If you want to win lots of international awards and make a name for yourself in the advertising world, there's nothing better than knocking out a quick scam ad. Scam ads are ads designed to be highly provocative, to whip up controversy and to make the authors famous. The problem is, they are also fakes.
Trendy inner city lefties and Greens have now cottoned on to the 'scam ad' trick. Deprived of anything serious to protest about, a trio of frustrated "peace" activists have come up with a brilliant scam ad of their own: joining the Freedom Flotilla 2 for Gaza.
Sylvia Hale, a former Greens member of the NSW Parliament, Vivienne Porzsolt of Jews Against the Occupation, and Michael Coleman, a Catholic youth worker - all clearly suffering from relevance deficit syndrome - are heading off to join a ragbag collection of international publicity-seekers bound for Gaza with the aim of... well, we'll come back to that bit in a sec.
Firstly, this intrepid trio enjoyed a celebratory night of poetry, music, film and hip-hop to draw attention to and raise funds for their heroic venture, followed by a tax-payer funded send-off in the Jubilee Room of Parliament House.
With the blessing of David Shoebridge MLC and the NSW Greens, the three individuals will soon be taking their berths on what can only be described as not only a ship of fools, but a flotilla of them.
Their goal? To provoke an utterly futile and pointless confrontation with the Israeli Defense Forces in order to big-note themselves. With any luck (and I say this not from my point of view, but clearly from theirs) somebody might actually get hurt, or even better, killed.
Why? Because this protest has no logical or intellectual underpinnings. It is a scam. It is designed solely for the purpose of attempting to recreate the outrage that occurred when last year's flotilla was intercepted by the Israelis and, in the presence of breathless reporters like Paul McGeough, a firefight was provoked that resulted in the tragic, awful and pointless death of nine activists.
So, hey, let's do it again and see what happens!
But there's one big difference to last year that the scammers have chosen to overlook, which makes the very premise of Flotilla 2 a fraud. Thanks to the Arab Spring, the Egyptian border with Gaza is now wide open. Any and all legal goods can cross freely. In fact, the main organiser of the new flotilla, IHH Head Bulent Yildirim admitted recently to the Turkish daily Hurriyet that "had they told us before our departure last year that they would (have relaxed the embargo) we wouldn't have gone." And he then went on to explain how the "martyrdom" of last year's activists was justification enough for this years flotilla.
If Vivienne, Sylvia and Michael are genuinely interested in providing goods and services (and comfort) to the beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza all they need do is fly to Cairo, hire a combi from Hertz, fill it up with whatever goodies they want and drive in unimpeded through the Rafah Crossing. As many times as they like. Maybe take in a day trip to the pyramids while they're at it.
But no. The purpose of this venture is a dangerous attempt to drum up notoriety for the individuals involved and to pursue the popular Marrickville pastime known as Jew-baiting (sorry, I mean "protesting against Israeli aggression and Zionist expansion.")
Vivienne claims on facebook that she "adores the process of mediation" because "it is SO positive" and "has no time or inclination for paid employment" because she is too "busy with a range of activities mostly connected with peace and justice in Israel Palestine." Really? Well, she's in for a rude shock if she thinks that the goal of the flotilla is "peaceful", "positive" or involves "mediation." Huwaida Arraf, another of the organizers, gave the game away when he said: "If Israel wants to use force against us and kill people like they did last time, then let that be out there for the whole world to see."
This is a dangerously provocative publicity stunt, pure and simple.
The blockade of Gaza by the IDF for the purposes of preventing weapons and munitions being smuggled ashore is, whether we agree with it or not, entirely legitimate under international law. Hamas, who control Gaza, are in a self-declared state of war with their Jewish neighbours, frequently launching rocket attacks across the border. Israel maintains that as soon as there is a credible system of verifying weapons are not coming in by boat the blockade will be lifted. Pretty straightforward, really. And plenty of room there for Vivienne's "positive mediation." But not good enough, clearly, for those who yearn for drama, violence, and possibly death to spice up their political activism.
The awful truth about the Freedom Flotilla 2 is that it's only worthwhile if it makes international headlines, and it will only make headlines if and when people get hurt.
It is laudable that people donate their time and talents in the hope of helping the Palestinians of the Gaza strip. But in this instance they have been duped. The objective of this exercise is confrontation, not mediation. Violence, not peace. Fame for those on board, not freedom for the Palestinians.
It's a scam.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/fame-not-freedom-is-the-goal-of-the-latest-flotilla-bound-for-gaza-20110621-1gdeo.html
Saturday, 23 July 2011
HOW CAN YOU SPRUIK SOMETHING THAT DOESNT EXIST? (published June 20)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-can-you-spruik-something-that-doesnt-exist-20110620-1gbei.html
Julia Gillard can save herself the $12 million. I’ll write her Carbon Tax ads for her for free. Here’s how they go. Cue suitably sincere, positive-sounding Voice Over: “The Carbon Tax not only offers a better future for the Planet, but also offers a better future for us all. Most of us will be financially better off. Businesses will be compensated, along with hard-pressed families. Dirty, filthy polluting industries will disappear, while a vast array of wonderful, new environmentally clean industries will now have the necessary funding to flourish. New jobs will be born, as we enter a clean, happy, financially secure new world. The Carbon Tax. A better future for us all.”
The visuals will feature very real people, although they will be actors, but hopefully ones you don’t recognize from other ads. There’s nothing worse than seeing an attractive young woman (representing our future) living in a bright, carbon-free world and then suddenly popping up with a heavy period or irritable bowel syndrome in the next ad break. The scenarios will also look desperately authentic, although not too down-market. Striking the right balance between depicting people who are ‘poor’, but not making them look like total povos, is something we will have to keep our eye on.
