A Kelpie Called Twitter

 

Pic courtesy Parkeschampionpost

I have recently reactivated my long dormant Twitter account - purely out of boredom.

I set it up originally as an opportunity to lurk, but have begun posting again. I must be bored... 

Twitter is, after all, a sewer, but can occasionally be useful to capture breaking news.

Being the contrarian that I am, I follow people whom on the whole disagree with most of my opinions, which is apparently unusual, given the suggestions Twitter frequently makes about whom I should follow.

One reason for this is the possibility I might learn something. There is also the thrill of the chase in investigating and analysing the level and degree of disinformation that corrupts a great of public discourse. And occasionally you are exposed, via the platform, to clever and ascerbic verbal gems.

There aren't, incidentally, many of these.

It also exposes also me to the whole gamut of conspiracy theorists, peddlers of hate, and what my father used to call "mug lairs". 

If we follow only those we agree with, the whole thing becomes a vast echo chamber. This, of course, is irrelevant as far as the platform is concerned, but it has far reaching implications for the shaping of public opinion.

Twitter also favours Right-leaning opinion, which helps to explain why Trump used it so effectively, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that we saw from that cohort when he was deplatformed.

Occasionally I get blocked, which is usually a sign that the blocker is feeling the heat.

The behaviour of the algorithms that shape the platform also shapes information sharing and opinion. Twitter operates like a very efficient Kelpie, rounding people up on the basis of their biases and herding them together.

This has the unfortunate effect of confirming and solidifying those biases. That phenomenon is in no small way a contributing element to the current toxic divisive state of American politics. 

And, make no mistake, we are heading in exactly the same direction in this country.

Comments closed.

Democracy - Australian Style

Pic courtesy Quora

One of my oldest habits pre-elections (and a federal election is due pretty soon) is to examine the posted policies of the various parties. This process goes some way towards informing the decisions I make in the ballot box.

My readings took me the other day to the website of the Liberal Democratic Party.

They produce a document called the Freedom Manifesto. I'll admit some discomfort in the use of the word "manifesto". It has some unfortunate historic connotations. 

Be that as it may, their manifesto contains two features which are in utter contradiction. They simultaneously advocate voluntary voting and recall elections. Any party that devalues democratic participation on the one hand, and on the other insists that elections be held as a consequence of democratic participation through a minority petition for a recall is a very strange beast indeed.

There is some consistency in this, I guess, in that both these exercises of political power allow a minority to force its will on the majority. 

Which brings me to a discussion about the validity and effectiveness of compulsory voting, as it operates in this country. Compulsory voting operates in a small minority of democracies. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index lists Australia as 8th in the list of 23 "full democracies". 

The USA, by the way, is classified by the EIU as a "flawed democracy", which is more than a little ironic, given the lip service most Americans offer to the notion of freedom. But it is consistent when you consider that these same US citizens are often at pains to point out that their country is a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy.

But I digress....

Of the 23 "full democracies"in the EIU classification, only Australia, Luxembourg and Uruguay have compulsory voting. If you dig a little deeper, however and examine the EIU's measure of participation, you will note a clear correlation between full democracies and participation. 

On the other hand, the EIU's classification of "authoritarian" regimes, consistently reports for these countries a participation score below 5. Australia rates 7.78. 

The US, classified as a "flawed democracy", has encountered, according to the EIU -

many negatives including extremely low levels of trust in institutions and political parties, deep dysfunction in the functioning of government, increasing threats to freedom of expression, and a degree of societal polarisation that makes consensus almost impossible to achieve. Social cohesion has collapsed, and consensus has evaporated on fundamental issues—even the date of the country’s founding. 

Whilst we have our problems on this side of the Pacific, they pale in comparison to what is happening in the USA right now. Much of what ails them is self-inflicted, and their rag-tag electoral system is fundamental to their malaise.

Taken together in this country, the combination of compulsory voting, a well-organised electoral system (including fair boundary setting, and an efficiently functioning non-partisan electoral commission) as well as excellent access to polling stations, has contributed to Australia's standing as a democracy.

One of the worst features of a non-compulsory system is the push to energise your base to the exclusion of all other voters. On the other hand, when voting is compulsory, elections are decided by swing voters and won at the centre. This removes the power of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. Observe the USA and its polarisation if you are looking for evidence of this phenomenon. 

All of which makes the LDP's platform difficult to comprehend, unless you understand that any diminution in voter participation marks a trend towards authoritarianism, as becomes clear when you read the EIU's full report.

What is even more bizarre is the cliched criticism by these ersatz libertarians of "elites" whom they accuse of holding all the power, whilst at the same time, insisting that ensuring everyone gets to vote opens the floodgates to people who are incapable of rational decision-making. Essentially, it's the same mindset that drives voter suppression in the USA at the moment.

