imperative a strategy is devised to improve our prospects. Admittedly global annihilation is still in the distant geological-time future, but any proposed solution will take an incredible amount of time to implement. We simply don’t have the technology at present to save ourselves.

Solutions may involve space flight, but there may be nowhere to fly to. And using current technology, the closest stars with potentially habitable planets are so many light years away it will take generations to reach them.

Humans aren’t particularly at home in outer space. We need a space ship with food, water and oxygen, but we also need shielding from cosmic rays and artificial gravity to stop our bones from turning to jelly.

To save even a small fraction of the earth’s population by evacuation would require an armada of thousands of large space craft.

Civilization is only a few thousand years old. The technological revolution practically started in our lifetime. With millions of years to play with, we should be optimistic about mankind’s prospects for survival.

That is why it is important not to stuff it up now.

You can argue till you’re blue in the face about whether global warming is a consequence of human activity or a natural part of the earth’s life cycle, but if the disruptions are going to be on a grand scale as predicted, we have to try to do something about it.

This goes for all forms of environmental degradation.

It also holds true for man’s inhumanity to man. Grow up. Bury the hatchet. Unite. Remove the imperative of greed and exploitation from your life. Decide that you don’t need “more” after all.

Ultimately there is only one real challenge and it will affect us all.

Thankfully there are many countries and private corporations involved in the conquest of space. There still seems to be plenty of resistance to human genetic engineering, stem cell research and cloning, etc. These technologies may be the only ones able to provide a solution to our vulnerability in outer space. Bones that maintain their density in zero gravity, radiation resistant tissue, survival in low oxygen environments, skin that doesn’t explode with a sharp drop in air pressure.

These examples are traditional responses on a purely physical level which look at maintaining the current human form. Who knows what other possibilities will be explored – involving ideas that could stand our understanding of what it is to be human on its head.

We need a world which is conducive to research. We cannot afford a world where critical resources are diverted to fighting environmental catastrophes, wars, terrorism and the unimaginative narrow-mindedness of fundamentalism.

The sun IS coming – if we don’t put our differences aside and face the challenge together – we will all fry.

No weapons of mass destruction, no links to Al Qaeda, and now we know that they knew it all along.

So why did they invade? Did they feel like they were on a roll after “pacifying” Afghanistan? Did the son want to finish what the father had begun?

Or did the boardroom buddies identify an opportunity to make unlimited billions out of the American people?

All President Bush had to do was go to Congress and ask for the cash. Ask and ye shall receive. And in the process the military-industrial complex bleeds the US Treasury dry. But that’s not possible is it, for the Treasury is a bottomless pit of money. Just add it to the deficit tab.

So where does this money go? Forget about the New World Order. It’s the same old world of robber barons who are continuing to play us for fools while lining their pockets. Governments provide the conditions for war. The armaments industry provides the weapons. And if they both belong to the same club – watch out!

Note that whenever there is a war, academics crawl out of the woodwork to pronounce the war “just” or if they don’t like the perpetrators it’s a “violation of international law.”

And as long as it’s “just,” everything’s OK. The massacre of civilians is “regrettable” however collateral damage is a fact of life. The leveling of cities is necessary, to “eliminate terrorist sanctuaries.” Morally justifiable? Absolutely! “They started it and we need to protect ourselves.”

Without the smart bombs, the cruise missiles and all the rest, the scope of the destruction would be of a much smaller magnitude.

In the words of the gun lobby: “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But in the words of anyone with a brain: “If you don’t have explosives, you can’t blow anything up.”

It is for this reason that the bomb producers must be made responsible for the products they manufacture.

A suicide bomber without a bomb is just an idiot. A government conducting a “just” war is all rhetoric and hot air, without tanks, artillery and missiles.

Those who are making billions of dollars profit from the manufacture of these advanced weapons should be made liable and pay for the rebuilding of houses and infrastructure that their weapons destroy, compensate the victims, as well as reimburse the Red Cross and governments providing humanitarian aid.

Just like the publican who juices up drunks and allows them to drive away from his bar, it is the armaments industry that converts a man with a stick to someone who can obliterate entire towns just by pressing a button.

The geniuses who created the war in Iraq came up with a brilliantly elegant sequel. Reconstruction. While half of Bush’s buddies fleece the Treasury to bomb the crap out of the dump, the other half grab the rest of the loot to rebuild it. Talk about shock and awe!

In order to establish some kind of equilibrium, armaments manufacturers should pay 95% of their profits into a compensation fund which can be drawn upon by the powerless victims of these global hooligans.

What you cause to be destroyed you must rebuild, at your own expense.

The bean counters and pen pushers at Channel 9 are into some crazy maths if they believe that lowering the bar to a negative height is the way to achieve viewer satisfaction.

The after midnight ads have insulted our intelligence for years, however now even they have been trumped by the inane program which has taken David Letterman off the air – a silly gaming show whose goofy compare admits “I don’t know what is happening.”

If this is the shape of things to come under Eddie’s stewardship, I’ll be upping my download limits and leaving the aerial to the pigeons.

As soon as the facts have been assembled, this first story will shock you.