But one thing we all agree on. NO FAMOUS NAMES. We don’t want a repeat of the Cate and Michael drama.
Finding a few familiar renewable schemes – windmills, solar panels and so on – will be important, although we might give Kevin’s roof insulation fiasco the big miss.
Instead, we’ll have lots of fun showing the jobs that will be created in the future by the proceeds of the Carbon Tax, because they don’t actually exist yet, so we pretty much have creative licence to show whatever we want.
And therein lies the problem.
I’m sorry, Julia, but I have to come clean. Our ad campaign ain’t gonna work.
Why? Because you can’t advertise the benefits of something that doesn’t exist. Imagine if McDonalds were to come out with an amazing ad all about their new, healthy, fat-free, cheap-as-chips, awesome-tasting burger and then when everyone was salivating like crazy they admitted that the kitchen was still working on the recipe. Not only would they would be in breach of every piece of legislation regarding the advertising code and ethics, but quite rightly they would be the laughing stock of the fast food industry.
The Carbon Tax ads will be every bit as dishonest and deceitful. The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has yet to reach a consensus on the specifics of the tax. Without the details, the intentions are meaningless.
The brutal truth is that if you have to rely on advertising to persuade the public at this stage in the game, you’ve already lost the argument. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the government’s announcement that they have awarded $12 million to an advertising agency to spruik the not-yet-finalised Carbon Tax. It’s a desperate NSW Labor style attempt to dress up pure spin as legitimate advertising.
Tony Windsor was quick to bell the cat. Displaying a praiseworthy (and hitherto well-camouflaged) sense of propriety on this subject, the member for New England very accurately labeled the decision as unacceptably “spending public funds for the purposes of propaganda.” Rob Oakeshott, (also displaying the equally hitherto unseen qualities of brevity and conciseness), cut to the chase: “This is a dumb.”
Governments love advertising. But the justification has always – rightly – been about the necessity to inform the public on the minutiae of policy outcomes; in other words, letting people know specifically how certain projects or laws apply to their particular circumstances. This is the only acceptable criteria for government (as opposed to party political) advertising. There is no point passing complex legislation that people either don’t understand, or aren’t even aware of. Whether it be the ill-fated Workchoices campaign, the more successful GST ads, campaigns about government rebates, tax concessions or whatever other legislation has passed through parliament, advertising is a worthwhile tool for imparting the right degree of information in a palatable format. Of course, the rules have been cynically bent over the years, by all governments, so that a political (or persuasive) narrative is allowed to creep in, blurring the lines between what is partisan political ideology and what is practical, objective information.
The worst offenders have been, thus far, the former NSW government. Two years ago, before they had even put a shovel to the bitumen, they were busy asking half the advertising agencies in Sydney (mine included) to pitch on a campaign to sell the wonders of their new multi-billion dollar Metro. Selling its benefits before it evn existed. Sound familiar?
Describing in advertising terms why the consumer needs such-and-such a new tax, or law, or rebate is where that threshold from advertising to propaganda is crossed. The ‘why’ is the job of the politicians, and to a lesser extent, of the media, to convince you of. The ‘how, what, when and where’ is the legitimate job of government advertising.
Party political advertising, on the other hand, is entirely about the “why” and to a lesser degree the ‘what’. It is about forging an emotional connection to a candidate or a party, based on shared values and a vision for the future. “Kevin 07” was a marvelous piece of advertising because, much like Gough’s “it’s time” campaign, it captured a sense of the excitement and optimistic mood of the nation.
And this is what, inevitably, the Carbon Tax ads will attempt to be. They will seek to persuade the consumer why a Carbon Tax is a good thing, rather than how a Carbon Tax will work. Naturally, the ad agency will go out of their way to dress up an overtly political message as an informational one, but in doing so they will fall into the trap that successive New South Wales government campaigns repeatedly embraced. An emotional, feel-good message that unacceptably crosses the line from governmental information to political spin.
Julia Gillard can save herself the $12 million. I’ll write her Carbon Tax ads for her for free. Here’s how they go. Cue suitably sincere, positive-sounding Voice Over: “The Carbon Tax not only offers a better future for the Planet, but also offers a better future for us all. Most of us will be financially better off. Businesses will be compensated, along with hard-pressed families. Dirty, filthy polluting industries will disappear, while a vast array of wonderful, new environmentally clean industries will now have the necessary funding to flourish. New jobs will be born, as we enter a clean, happy, financially secure new world. The Carbon Tax. A better future for us all.”
The visuals will feature very real people, although they will be actors, but hopefully ones you don’t recognize from other ads. There’s nothing worse than seeing an attractive young woman (representing our future) living in a bright, carbon-free world and then suddenly popping up with a heavy period or irritable bowel syndrome in the next ad break. The scenarios will also look desperately authentic, although not too down-market. Striking the right balance between depicting people who are ‘poor’, but not making them look like total povos, is something we will have to keep our eye on.
But one thing we all agree on. NO FAMOUS NAMES. We don’t want a repeat of the Cate and Michael drama.
Finding a few familiar renewable schemes – windmills, solar panels and so on – will be important, although we might give Kevin’s roof insulation fiasco the big miss.
Instead, we’ll have lots of fun showing the jobs that will be created in the future by the proceeds of the Carbon Tax, because they don’t actually exist yet, so we pretty much have creative licence to show whatever we want.
And therein lies the problem.
I’m sorry, Julia, but I have to come clean. Our ad campaign ain’t gonna work.
