Darkness at Noon

I was pleased to hear today that Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland will be removing discrimination against same-sex couples from 100 laws.

The Age article is here and there’s a bit of a summary by Paul at Buggery here.

I’ve never really understood why this is so difficult, both in a legal sense and a cognitive sense. Surely you just remove any mention of gender from the legislation. So instead of “couples, being made up of a male and female”, you just write “couples”. I’m sure it’s more complex than that though – it aught to be for $400 million dollars which is what it will cost “the tax payers”.

Anyway, onwards and upwards towards marriage, adoption and IVF – although I suspect they will be a bigger hurdle, I mean think of the caos if homosexuals could get married!

Bernard Keane (who I must say I thought is an excellent addition) in Crikey Today:

We’ve still yet to see any evidence that binge drinking is now any worse than in the past, when Passion Pop and rum’n’cokes, rather than RTDs, were the chick drinks of choice. But the debate has moved beyond that. The middle-class wowsers, keen to demonstrate their moral superiority, have politicians and the media convinced our yoof are going to hell in an alcohol-laden handcart. Not that either group, for their separate reasons, ever needed much convincing.

So that’s $500m a year in extra revenue for the Government, and the only dispute is over whether the Howard Government should’ve done the same a few years back. Nice work.

What’s alarming is that the Government felt compelled to justify the tax rise by declaring that a “significant proportion” of the revenue would be directed to the new black in health funding, preventative health programs. The concept is called “hypothecation” and it’s on the rise as politicians try to defend unpopular taxes. Apparently – and there’s no evidence to actually demonstrate this – taxation is considered more palatable if the revenue is directed into programs related to the area being taxed.

…

But it’s voodoo tax policy. People who want existing taxes redirected to their preferred cause are just like any other rent-seeker or lobby group, except they’re hiding behind some fake notion of fiscal justice. And they never explain what school or hospitals should be closed to cover the reduced funding that, say, more road expenditure would require. Proceeds from the Medicare levy don’t quite stretch to cover the nation’s health budget, for example.

And if there’s additional revenue, then all stakeholders should have the opportunity to argue where it would be best spent, not just the nanny-statists determined to stamp out recreational activities they disapprove of. If there’s a case for more spending on preventative health – and there is – then it should be funded from general revenue, not linked to specific taxes. That just reduces spending and policy flexibility for governments and establishes meaningless linkages.

And in any event, the people likely to be forking out this additional $500m a year are unlikely to care either way where the money is spent.

I don’t think there is much more I can add to that.

It will come as little surprise to everyone that I’m a republican. I’m just not one for archaine institutions and seem to have this irrational dislike for empire. Is it just me?

That said, it is far from the top of my priority list. There’s the whole Indigenous Australia business, universal healthcare etc etc that come befor it on my list of priorities.

But nevertheless, let’s just get on and have a republic.

The thing about that though, is that it seems to me that, with the honourable exeption of Alexander Downer, is anyone actually opposed to it?

From the reporting on it that I’ve read (and am too lazy to go and track down now) it sounds like it’s just an inevitability and that a referendum would pass with flying colours. This obviously isn’t the case. Presumably a lot of people are opposed to Australia becoming a republic.

So what are the percentages? Has anyone seen any pols on the issue?

For those of you in Melbourne:

Concerned about the growing corruption of our political systems? Always wanted to get involved with ACDJ but not known how?

Well now’s your chance! ACDJ is getting a Lobbyocracy Collective together and we want you to get involved. You can be part of a team that puts together the campaigns to expose the dirty back room deals and large donations with strings attached.

So why not come down meet some friendly people and get involved with our campaign.

All are welcome and all you need is a healthy dose of enthusiasm!

Where: 38 Cambridge St, Collingwood (Global Trade Watch Office)
When: 6 to 7 pm Tuesday 22nd April

The latest Australian Recording Industry Association sales figures released very quietly on the eve of Good Friday show that in fact the legal sales of recorded music climbed to an all time high in 2007 – a high that could only have been dreamed about in the years before the advent of downloading and CD burning.

It’s uncomfortable with the fact. Most industry associations would crow about an all-time record high in sales. Not this one. It’s grown up believing that the sky is about to fall in.

Remember the introduction of the cassette tape in the 1970s and those skull and crossbones stickers on album covers warning that “Home Taping is Killing Music”?

In reality the exact opposite was happening. Before the advent of home taping Americans bought around 2.5 long-playing records each per year. After two decades of home taping they were buying 4.5 recorded cassettes and LPs year.

More here.

Facebook is a funny old thing, a thing I’ve been increasingly concerned about for a little while now.

The Centre uses it and we get a pretty good response rate from it. Our group has a few hundred members and it’s a quick and effective way to spread the word about our events etc.

However, they have obviously been bought over by corporates, it’s subject to a lot of spam (god damn I’m sick of recieving some of the requests I recieve so regularly) and it’s privacy policies leave a lot to be desired, not to mention the fact that you can never actually delete your profile in it’s entirity.

To be truthful, I’ve been considering saying good bye to mt 250+ friends and closing my account (but what would be the point if they keep all your details?)

Anyway, with all this in mind the development of Michael Arrington from TechCrunch is an interesting one indeed, and I must say I hope he wins:

So we’ve been increasingly concerned about developments at Facebook over the last few months that allow advertisers to post ads using my picture and name to endorse their products without my explicit permission. I’ve received literally dozens of emails from readers asking me if I’m associated with Blockbuster’s Movie Clique application, or the new Jackass movie (no to both).

…

Our attorneys believe that the use of my image and name in third party advertising is a violation of my statutory and common law publicity rights … Specifically, this leads to user confusion as to whether or not I am actually endorsing these products.

TechCrunch is a fantastic blog (I must update the blog role for this blog) and I hope he get’s his $25 Million.

It might be the wake-up call Facebook needs.