Facial book badge thingo test

Des Devlin

North Coast study

Warwick George Fisher LLM
Law and Justice
The Law Relating to Land Sharing Communities in New South Wales.

Hegemony and energy supply

After too long on the phone going back and forth to Origin and Energy Australia here is what I have learned today. It is only relevant if you live within Energy Australia’s network area. (Tempe is, Katoomba is not.)

When you move out of a property Energy Australia charges the third party retailer a disconnection fee.

Except if you are a customer of Energy Australia in which case there is no fee.

So if you are considering going with a ‘greener’ retailer, in our case Origin, you will be penalised for your trouble. We were slugged with a $90 plus $9 GST disconnection fee.

The moral of the story – go with the retailer that is also its own supplier.

Which surely raises questions of fair trading and monopolistic behaviour.

(I know, I should probably send this to the Herald or whatever.)

Slow going on the blogging front

But am pinging out occasional snippets at http://www.twitter.com/desdev/.

Human rights charter

Common law fails to protect disadvantaged people

December 15 2008, SMH

IT IS extraordinary that any lawyer – let alone retired High Court judges or colourful QCs – can seriously contend that the common law and democratically elected parliaments are adequate to protect human rights. We have had both, for hundreds of years, including the last two decades during which, as federal human rights commissioner, I had the privilege of meeting thousands of our fellow Australians who were homeless or mentally ill.

To assert that the common law protected their rights demonstrates wilful ignorance or perhaps just a privileged existence. The reforms introduced following the national inquiries we conducted on these issues were the result of pressure on Parliament generated by the media, including your paper. But these reforms were based on principles prescribed in international human rights instruments monitored by our National Human Rights Commission – not principles embodied in common law or federal or state statutes passed by our elected representatives.

The much vaunted common law developed functional rules for protecting property, commerce and contract – but from the perspective of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised in our community – including the homeless, the mentally ill, indigenous peoples and those with multiple disabilities – the common law was, and still is, an abject failure. Indeed, as we demonstrated in these inquiries, far from being part of the solution, the law was frequently part of the problem.

As for the “sovereignty” of Parliament, democracy is extremely important, but from a human rights perspective, it embodies an inherent paradox. Our elected leaders are there because they have proved their willingness to respond to the priorities of the majority. The vulnerable groups just mentioned are all minorities – and in most cases not politically powerful, or even influential. The idea that a government representing the majority of our elected representatives is generally benevolent may seem appropriate in 2008, but recent history demonstrates its unreliability.

When we revealed the “inconvenient truth” that more than 500,000 of our fellow Australians were affected by serious mental illness, but at least 240,000 were receiving no treatment, neither the common law nor statute protected these people. The scandalous violations of their rights (including hundreds of deaths) were largely the result of government omission, neglect or indifference.

There is abundant evidence that deficiencies inherent in the common law and democracies premised on majority rule mean the most vulnerable in our community do need greater legal protection. The Government is to be commended for according all Australians the opportunity to influence this decision with the announcement of a national human rights consultation panel.

Brian Burdekin Potts Point

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/12/14/1229189441654.html

RSPCA BBQ

So much for animal cruelty

For last week’s “Lighting of the tree” festivities the City of Sydney chose the RSPCA as its beneficiary. The charity used this opportunity to raise money by holding a barbecue in Hyde Park. There was no vegetarian food available. It is disappointing that the only way attendees could show their support for the prevention of cruelty to animals was to eat one.

Dan Andrews Redfern

SMH Letters 1 Dec 2008

FoJ final report

Life in the Clickstream: The Future of Journalism Report (http://www.alliance.org.au/)

In a nutshell: the alliance is embracing the new world, recommending training to less tech-savvy reporters.  It tries to be sensitive to the damage being done by online, notably in the integrity of copy and quality of reporting. A few things I found interesting were:

1. A dilemma of sorts: “Some reporters are expected to run opinionated blogs, while writing unbiased news stories on the same subject. This reflects and impacts on journalism standards. Much of the internet material is simply cut and paste rather than real journalism. Reporters do not have enough time to do quality work when their days are divided between supplying newspaper and online copy.” p14

2. The race to the bottom editing model: “Suddenly, you find the day’s paper splash is hardly read; the page-five brief is most popular; the unusual animal story from a country you’ve never heard of gets mega-hits.”
…
“Feedback and data on story popularity let an editor crank up coverage or quickly downscale a story that isn’t working.”p17

Which is to say, popularity rather than substance now shapes journalism. Think Samantha Brett vs Ross Gittins.

3. And this oddity: “Journalists must also develop an extensive repertoire of reporting styles. Blogging requires a first-person approach that journalists may not be training for.” p18

Really? First-person reporting has been around for as long as journalism. It was also what the new journalism of Didion, Capote et al was all about.

YA Future of Journalism summit

Trevor Cook via cover it live. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2008/11/26/future-of-journalism-summit/

Reading through this, looks like old-school journalism needs all the help it can get …

10:03
TrevorCook:  Well here we are at another forum on the future of journalism / media etc
10:04
TrevorCook:  Personally, I’m not convinced that anyone has too much of an idea about what the future might be, how could we when things are changing
10:07
TrevorCook:  Big issue here is about who will fund other people to do journalism; Prof Phil Meyer from North Carolina (on the big screen) reckons maybe charities will do it; some in the audience think public funding here might be the go
10:08
TrevorCook:  Margaret Simon (Crikey) is working on setting up a foundation in a university to fund public, or independent, journalism
10:09
TrevorCook:  Idea is modelled on some american experiments
10:11
TrevorCook:  Meyer also thinks newspapers should focus on local public affairs journalism
10:11
TrevorCook:  Simons also says niche media will replace mass media
10:13
TrevorCook:  Of course, I reckon, it all depends on whether there is a market for it and if entrepreneurs come forward to exploit these opportunities and perhaps there are easier ways to make money
10:14
TrevorCook:  Meyer reckons decline of legacy media and rise of niche media might threaten the consensus that democracy is based on, Simons agrees, I reckon that’s a complete BS argument

Cover It Live replay here

Drudge report – first screen

WTF? This is their idea of above the fold over at the Drudge Report. Kookie.

πρᾱξις vis-a-vis ethics

Aristotle’s activities – theoria, poiesis and praxis.

Theory and Praxis in Aristotle and Heidegger: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Acti/ActiHanl.htm