Why? Because you can’t advertise the benefits of something that doesn’t exist. Imagine if McDonalds were to come out with an amazing ad all about their new, healthy, fat-free, cheap-as-chips, awesome-tasting burger and then when everyone was salivating like crazy they admitted that the kitchen was still working on the recipe. Not only would they would be in breach of every piece of legislation regarding the advertising code and ethics, but quite rightly they would be the laughing stock of the fast food industry.
The Carbon Tax ads will be every bit as dishonest and deceitful. The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has yet to reach a consensus on the specifics of the tax. Without the details, the intentions are meaningless.
The brutal truth is that if you have to rely on advertising to persuade the public at this stage in the game, you’ve already lost the argument. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the government’s announcement that they have awarded $12 million to an advertising agency to spruik the not-yet-finalised Carbon Tax. It’s a desperate NSW Labor style attempt to dress up pure spin as legitimate advertising.
Tony Windsor was quick to bell the cat. Displaying a praiseworthy (and hitherto well-camouflaged) sense of propriety on this subject, the member for New England very accurately labeled the decision as unacceptably “spending public funds for the purposes of propaganda.” Rob Oakeshott, (also displaying the equally hitherto unseen qualities of brevity and conciseness), cut to the chase: “This is a dumb.”
Governments love advertising. But the justification has always – rightly – been about the necessity to inform the public on the minutiae of policy outcomes; in other words, letting people know specifically how certain projects or laws apply to their particular circumstances. This is the only acceptable criteria for government (as opposed to party political) advertising. There is no point passing complex legislation that people either don’t understand, or aren’t even aware of. Whether it be the ill-fated Workchoices campaign, the more successful GST ads, campaigns about government rebates, tax concessions or whatever other legislation has passed through parliament, advertising is a worthwhile tool for imparting the right degree of information in a palatable format. Of course, the rules have been cynically bent over the years, by all governments, so that a political (or persuasive) narrative is allowed to creep in, blurring the lines between what is partisan political ideology and what is practical, objective information.
The worst offenders have been, thus far, the former NSW government. Two years ago, before they had even put a shovel to the bitumen, they were busy asking half the advertising agencies in Sydney (mine included) to pitch on a campaign to sell the wonders of their new multi-billion dollar Metro. Selling its benefits before it evn existed. Sound familiar?
Describing in advertising terms why the consumer needs such-and-such a new tax, or law, or rebate is where that threshold from advertising to propaganda is crossed. The ‘why’ is the job of the politicians, and to a lesser extent, of the media, to convince you of. The ‘how, what, when and where’ is the legitimate job of government advertising.
Party political advertising, on the other hand, is entirely about the “why” and to a lesser degree the ‘what’. It is about forging an emotional connection to a candidate or a party, based on shared values and a vision for the future. “Kevin 07” was a marvelous piece of advertising because, much like Gough’s “it’s time” campaign, it captured a sense of the excitement and optimistic mood of the nation.
And this is what, inevitably, the Carbon Tax ads will attempt to be. They will seek to persuade the consumer why a Carbon Tax is a good thing, rather than how a Carbon Tax will work. Naturally, the ad agency will go out of their way to dress up an overtly political message as an informational one, but in doing so they will fall into the trap that successive New South Wales government campaigns repeatedly embraced. An emotional, feel-good message that unacceptably crosses the line from governmental information to political spin.
Friday, 22 July 2011
POLISHING THE CARBON TAX
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7114733/polishing-the-carbon-tax.thtml
So that's what it all boils down to, then. Jobs for people building wind farms and installing solar panels. Phew. For a moment there I thought we were going to start saving polar bears again.
The government's ad agency, apart from happily trousering $12 million, have been quick to recognize that hyperbole, pontificating celebrities and overblown promises do not cut it with the average battler. What turns Aussies on is jobs - and lots of them. Preferably for themselves.
So this week, with the help of the un-scripted testimonials and musings of "real" working Australians, we finally get an advertising campaign that does what advertising does best - cunningly matches a potential benefit of the product to the consumer's self-interest. A unique selling proposition designed to have broad appeal.
This is the third and final proposition with which the government or its proxies have tried to persuade a bored and cynical audience, who long ago made up their minds on the issue and have now switched off, to buy their whiffy Carbon Tax plan. First we were told that "millions would be better off", but nobody really bought that line, so Greg Combet dropped it faster than a hot chunk of coal. Next thing you know, up popped Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton hectoring us to "do something positive" about climate change, but the premises they relied upon were as flimsy and wonky as the cardboard cut-out sets they'd built. Viewers looked away in embarrassment.
So now we get the truth - or rather, a highly varnished version of it.
The real winners from this whole kerfuffle are those who work in renewable energies. Bingo! If you happen to have a job building wind farms or installing solar panels, the future looks pretty rosy. Because we are certainly going to need an awful lot of them if we're to have any hope of turning off the coal powered generators that our jobs, lives and economy all rely upon.
If you happen to work in practically any other industry, particularly ones that rely upon cheap energy, you're pretty much buggered, however. Needless to say, the ads conveniently skip over this tiny detail. We can presume it wasn't part of "the brief."
Forget about receding shorelines, melting glaciers, dead starfish, flatulent wildlife and all the rest of it. The public fully understand that moving longterm to sustainable energy is "a good thing." That's a no-brainer. What makes them suspicious or distrustful of the Carbon Tax is the quasi-religious, holier-than-thou preachings of the climate change "believers" and their guilt-laden doomsday prophesies. Oh, and they're also not crazy about pollies who say one thing before an election and the opposite afterwards.
