Author: Stilgherrian

Posted on

Australia 2020 brings out the whingers

Another day, another lobbyist for one specific community sector fails to understand what the Australia 2020 Summit means. This time it’s Professor Warren Hogan whingeing that “the ageing population” isn’t mentioned enough.

As reported in that august journal Australian Ageing Agenda, Hogan reckons the “omission” of aged care from the Summit agenda is “inexplicable”.

“An immediate worry with the new Government comes from the failure to address any issues in aged care for the 2020 summit,” he said.

No, Professor Hogan, what’s really “inexplicable” are:

  1. Why you haven’t bothered looking at the list of topics at the Summit website, which clearly says: “Health — a long-term national health strategy — including the challenges of preventative health, workforce planning and the ageing population.” [my emphasis]
  2. How you reckon the Summit fails to address this issue when it hasn’t even happened yet.

I’m getting pretty goddam sick of the narrow-mindedness and short-term thinking shown by so many of the commentators so far.

Continue reading “Australia 2020 brings out the whingers”

Posted on

Marc Andreessen on Barack Obama

Netscape founder Marc Andreessen spent 90 minutes with Barack Obama in early 2007. His report on that conversation is fascinating: “He said — and I’m going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am — my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it’s going to mean in many parts of the world — parts of the world that we really care about — when I show up as the President of the United States. I’ll be fundamentally changing the world’s perception of what the United States is all about.”

Posted on

Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0

First Monday is a peer-reviewed journal about the Internet. Almost always good reading — but this month’s special feature Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0 is double-plus good.

The Preface gives the flavour:

Web 2.0 represents a blurring of the boundaries between Web users and producers, consumption and participation, authority and amateurism, play and work, data and the network, reality and virtuality. The rhetoric surrounding Web 2.0 infrastructures presents certain cultural claims about media, identity, and technology. It suggests that everyone can and should use new Internet technologies to organize and share information, to interact within communities, and to express oneself. It promises to empower creativity, to democratize media production, and to celebrate the individual while also relishing the power of collaboration and social networks.

But Web 2.0 also embodies a set of unintended consequences, including the increased flow of personal information across networks, the diffusion of one’s identity across fractured spaces, the emergence of powerful tools for peer surveillance, the exploitation of free labor for commercial gain, and the fear of increased corporatization of online social and collaborative spaces and outputs…

Much, much food for thought in the essays. Expect to see it reflected — somehow — in my writing over the coming week.

Hat-tip to Professor Roger Clarke, who says, “I thought my paper was reasonably critical of the phenomenon, but these make me seem like a pussycat (or maybe a respectable academic?).”

Posted on

What happens after Australia 2020?

Chairman Rudd has already said he wants a bunch of good ideas to come out of the Australia 2020 Summit. In a wide-ranging interview for The Age he explained what’ll happen to those ideas.

Rudd: I think engaging the public service with something like the 2020 summit is a good thing because you have people who are mutually engaged, against not a completely free-ranging discussion, because we’ve set a policy objective for the nation which we intend to work towards. We’ve said here are the questions that we would like answers to but in terms of the menu of answers and recommendations we are completely open-minded about that. As I’ve said consistently, we’ll accept or reject what’s put forward. But the idea is to shake the tree both within government and beyond government to get people into a much more open engagement about the country’s future. I think that’s healthy.

Q: What’s the mechanism for accepting or rejecting ideas?

Rudd: We, the elected government, will do that. But what is put forward by the 2020 Summit will be their agreed recommendations, each of these ten working groups. And what we’ve indicated is by year’s end, that is within a six-month frame we will develop a formal response to what has been put forward by way of acceptance or rejection and the reasons why. I think that is a fair way to go.

In other words, the Summit is the start of a debate. After that one weekend in April it’s up to us — yeah, us Australians — to convince the government they’re worthwhile ideas (or not).