They believe that the voters aren't electing the right people, after all, and that can't be allowed to continue. With a wink and a nod, they're saying "we can't let these bogans near a ballot box".

It's totalitarianism masquarading as "freedom", and is probably the greatest threat to a secure and peaceful future in this country. 

Look East, and weep....

Goodies and Baddies

If you pay attention to most western media sources when it comes to the situation in the Ukraine and Crimea, the issues seem clear-cut.

They're not, as this video makes clear.

The conventional narrative covers an aggressive Russian military buildup following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the likelihood of an invasion, and the response of the Europeans, NATO, the UK and the USA to that possibility. Even our government has become involved.

There's no question that Putin is a thug who runs a corrupt and authoritarian regime, but that is not the issue when it comes to the future of the Ukraine.

If you cast your mind back, gentle reader, to the events of November 1962, you may remember, if you were around at that time, the Cuban missile crisis. I was, and I do remember it. For about a fortnight, the world held its breath.

The USA, not unreasonably, took exception to the stationing of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in Cuba, less than 660kms from Florida. Fortunately for world peace, and following several tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. 

Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United nations supervision. Secretly, the Jupiter MRBMs which had been deployed by NATO in Turkey against the Soviet Union would be removed. This second part of the agreement was kept secret to avoid political complications stateside.

The current situation, from the Russian point of view, is similar, but reversed. The possibility that a western leaning Ukraine will join NATO, and base offensive capability (especially missiles) on its soil, bordering the Russian Federation, is more than Putin can bear (excuse the pun). 

This makes the current posture held by the US appear more than a little hypocritical. 

The potential bloodbath that would arise through a Russian military invasion doesn't bear thinking about. Thousands have already been killed, and when Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was shot down in July 2014 by a Russian missile, thirty-eight of the casualties were Australians.

So what is the solution? Ukraine is a nation divided, so any peaceful resolution arrived at by that country itself appears unlikely. 

Look at a map. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, so maybe if Russia, the UK, and the USA butt out, and leave it to some body derived from the European Union to slowly and carefully resolve the issues, war may be avoidable.

Wasn't it Winston Churchill who first publicly advocated for a European Union? And didn't he offer the avoidance of bloodshed as the primary reason? He called it The United States of Europe.

It's more than a little ironic that the British have withdrawn from that union, but still demand a place at the table when it comes to issues of European security.

 

Blogging on Blogging

 

Pic courtesy timeshighereducation.com

I've been blogging, gentle reader, since October 2007.

Maybe it's time to review my experience with this strange method of communication, and to note some of the highs and lows, the costs and rewards, and the benefits.

Initially, I was blogging using a clunky Telstra platform, but any record of that that seems to have vanished without trace. We're told that the internet is forever, but I seem to have found the exception to the rule, as I haven't been able to dredge up any trace of the original blog.

The statistics are interesting. Years blogging amount to fourteen, unique page views are 253275, there are 1282 posts, and 3037 comments. I even made a small amount of money through the advertising, about enough to buy one cup of coffee each week. I avoided the temptation to advertise initially, but found (after a few embarrassing and inappropriate ads) that I could control the material. Then I became tired of eliminating the stupid ads, and removed the facility.

I have more readers in the USA than in Oz which is surprising (click to enlarge) -

There aren't regular followers, which is OK by me. There have been a few trolls down the years, but they seem to fade away after a while. That's a pity really, as they are an endless source of entertainment.

There were two persistent posters, one who took serious exception to my posting on another blog (Catallaxy) and attempted to attack my posts on that blog by commenting on this one. That kind of missed the point unless you were a regular subscriber to both blogs, but it kept him busy for a while.

The irony is that the original Catallaxy disappeared, so has been outlived by this one. The best summing up of the content of Catallaxy is this by John Quiggin - 

Catallaxy was an early example of the decline of libertarianism into what we can now call Trumpism.  By the end, the comments threads and quite a few of the posts were a toxic mix of racism, misogyny and conspiracy theories comparable to Sky After Dark or even Alex Jones.

There's a message in that somewhere. There have been attempts to resurrect Catallaxy, but now my posts there are censored. There's a lesson in that as well - something to do with free speech, I suppose.

I try to put something out there every week, but feel no obligation to do so. That is one of the benefits of this style of blogging. You post only when you are in the mood, or when you think you have something to say.

My memoir began as a blog, posted chapter by chapter. The responses to that original blog encouraged me to self-publish, and the original 1000 copies I had printed have almost sold out. There are only 180 copies left, and I recouped my printing costs in a month after publication. This blog is my one and only marketing strategy (apart from Facebook) and it works.