The advertising agency who won this account knew that they'd been handed a stinker. The opinion polls already told them that. But their planners and creatives have done a great job of, as they say in the industry, "polishing a turd." Soft, reassuring music. Beautiful lighting and photography. Gorgeous landscapes and visuals. Clouds racing by over a beautiful sunrise. Reasonable, down-to-earth characters. Everyday Aussies, in fact, talking about their everyday jobs, in typical everyday Aussie cities and towns. What's to argue with?
Well, quite a bit actually.
“For a long time coal will remain a significant proportion of our (energy) generation," proclaims Miles George, the everyday Managing Director of Infigen Energy, in his everyday leather jacket. Hang on. "For a long time"? How long? Years? Decades? And what is "a significant proportion"? 50%? 70%? I thought the whole point of the Carbon Tax was to get rid of the bloody stuff altogether.
“Putting a turbine up in the air and letting wind give us power has to be a better option," says Wendy Moloney, another everyday Aussie woman who also happens to work for, er, Infigen Energy. Are you sure, Wendy? Go to Europe and you'll find wind farms are hugely controversial, with farmers, nature lovers and whole communities actively protesting against their noise, visual pollution, exorbitant running costs and inefficiencies in supplying energy when and where it is actually needed.
“Other countries around the world are... building huge industries, and those jobs could just as well be here," opines Lyndon Frearson, the everyday General Manager of CAT Projects, a firm who, incidentally, are currently hiring more staff. All very well, but as Lyndon (whose firm fit solar panels to beach resorts and the like) makes this laudable claim the ad shows a gigantic hydro-electric dam under construction. Are we suddenly about to start building more dams? Has anyone told Bob Brown?
“We see the amount of money that Germany’s thrown towards research and development of solar power… and they’ve got stuff all sun!” exclaims uber-ocker Rede Ogden, who looks and talks like he's in a meat pie ad but in fact, along with his wife Renee (the ad agency must have cracked open the bubbly when they found these two) owns a solar panel installation company. He's right, though. Countries all over the world have thrown an awful lot of money at renewables, but they still only account for a fraction of energy output.
So they're going to need to throw a lot more. Their ludicrous, legislated emissions reduction targets demand it, much to the chagrin of those long-suffering households who have to pick up the ever-increasing bill each month.
“Internationally the investment in clean energy is rivalling fossil energy today.” boasts everyday Aussie Seb Henbest, who happens to work for, um, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Yep. Again, he's right. There's big bucks to be made out of renewables. For Seb in particular.
Which is why, uncannily, the Carbon Tax ads look more like corporate recruitment ads for the renewable energy industries than a plausible justification for this hefty new tax.
Might be time to think about switching jobs.
So that's what it all boils down to, then. Jobs for people building wind farms and installing solar panels. Phew. For a moment there I thought we were going to start saving polar bears again.
The government's ad agency, apart from happily trousering $12 million, have been quick to recognize that hyperbole, pontificating celebrities and overblown promises do not cut it with the average battler. What turns Aussies on is jobs - and lots of them. Preferably for themselves.
So this week, with the help of the un-scripted testimonials and musings of "real" working Australians, we finally get an advertising campaign that does what advertising does best - cunningly matches a potential benefit of the product to the consumer's self-interest. A unique selling proposition designed to have broad appeal.
This is the third and final proposition with which the government or its proxies have tried to persuade a bored and cynical audience, who long ago made up their minds on the issue and have now switched off, to buy their whiffy Carbon Tax plan. First we were told that "millions would be better off", but nobody really bought that line, so Greg Combet dropped it faster than a hot chunk of coal. Next thing you know, up popped Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton hectoring us to "do something positive" about climate change, but the premises they relied upon were as flimsy and wonky as the cardboard cut-out sets they'd built. Viewers looked away in embarrassment.
So now we get the truth - or rather, a highly varnished version of it.
The real winners from this whole kerfuffle are those who work in renewable energies. Bingo! If you happen to have a job building wind farms or installing solar panels, the future looks pretty rosy. Because we are certainly going to need an awful lot of them if we're to have any hope of turning off the coal powered generators that our jobs, lives and economy all rely upon.
If you happen to work in practically any other industry, particularly ones that rely upon cheap energy, you're pretty much buggered, however. Needless to say, the ads conveniently skip over this tiny detail. We can presume it wasn't part of "the brief."
Forget about receding shorelines, melting glaciers, dead starfish, flatulent wildlife and all the rest of it. The public fully understand that moving longterm to sustainable energy is "a good thing." That's a no-brainer. What makes them suspicious or distrustful of the Carbon Tax is the quasi-religious, holier-than-thou preachings of the climate change "believers" and their guilt-laden doomsday prophesies. Oh, and they're also not crazy about pollies who say one thing before an election and the opposite afterwards.
The advertising agency who won this account knew that they'd been handed a stinker. The opinion polls already told them that. But their planners and creatives have done a great job of, as they say in the industry, "polishing a turd." Soft, reassuring music. Beautiful lighting and photography. Gorgeous landscapes and visuals. Clouds racing by over a beautiful sunrise. Reasonable, down-to-earth characters. Everyday Aussies, in fact, talking about their everyday jobs, in typical everyday Aussie cities and towns. What's to argue with?
Well, quite a bit actually.
“For a long time coal will remain a significant proportion of our (energy) generation," proclaims Miles George, the everyday Managing Director of Infigen Energy, in his everyday leather jacket. Hang on. "For a long time"? How long? Years? Decades? And what is "a significant proportion"? 50%? 70%? I thought the whole point of the Carbon Tax was to get rid of the bloody stuff altogether.
