Melbourne 2030 is a fascinating document with some excellent points and some very poor points.

From what I can gather after taking to people working with it and against it, it appears that it is actually a very thorough and thought out document. The recent criticisms of the document (see link) also seem a little careless to me. From what I can gather, the argument is basically that Melbournians just want urban sprawl. It also struck me as very odd that the opposition’s response was ‘it’s a top-down strategy the people don’t own’. That doesn’t sound very ‘Liberal’ and one only has to think back to Kennet to see why. Again, it seems that the Libs are attacking Labor from the left.

Until now, the criticisms I’ve heard about 2030 have come from the environment movement. That there is an over reliance on freeways and a lack of expansion of the public transport network. While environmental concerns have been taken into account they have not been to the extent that they should have been.

Urban sprawl is an ecological disaster. So for this new report to come out in favour of further urban sprawl and ‘satellite’ cities strikes me as absurd.

The ‘top-down’ criticism also disserves some attention. Val Plumwood (one of Australia’s greatest thinkers) certainly argues that there is a massive need for what she describes as ‘Environmental Culture’. Where as a society we actually internalise environmental issues. This can be achieved through either a top-down or democratically from the bottom up. The latter is far more sustainable so I’d love to see that happen but the reality is that the structures of the society prevent the development of this ‘Environmental Culture’ so structural reform is needed and this largely entails a massive democratisation of the country and for communities to be in control of their own destinies (the two are dependent on each other).

So reluctantly, it seems that at top-down approach in this instance is needed. That said, I would like to see a much greater involvement of environmental groups in the discussion.

I can’t help but feel that if governments start to legislate heavily on environmental issues it will eventually be internalised by the population because we will be forced to think about these issues a lot more. Again, I’m not overly comfortable with this idea but I can see it making a difference and something must be done ASAP.

Please note a few changes on my blog.

Firstly, with what is perhaps an unjustifiable level of guilt, I’ve taken down the Tsunami appeal image and link. This is because, despite the ongoing need for aid, most organisations have now closed or are closing their appeals.

I’ve also rearranged a few links. Polkadotdeath – sorry Rich but you haven’t posted for a very, very long time so you’re out of there. I was really looking forward to your blog but I think you might have forgotten your password or something.

Richard Metzger‘s blog is sadly now gone. I’m a big fan of ‘the wicked warlock’ but three posts just doesn’t cut it.

It would also appear the the Australian Dream journey is over so no more link for you.

Tram Spotting has been enhanced so that it is now two words and has capitals. Really moving up in the world now Alice.

And The Love and the Rough is hanging on my a thread. This is the last chance for you to resurrect your blog Tim. I want stories of surfing on the gold coast and I want them now (neatly tied in to your wonderful little insights into the world around us).

Finally, I’ve added Free as Trees in an attempt to boost the female blog representation following my post on the topic which has gained a little attention from a few female bloggers.

It is concerning that an Evangelist can ‘lure’ so many people to what I would have thought was a pretty boring event – three days worth of Christ.

What is most concerning is that it is estimated that 55% were first timers or recent converts.

Now, I’ve not problem with people believing in God or what have you (clearly I don’t believe myself), but these sorts of gatherings are particularly concerning because of their vehemence and focus on conversions.

Is it just me or are born-agains always the most vehement. They’ve lead a life without god, then discovered god and they are out there to help you discover god because look how far they have come. They also tend to be the more right-wing sort of Christian which is probably the concerning part of Christianity. Let’s not forget that there are some remarkable clergymen out there.

Where does this fit into a global picture? Well globalisation has certainly increased the levels of ‘anomie’ or alienation. So what better way to deal with it than immersing yourself in a culture that is very traditional and anti-globalisation in may senses.

In Jello Biafra’s most recent spoken word show in Melbourne I was altered to the extremely dangerous person that is Paul Wolfowitz. Now it appears that he is head up the World Bank – one of the most dangerous organisations in the world.

AlterNet: Ten Reasons for Too Few Women Bloggers

My two best friends:

..and my bike:

Yay for having web space.

Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice: The revolution may not be televised but it sure as shit is going to be web cast

Exciting times – more to follow very soon.

Right-wing media commentators piss and moan about the ‘left’ or ‘liberal’ dominated press. Conversely the left piss and moan about the right-wing nature of the media.

Clearly I’m slightly left leaning. Because of this my ‘shit-sniffer’ goes off every time I read some right-wing crap and I immediately pull the argument apart in my head. So to me the media seems to have a right-wing bias.