So I will continue to blog, gentle reader, as the mood finds me. It is great fun, and full of surprises.

The Djoke

 

Pic courtesy Youtube

Back in pre-Fitzgerald days in Queensland, police talked about being in on the “Joke”. That particular joke concerned police corruption.

Now we have a new running joke about the issue of an unvaccinated tennis player. You know the story. His visa was cancelled, he then won a court battle overturning the original decision, and the matter is going back to the federal court as this is written.

There seems to have been very poor communication between Tennis Australia, the Victorian State government, and the Australian Border Force.

In the end, the decision to withdraw a visa rests with the Minister, and he has made his position clear.

It’s very hard to avoid the cynical conclusion the Morrison government is exploiting what was probably a monumental stuff-up and turning it into a political opportunity. It smells a bit like the Tampa incident. The bulk of voters probably couldn’t care less about whether this particular celebrity goes or stays, but they are fed up to the back teeth by exceptions made to said celebrities.

I well remember what my daughter went though last year when she was trying to get home. Apart from anything else, it cost her a great deal of money, and for a while, rendered her homeless, relying on the generosity of friends. Federal government decisions limiting the numbers of returning Australians completely wrecked her plans. She was an Australian citizen and was fully vaccinated. Djokovic is an alien, and unvaccinated. Obviously, there is one rule for elite athletes, and another for the plebs.

As a parent, I went through this ordeal with her, as did tens of thousands of others. We have good memories and can’t abide exceptions being made on the basis of celebrity status.

It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and at least Australians have been reminded of the plight of thousands of people in detention who happen not to be celebrities.

What happens to Djokovic is neither here nor there, but the whole hairy chested border control narrative exposes the level of opportunistic cynicism characterising the current government.

The joke is on the Australian electorate.

Update: The deportation stands, which seems to be OK with most. 

Transpacific Reflections

 

Pic courtesy The Atlantic

As a casual Australian blogger, I try to resist the temptation to make every second post about US politics.

It’s becoming difficult to resist that temptation, however, twelve months after a mob invaded the Capitol during the constitutional process of the transfer of power after their last presidential election.

For a country that describes itself as a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy, reflecting on the threat to that constitutional process that occurred on that day is a worthwhile use of Australian pixels. I have learned, the hard way, that what goes down across the Pacific almost always has ramifications for us.

The background to these events, and their place in the historical context of the early twenty-first century is significant.

In the American context, a national malaise emanating from the decline of manufacturing, the consequent offshoring of jobs, the loss of confidence in national institutions and the questioning of these institutions by a media promoting profit-based outrage, have combined to put the future of the country at risk.

For some observing American history, that imperilling of democracy in a country that defines itself as something other than a democracy may not seem significant. That’s an acceptable view, providing that the institutions based on their constitutional arrangements continue to hold. 

On January 6th 2020, they were under real and present danger, and in the end were protected only by the Vice President. The fact that he has been vilified by the Republican Party for keeping his oath reveals just how far that institution has strayed from its founding principles. Perhaps contemporary Republicans have forgotten how their party got its name. 

Lincoln warned against America destroying itself in a speech in 1838. That noise in the background is Abe spinning in his grave.

Against the background of a rising and assertive China, this weakening of US institutions is very worrying. If we depend so much on America's protection, and the US is slowly destroying itself from the inside, then we may well be up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle. Add to that the certainty the China will emerge as the most powerful economy on the planet in the next few years, and the future looks far from rosy.

Worst of all, as Australians, there seems to be very little we can do about it....

 

Some Stats and Some Questions

 

Pic courtesy paho.org

I have posted before about the potential for the Covid pandemic to work as a catalyst.

Apart from that potential, it also provides a snapshot of how well various communities (and societies) work in times of crisis.

An analysis of the performance of the 51 US states on their management of this major health issue provides an insight into how well they function at their most basic task, that of keeping their citizens safe, and how political values are reflected in the outcome.

The measure I will use is the Covid-19 death rate per million as published on the Worldometer website, which uses a variety of information sources to arrive at the various statistics, and is generally reliable.