“Putting a turbine up in the air and letting wind give us power has to be a better option," says Wendy Moloney, another everyday Aussie woman who also happens to work for, er, Infigen Energy. Are you sure, Wendy? Go to Europe and you'll find wind farms are hugely controversial, with farmers, nature lovers and whole communities actively protesting against their noise, visual pollution, exorbitant running costs and inefficiencies in supplying energy when and where it is actually needed.
“Other countries around the world are... building huge industries, and those jobs could just as well be here," opines Lyndon Frearson, the everyday General Manager of CAT Projects, a firm who, incidentally, are currently hiring more staff. All very well, but as Lyndon (whose firm fit solar panels to beach resorts and the like) makes this laudable claim the ad shows a gigantic hydro-electric dam under construction. Are we suddenly about to start building more dams? Has anyone told Bob Brown?
“We see the amount of money that Germany’s thrown towards research and development of solar power… and they’ve got stuff all sun!” exclaims uber-ocker Rede Ogden, who looks and talks like he's in a meat pie ad but in fact, along with his wife Renee (the ad agency must have cracked open the bubbly when they found these two) owns a solar panel installation company. He's right, though. Countries all over the world have thrown an awful lot of money at renewables, but they still only account for a fraction of energy output.
So they're going to need to throw a lot more. Their ludicrous, legislated emissions reduction targets demand it, much to the chagrin of those long-suffering households who have to pick up the ever-increasing bill each month.
“Internationally the investment in clean energy is rivalling fossil energy today.” boasts everyday Aussie Seb Henbest, who happens to work for, um, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Yep. Again, he's right. There's big bucks to be made out of renewables. For Seb in particular.
Which is why, uncannily, the Carbon Tax ads look more like corporate recruitment ads for the renewable energy industries than a plausible justification for this hefty new tax.
Might be time to think about switching jobs.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
SUPPING WITH THE DEVIL (THE HANGOVER)
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2792996.html
And so it begins. "Voluntary labels" mentioning ill-defined health risks, the inevitable harder-hitting government warnings lurking in the wings, and before too long the cry goes up for plain packaging legislation. Of bottles of booze.
Hilariously, the DrinkWise body who this week announced the new industry labeling campaign for alcohol products claim their intent is to start a "national conversation" about the negative effects of excessive consumption. I can save them the bother. The conversation already takes place every Saturday and Sunday morning in bedrooms and kitchens across the land and goes something like this: "That's it! Never again! I'm never touching another bloody drop." Unlike tobacco, where the health risks can take years to manifest themselves, alcohol comes with its own in-built gauge and warning system letting you know that over-indulgence isn't such a flash idea. It's called a hangover. It's so popular as a concept that it's even spawned a couple of Hollywood blockbusters and last month's highest grossing flick.
Vomiting, migraines, memory loss, aching kidneys, blurry vision, dry throats and desperate feelings of remorse are, apparently, insufficient roadblocks to convince us to slow down on the grog. What we really need, we now learn, is a bunch of oblique and idiotic phrases cluttering the familiar brand designs of our favourite tipple followed by a "national conversation" to persuade us to amend our wicked ways.
Um, I think perhaps someone is having themselves on. DrinkWise chief Trish Worth, perhaps, who maintains that "Our aim is generational change in Australia to a culture where consuming alcohol too young; and to excess is undesired. We aim to prepare parents to engage in discussions on alcohol with their kids, on the basis that this can make a difference." Really? With such limp and self-evident phrases as "Kids and Alcohol Don't Mix," ''It is Safest Not to Drink While Pregnant," and "Is Your Drinking Harming Yourself or Others?" to show for their earnest efforts, I'm not convinced Trish is being totally straight with us.
Does she seriously believe that a phrase such as "It is Safest Not to Drink While Pregnant" - which is about as earth-shattering as proclaiming that "it is safest not to cross the road blindfolded when there is a lot of traffic about" - is of any genuine social value whatsoever?
More likely, the DrinkWise campaign is a desperate (and probably forlorn) attempt by the alcohol industry to stave off this government's relentless desire to interfere in the legitimate marketing of legal products and brands. The hope is, presumably, that by doing something visible and newsworthy they can pre-empt the push by those keen to see our nanny state switch its insidious gaze back onto booze.
And meanwhile the art directors, designers, new product development teams and advertising, promotions and marketing managers are desperately looking at new and inventive ways to "appeal to a younger target demographic" in order to guarantee the longevity of their brands. Nearly all the recent innovations within the industry, from alcopops, rock festival sponsorship campaigns, packaging and so on, have been directed to this end.
And why shouldn't they be? As a society we enjoy alcohol, in all its many-splendoured varieties. The products are legal. We have a legally-enforced drinking age. The brands can only exist in the range and quality that we desire if people support them in the marketplace. We have laws aplenty regarding the sale of alcohol to minors and to those who are intoxicated. Advertising and marketing regulations (quite rightly) are designed to strike - as best as they can - a reasonable balance between romanticizing the products and not advocating excessive or inappropriate use. Some of them clearly are a bit weird. For example, even an extra in an alcohol ad has to be legally over the spurious age of 25.
So where next? Having claimed that her platitudes will do some good, Trish and her cohorts will have no choice other than bowing to the increasingly hysterical demands of the wowser lobby. Soon our bottles of Grange will be adorned with graphic depictions of cirrhotic livers, our tinnies of Fosters festooned with bleeding varices.
We have more than enough rules, regulations and warnings to spark a "national conversation" if such a conversation is a) achievable and b) useful. The health problems of alcohol are unlikely to be addressed through a few non-committal, bland and cloying platitudes slapped onto the side of a pack. The alcohol industry is supping with the devil by pretending that they can.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
CAMELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7032873/shelter-from-the-desert-wind.thtml
Finally, some common sense is being injected into the climate change debate. For too long, discussion has become bogged down in the existential and arcane intricacies of the Carbon Tax conundrum (how many compensated pensioners can you fit on the head of a pin, how do you change peoples behavior without, um, changing their behavior, and so on) whilst ignoring the very real threat to our atmosphere lurking insidiously in our own backyard.