But I think what is important here is to look at the way in which these conclusions are met. I think that with regards to ‘commentators’ – the sorts that have regular opinion pieces in the major papers they are probably reasonably balanced, the difference is that (in Melbourne) the Herald-Sun has a right-wing lean amongst its commentators and that paper has a much wider readership. The popularity of the paper is not a comment on the commentators, just on the more tabloid nature of the paper.

Amongst those in the media that I know, I’d say there is generally a centre-left sort of bias. Perhaps a Labor-party-leaning bias. Certainly there have been a few surveys of late in Australia and the US that have backed this claim up. Incidentally I’d argue that those who are identifying as left-wing are probably more centre-right which is an indication of how right-wing the western world has become but again, that’s another post.

However, this is a myopic analysis in many senses (and not surprisingly the one used by the right). At the end of the day Industry and the Transnational Capitalist Class own the media. They clearly have an agenda which is made very clear to the upper echelons of the media outlets. So editors edit and the overall feel of the outlet becomes a right-wing one. This may be reflected in individual stories, the stories selected for publication or the particular angle that is taken.

Similarly the move to more ‘entertainment’ news is a shift to the right in many senses because it is often both an advertisement for the capitol interests of the owners of the media outlet and it stops people form thinking – a favourite tactic of the right (and left in more totalitarian regimes but let’s not concern ourselves with that at this juncture).

So the media is right-wing in my more ‘systemic’ analysis and this is a very insidious thing.

There seems to be a lot of issues in the media at the moment that are really closely linked but few seem to be drawing on those links.

I was thinking about a post regarding rates and property tax. In some senses, the recent increases in the cost of owning a home has turned into a peculiar class issue. Essentially, working class people are being pushed out of the areas that they have lived in for generations in some cases. This is because their suburb is being ‘gentrified’ and ‘new money’ is moving in. So rates go up sighting an increase in property value and therefore relative prosperity of the residents. Of course we all know that this is not necessarily the case.

In a relatively prosperous country like Australia home ownership has traditionally been an achievable goal. So we are fortunate in Australia that the propertied class is not necessarily the bourgeois. Generally speaking I’m in favour of higher tax rates to people who are better off and on the surface property ownership seems like an appropriate thing to tax (or charge fees as the case may be). But in this particular case it would seem that it is actually damaging the working class – the group that these sorts of fund traditionally help.

In the long term this will create ghettos.

This is linked to issues of interest rates, housing prices, education and training, refugees and migration, taxation, investment in research and development, trade agreements, unemployment, under-employment, industrial relations reforms, child care, paid maternity leave, women’s rights, minimum wage, ‘the aspirationals’, reconciliation, tax free thresholds and much more. I wish I had time to draw them all together but essentially it is about class and increasingly it would seem that a class war is emerging. I can’t help but feel that the recent riots in Sydney, where ghettoisation was a major factor, are at the coal face of this clash.

Thanks for your comment on porn Julie.

I actually don’t think we’re arguing different things here and this emphasises my point that porn is a really emotive issue, one that is really hard to talk about and that it really doesn’t bother me.

Porn is a product of a society that objectifies women. Of course ever where you look people are being objectified and that is not a good thing. Women’s bodies (and men’s to a lesser extent) are being used in advertising and the media everywhere so no wonder our porn is so objectifying. This doesn’t change the fact that porn is objectifying and therefore a negative thing – as are women’s bodies in advertising.

I also completely agree that women’s magazines are far more damaging than porn. They send really confused messages and I’m certain are the cause of far more harm than porn is.

I have never once said that porn is a perversion. It seems this is a point I have to continually make (and another problem with discussing porn). Having a sex drive and liking sex is an awesomely good thing. Lust, raw human emotion, ‘flesh’ are all great. But porn is still a negative thing because of the way it portrays these things. Again, it’s about the motive. So porn can be used by couples to heighten sexual arousal, that’s no more of a problem than using porn for masturbation but it is still problematic. I’m not saying these sorts of activities are not ‘legitimate’, my point is merely that porn has a negative effect overall. Again, it really doesn’t bother me these are just the logical conclusions that I must draw and are based on a series of beliefs of mine – its just a logical conclusion.

And finally, as you say, porn is hardly a healthy way to learn about sex. It is really unfortunate that you learnt like this and clearly this is no defense of porn.

Porn is a personal choice and I’ve never told people they shouldn’t view porn. Unless something is going to physically or mentally harm someone I generally don’t tell them not to do it.