Let's rank the various American states from worst to best in terms of the deaths per million as of today (29th December 2021), list the political affiliation of the governor, and then specify the vaccination rates at December 28th for each state. The first figure represents the deaths per million for that state, and the percentage represents the vaccination rate -

1. Mississippi - 3501 - Republican - 48.06%

2. Alabama - 3352 - Republican - 47.49%

3. Arizona - 3317 - Republican - 56.85%

4. New Jersey - 3256 - Democratic - 70.26%

5.  Louisiana - 3222 - Democratic - 50.15%

6. New York - 3067 - Democratic - 71.53%

7. Tennessee - 3018 - Republican - 51.17%

8. Arkansas - 3014 - Republican - 51.06%

9. West Virginia - 2951 - Republican - 54.89%

10. Georgia - 2948 - Republican - 50.65%

11. Massachusetts - 2922 - Republican - 74.41%

12. Oklahoma - 2920 - Republican - 53.33%

13. Florida - 2905 - Republican - 63.11%

14. Rhode Island - 2875 - Democratic - 76.1%

15. Michigan - 2868 - Democratic - 56.59%

16. Pennsylvania - 2828 - Democratic - 63.57%

17. South Carolina - 2826 - Republican - 53.01%

18. Indiana - 2812 - Republican - 51.89%

19. South Dakota - 2790 - Republican - 56.83%

20. Montana - 2717 - Republican - 53.86%

21. New Mexico -  2754 - Democratic - 66.06%

22. Nevada - 2725 - Democratic - 56.26%

23. Kentucky - 2708 - Democratic - 54.09%

24. Wyoming - 2637 - Republican - 47.33%

25. North Dakota - 2627 - Republican - 52.38%

26. Texas - 2619 - Republican - 56.78%

27. Missouri - 2589 - Republican - 52.89%

28. Connecticut - 2546 - Democratic - 74.47%

29. Iowa - 2472 - Republican - 58.67%

30. Ohio - 2462 - Republican - 54.97%

31. Illinois - 2435 - Democratic - 64.2%

32. Kansas - 2390 - Democratic - 56.71%

33. Delaware - 2337 - Democratic - 63.96%

34. Idaho - 2313 - Republican - 46.15%

35. California - 1935 - Democratic - 65.95%

36. Maryland - 1931 - Republican - 70.2%

37. Wisconsin - 1903 - Democratic - 61.73%

38. Minnesota - 1868 - Democratic - 65.18%

39. North Carolina - 1841- Democratic - 52.38%

40. Colorado - 1817 - Democratic - 65.09%

41. Virginia - 1816 - Democratic - 67.86%

42. Nebraska - 1722 - Republican - 59.52%

43. District of Columbia - 1713 - Democratic - 67.41%

44. New Hampshire - 1423 - Republican - 67.01%

45. Oregon - 1333 - Democratic - 66.39%

46. Washington - 1294 - Democratic - 67.7%

47. Alaska - 1292 - Republican - 56.1%

48. Utah - 1177 - Republican - 58.44%

49. Maine - 1110 - Democratic - 75.56%

50. Hawaii - 764 - Democratic - 63.38%

51. Vermont - 745 - Republican - 77.29%

And, just for the hell of it, let's list the same data for the various Australian states (which, to be consistent, requires some squirrelly maths to arrive at the deaths per million figure as expressed for the USA. The figures for Tasmania, the NT, WA, SA, and Qld are comparatively meaningless, as they are projections per million for the very few deaths that have occurred in those jurisdictions. You'll note that whilst only one person has died from Covid in the NT, my data says "4". this is simply a projection based on the population of about a quarter of a million. The same mathematical contortions are employed for Tasmania. I include these figures in the same form as the US figures to provide a basis for comparison. Again, the first figure is the death rate per million, and the last the percentage of fully vaccinated individuals) -

1. Victoria - 225 - Labor - 92.4%    

2. New South Wales - 80 - Coalition - 93.5%

3. ACT - 34.7 - Labor/Green -  95%

4. Tasmania - 24 - Coalition -  92.8%  

5. Northern Territory - 4 - Labor -  84.1%          

6. Western Australia - 3.3 - 83.4%         

7. South Australia - 2.8 - Coalition -  87.7% 

8. Queensland - 1.3 - Labor - 86.1%

Now, let's ask some questions.

It's up to you, gentle reader, to answer them.

1. Is there any connection between the political affiliation of the state legislature and the death rate? Of the top 10 worst performing states in the US, 7 are Republican, and 3 are Democrat. In Oz, it appears irrelevant, although Labor doesn't come up smelling of roses in Victoria.

2. Is there any connection between vaccination rates and death rates? In the US, with the exception of New Jersey and New York, the states with the highest death rates have the lowest vaccination rates.

3. What is the reason for the massive difference between the consolidated death rate in the USA of 2522 per million and the Australian figure of 85. Why is it thirty times ours?

It's somewhat sobering to understand that if that rate for Oz was the same as it is in the USA, we would have lost 64,000 Australians.

That's 7000 more than the number of Americans killed in Vietnam.

They built a wall in Washington to remember them. Every person killed had his or her name inscribed. It made an impact when I saw it in 2018. 

Will the saving of so many Australian lives be acknowledged?