I refer of course to the belching, farting camel.
Camels are one of our biggest carbon emitters. As far as bad guys go, they are right up there with BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata. Shivering in their under-heated, solar-paneled, pink-batted homes frantically fitting energy saving light bulbs and recycling their milk cartons, your average Aussie battler is woefully ignorant of the fact that a large part of their suffering is due to the thoughtless, selfish, dastardly lifestyle of the Outback Camel.
Roving unchecked across our sunburnt landscape, these burping, farting, native-vegetation guzzling grass munchers are emitting - as was reported in The Australian on Thursday - "the same amount of carbon dioxide produced by a plane on a 7000km flight." Each and every one of them. Every year. And there’s over a million of the buggers scattered across our vast continent. That’s an awful lot of carbon dioxide.
But before you leap out of your seat in self-righteous indignation and climate change induced rage, relax: help is now at hand.
Dr Tim Moore of Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, has cracked it. His brilliant proposal will see this life-threatening hazard tackled with environmental zeal and Kyoto-style efficiency. Currently under review by the government’s Domestic Offset Integrity Committee, with the blessing of Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus, Dr Moore ‘s scheme combines the incentive structure of a “carbon credit swap” with the 19th century economic model known as “scalp-hunting.”
Dr Moore recommends an airborne assault on the camel population of Australia. For every camel you kill you get a credit for a tonne of carbon.
Dr Moore and his crack team will soon be swooping down out of the clear blue Kimberley skies in a fleet of specially equipped helicopters. I might like to suggest that he exclusively employ returned Afghan servicemen, who at least should be able to spot the difference between a camel (the one with the lumpy bits) and say, a large red kangaroo or a water buffalo. I trust, too, that the marksmen will be specially trained to deliver the coup de grace (or should that be coup de grass?) as humanely as possible. No Indonesians need apply, thank you.
Gaia, I'm sure, will sigh with relief.
But Dr Moore isn’t just a one-trick pony. Another proposal, also under his Carbon Farming Initiative, will see the inoculation of cattle to stop them burping.
About time, too. And a belated breath of fresh air in the vexed greenhouse emissions quandry. Perhaps, after all, Labor can afford to jettison the blighted Carbon Tax altogether. Let’s face it, it’s been a dog of an idea from day one. There isn’t a politician on either side of the debate who hasn’t rued the day he or she first mentioned the cursed thing, having in the past been caught on tape saying the complete opposite of what they now profess to believe in.
Julia can afford to get rid of it. Because the common sense way forward is now clear.
Why stop at camels? Surely we should be targeting all those creatures who wantonly emit the most carbon dioxide and are thereby deliberately threatening life on earth as we know it? We need to do away with them as rapidly as possible. For the sake of the planet.
We can start with people who shop at Hungry Jacks. According to figures released last week by consumer watchdog Choice, their Ultimate Double Whopper packs 80g of fat, 2386mg of sodium and 5085 kilojoules, and is "the most unhealthy option in a sample of major outlets." I cant say precisely how much carbon dioxide your average Ultimate Double Whopper consumer emits post degustation, but I bet it would make even the most hardened camel sit up and blush. I'm glad I'm not the one who will have to do the “emissions-measuring” that’s for sure. Perhaps Tony Windsor or Rob Oakeshott could help out. Because if Greg Combet and his Multi Party Climate Change Committee are serious about making a difference to global warming, they should award each and every one of us our own Domestic Offset Integrity Value. After that, it's up to us. Overdo it on the brussel sprouts and roast parsnips at Gran's Sunday roast and you may well wake up the next morning to the ominous sounds of Dr Moore's black chinooks circling overhead.
Pubs, too, could offer abundant opportunities to reduce emissions. Pew Environment Group spokesman Barry Traill claims that “when feral animals belch they release methane, a particularly noxious greenhouse gas.” You only need to spend a Friday afternoon at The Oaks to know that. There are certainly plenty of ferals at most of the pubs I drink in, and I think removing them from our lives altogether in the name of saving the planet is a fab idea. Win win.
The government could even introduce a Dob-in-an-Emitter scheme. That greasy bogan squashed next to you on the bus who just let one rip? Take a snapshot of him on your iPhone and sms it to 1300 CARBONFARTER. If he's a repeat offender then, like the outback camel, an eager carbon offset hunter will quickly make sure he’s history.
Hopefully then the planet – and the rest of us - will all be able to breathe a little easier.
Copyright Rowan Dean 2011
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
TROLLS TOADS AND CLIMATE CHANGE MONSTERS
http://t.co/atYet52
WHEN you've run out of positive things to say in advertising, the easiest trick is to make up a monster. The uglier and more repulsive the better.
Think of toilet cleaning ads. Take those imaginary, microscopic, horrible, slimy things that make guttural noises and squirm disgustingly as they salivate over your ceramic bowl.
Animation and special effects studios have a lot of fun designing and creating these grotesque visual metaphors with which to terrify the consumer, to the delight of advertising executives and their clients alike. Ugly monsters allow you to avoid having to spell out your own positive selling points, if indeed you have any.
It would appear the advocates of the carbon tax have cottoned on to this trick. Through a relentless and combined effort they have created their very own grotesque creature to terrify us. The hideous "climate change denier" is as ugly and repulsive as any toilet germ gremlin.
The climate change denier has become the Left's favourite bogeyman, pursued with all the zeal of a witch hunt in 17th century Salem. Stupid, vain, ugly and mendacious, the climate change denier monster is anyone who questions any or all aspects of the anthropogenic global warming theory and rejects the urgent requirement of a carbon tax/ETS. This repugnant creature lurks in your neighbourhood and threatens life on earth as we know it.
"The agents of ... planetary death will be the climate change deniers," asserted The Sydney Morning Herald columnist and ABC presenter Richard Glover recently. What, even more so than say, viral mutations, nuclear war, poverty, over-population, peak oil or even the odd asteroid? Yep. And so dangerous are these critters that Glover helpfully suggested "Surely it's time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies" before being "lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling ... their mouths will be above water." After this piece attracted a great deal of unwelcome attention Glover apologised and pointed out the obvious; he was only joking.
But the joke's wearing a bit thin. Only weeks earlier Glover had had another stab at humorously depicting so-called climate change deniers, eagerly conflating them with the "trolls" who clutter the internet. I'm sure former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson would be flattered to know that Glover, in effect, deems him and his opinions to be of no more consequence than an "idiot who should be corralled".
And is it honestly the case that the likes of Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service in Britain who has demanded that his government stop terrifying the public about climate change, have their "heads in the sand and their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world"?
And is the physicist William Happer of Princeton University, who claims it is far from clear there is any real threat from global warming - let alone a catastrophic one - really just another creature from "a septic tank teeming with snapping trolls?"
Elizabeth Farrelly, also of the Herald, decided that rather than creating her own monster to terrify us with, she would borrow an existing one. Not even the best animation studios have managed to come up with anything as slimy, evil and repugnant as our very own cane toad.
With the Herald's cartoonist on hand to make sure you were suitably repulsed, Farrelly applied the metaphor to 2GB's Alan Jones. Bemoaning the fact that Australia's highest rating broadcaster was "poisoning the logic well", "lowbrow", and will "irreparably harm our civilisation, as well as our climate," she chose to dismiss out of hand the points he was making about a) Julia Gillard having lied to the electorate about imposing a carbon tax and b) the nation's ability to have any measurable effect (negative or positive) on the world's climate.
Instead, we were treated to: "[Shock jocks] are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms." There's that planetary death threat again. If only Glover and Farrelly had some Toilet Troll handy. It kills 99.9 per cent of all known climate change deniers.
Farrelly then gave us an accurate, but ironic, lecture on "dishonest tricks in argument, including caricature, anecdote and non sequitur" seemingly unaware that these are the precise tactics she and her fellow climate change denier demonisers (there! I've just created my own monster!) repeatedly use to demean anyone who happens to disagree with their point of view.
Mike Carlton (also of the Herald, is there a pattern developing here?) is also a dab hand at scaring the kiddies. When George Pell had the temerity to question the climate change orthodoxy, Carlton was ready with the ugly imagery: "Pull out a few fingernails, stretch him on the rack, a bit of how's-yer-father with a red hot poker." Carlton was trying to paint a picture of the medieval religious mind-set, but you couldn't help but get the impression he wouldn't mind wielding the red hot poker himself. Particularly if any of the following monstrous individuals had been splayed out on the rack:
"The third lot of climate denial ratbags are those tabloid media pundits cynically banging the populist drum to drag in the hordes of bogan nongs out there.
"These are people who believe they are beset by a cabal of lefties, Greenies, gays, femi-Nazis, Muslims, venal and incompetent public servants and latte-sipping intellectuals conspiring to deprive them of all they hold dear, like their inalienable right to own a jet-ski and to name their children Breeyanna and Jaxxon."
That's a lot of condescension and hate to pack into one paragraph. These wouldn't be those same people out in the western suburbs who are now lumbered with exorbitant electricity bills because of feel-good renewable schemes that, according to the Productivity Commission report, were ineffectual at best?
And let's not forget "the usual talkback shock jocks going feral and Rupert's opinionators lunging like a shoal of piranha" which, I suppose, is as good a way as any to avoid responding to those who dared question the credibility of Cate Blanchett (Hollywood millionairess) fronting Get Up's carbon tax ads (say yes to the poor being better off.) Is it possible for this debate to be conducted on the strength of the arguments alone? Or, like the toilet cleaning ads, do we have to create monsters in order to build our case?
By all means, counter every argument the climate change deniers, sceptics, carbon tax opponents and the rest put forward, and attack their opinions with passion and verve, or even better, with proven facts and irrefutable rebuttals.
But hysterically and repeatedly portraying them as ugly, stupid trolls, toads and ferals threatening life on earth as we know it, is intellectually (and morally) dubious at best.
Worthy of a toilet cleaning ad, perhaps. But not worthy of the future economic and environmental health of our country.
Monday, 6 June 2011
SERGEANT PEPPER AND THE SIX DAY WAR
http://tiny.cc/hbanv
In light of the brutal torture and mutilation of 13 year old Hamza al-Khatib in Syria, is it time to admit that the Arab Spring will never lead to an Arab Summer of Love?
Barack Obama’s optimistic vision for the Middle East – as outlined in his speech “A Moment of Opportunity” that he delivered at the State department on May 19 - rests on two gargantuan pillars of optimism and naivety. Firstly, the assumption that the Arab Spring will herald in a new dawn of democracy and the rule of law. Secondly, that the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved by a return to the 1967 borders.
Both these assumptions can be summed up as the beginning of an Arab Summer of Love.
The western world’s Summer of Love began on June 1st, 1967 with the release of the Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Switching on their radios from Los Angeles to London, millions of excited fans were seduced by the mesmerizing harmonies of the fab four proclaiming: “With our love, with our love we can save the world.”
June 1st 1967 also saw millions of Arabs from Bagdad to Beiruit switching on their radios to hear the mesmerizing incantations of Iraqi president Abdel Rahman Aref proclaiming: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity… to wipe Israel off the map."
Aref wasn’t alone. With a little help from his friends in Egypt, Syria and Jordan he looked forward to seeing his particular dream about to become a reality. As troops massed along the Israeli borders, and mobilized for war, the hatred and rhetoric intensified. Ahmed Shukairy, chairman of the PLO didn't mince his words when asked in a news interview what might happen to the Israelis if there were to be a war: “Those who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive."
Barack Obama celebrated the Arab Spring by calling for Israel to return to her 1967 borders – the borders of the Summer of Love. Obama’s career has flourished due to bouts of unsupported and unrealized idealism. “Yes we can.” Like a good child of the sixties, he was quick to equate the tragedy of the self-immolating Tunisian street vendor Mohammed Bouazizi with the actions of civil rights heroine Rosa Parks. Obama, more than any President since Kennedy, knows how to hit the right emotional buttons. A master orator, his words and verbal flourishes inspire a fervent belief that change is possible if only you want it badly enough.
Prime Minister ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu is a pragmatist who saw his own brother killed in a hostage rescue. He rejected Obama’s idea outright. “No we can’t.” He, more than any Israeli Prime Minister since Menachem Begin, does not trust words, only actions.
Ironically, the year 1967 is the perfect metaphor for both the most naive political aspirations of the West, which are now being repeated with our optimistic belief that a new Arab world is dawning, as well as the most lethal political realities of the Middle East, where one side seeks the outright obliteration of another.
The Summer of Love saw the flowering of a Western political mindset that led to a retreat from an unpopular war in Vietnam, an entente with communism, and a refusal to interfere in the invasion and occupation of Eastern Europe. The philosophy of All You Need Is Love spread its tentacles throughout the universities of Europe, America and Australia, where a new generation of political aspirants were learning their craft in campus political societies. Peace was a state of mind. Peace was a way of life. Peace was a song and a slogan. It was two fingers in the air, rather than something you had to fight and possibly die for.
Lying in a bed with his Japanese girlfriend by his side, a guitar and a bag of acorns, John Lennon redefined a new political strategy. Give Peace a Chance. The belief that pacifism of and by itself could prevent war.
During the lead up to the Six Day War in June ‘67, the stated goal of numerous Arab nations was the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish race. To this day, echoes of that intent remain, lurking in Hamas's charter and much of the propaganda foisted by their rulers onto impressionable young Arab minds. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, putting the finishing touches to his nuclear arsenal, often repeats his desire for Israel to be engulfed in a sea of flames.
We preach love and peace in the West, as much today as we did in the sixties. And sometimes our glasses are even more rose-tinted than they were back then. Barack Obama’s faith in the Arab Spring and starry-eyed vision for peace in the region will probably remain as elusive a fantasy as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Parts of Obama’s speech, praising the recent events in the Middle East, read like lyrics from the hit parade of 1967:
“A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "It's like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time."
In Sanaa we heard the students who chanted, "The night must come to an end."
In Benghazi we heard the engineer who said, "Our words are free now. It's a feeling you can't explain."
In Damascus we heard the young man who said, "After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity."
Bob Dylan couldn’t have made it sound more poetic, but Syrian schoolboy Hamza al-Khatib would probably beg to differ. If the 13 year old were still alive. Reports suggest that because he dared attend a protest against the Syrian regime, the teenager had his genitals cut off before (or hopefully after) being shot to death. Even younger, an11-year-old girl, Malak Munir al-Qaddah, was also reportedly killed in the southern town of Hirak.
Human rights groups report that more than 10,000 Syrian dissidents are under arrest and estimate over 1,000 civilians have been killed by Assad’s thugs. Radwan Ziadeh, head of the Syrian Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, claimed: "The regime commits two types of torture, the systematic, which we see accompanying mass arrests, and the particularly gruesome to spread fear on an even larger scale.”
Meanwhile, the Egyptian army who now run the country in the absence of Mubarak still torture dissidents and stand idly by while Muslim mobs murder Coptic Christians. Women protesters in Egypt are subject to “virginity tests”, on the baffling premise that only prostitutes and drug addicts would still be protesting. Libya is at war – and NATO planes are busy bombing it to pieces. The Saudis are ruling with fear and oppression, and their troops are doing the same in Bahrain.
This is hardly the dawning of a Middle Eastern Age of Aquarius.
The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is neatly encapsulated in the mental, as well as physical, boundaries of 1967. The West still believes that peace is something that you can talk about, and negotiate with words and contracts. With legal niceties and lines drawn on a map.
In the Middle East, peace is no such thing. Peace – and just as importantly peace of mind – can never exist when you are afraid that somebody intends to destroy you. Security, not peace, is what Israelis hope for, pray for, and sometimes have to die for.
Only when Israel can escape the ever-present fear and threat of imminent annihilation, with the mental security that gives her the confidence to cede the appropriate territory, will the option of two peaceful states co-existing side by side be feasible.
Can the Arab spring usher in an Arabic Summer of Love? If the uprisings were to bring forth new leaders, proper democracies and administrations not addicted to the hatred and poison of racist propaganda, then there would be the chance that Obama’s starry-eyed vision could come to fruition.
But as the torture and oppression get worse, the signs are not hopeful.
Another great band grew out of 1967. Blood Sweat and Tears. Which unfortunately is what the Arab Spring will most likely be remembered for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)