Debt ceilings, carbon atmospheres, and toxic political discourse.

In a strange turn of events radical Republicans stand as the Australian public’s final hope. Their willingness to pull down the temple of modernity by impudently refusing to raise the US debt ceiling promises to save Australians from almost certain death in the now toxic concentration of carbon tax debate.


These are our times, and lucky we are to be alive in them. Faced with the prospect of sitting through what seems to be Australia’s stupidest, least rewarding policy shit storm, I will happily embrace the exciting prospect of a post-financial hellscape where we fight each other for scraps of food.

Absurdly, the recognition we collectively must moderate the unworkable relationship between the ecological basis of our society and the destructive and unstable aspects of the capitalist system results in obstinate refusal to pragmatically address either environment or economy.

Instead the trend in politics of dogmatically defending ideological standpoints seems to indicate a wholehearted embrace of virtual reality. Australia currently endures an array of muppets of all political varieties intent on symbolically annihilating any argument that may detract from their own prominence.

This is as evident in the Greens ridiculous decision to oppose the original ETS which led us into this morass, it is evident in the stupid fuss over the future of the antiquated Hazelwood power plant (it’s fifty years old, it’s going to close, zomg!), and unfortunately it is now incessantly evident in expensive government advertising.

Hopefully come August it’ll all be over, the memory of carbon tax debates will take us back to happier days when we entertained such quaint concerns. For it seems Australia is not the only liberal democracy intent on self-destruction. The Global Financial Crisis that seemed “so 2008” is reportedly on its way back from the dead.

Soon we may be thanking extremist within the US Republican Party for its return. Whereas many people all around the world have been gingerly treading around the precarious global economic situation, wiser heads within the Party have realised that adherence to ideology of fiscal restraint, small government, and minimal taxation will sort everything out.

Interestingly, this plan does not come with a rational explanation as to how and why it might work. I presume unfailing belief in the tenets of neo-liberal economic theory and a selective interpretation of the American dream is all that is required.

Yet, this is the most exciting aspect of the whole deal, no one knows what will happen when the hub of the world economy departs from the script and defaults on its debts. There is certainly a school of thought which foresees mayhem in such an eventuality.

The US has essentially acted as the capitalist world’s economic and financial facilitator since the end of the Second World War. Although its role has changed in the intervening years, there is no obvious replacement. However, given the state of the global economy maybe some shock therapy - devastatingly disruptive as it may be - could be an elixir of life.

After all, there is an argument that debt levels around the world are so high that in many instances default is more or less a foregone conclusion. The lingering misery of the Greek “crisis” is indicative. There is no doubt as to Greece’s inability to meet its obligations; the discussion is more or less about how to deal with the presence of such a basket case within the Euro zone.

Organising an orderly “rescheduling” of debt is seen as imperative opposed to a free for all default which may panic markets and nudge other shaky euro economies into the void. However, one of the enduring traits of capitalism is its ability to survive, reorganise, and draw fresh life from major crises. This line of thought proposes that if the burdens of debt, regulation, culture, and custom are “lifted” economic activity of all kinds will flourish.

There are – as always – counter arguments to this view. They point out that when things fall apart human have a willingness to act in destructive and anti-social ways. Yet, given the demonstrated ability of politicians all over the Anglophone and wider world to pragmatically come together and work on major social and economic challenges I am confident we can handle it: default away.

the Colonial

Hack it

I have a particular love for absurdity. I also must confess I am rather partial to a little Schadenfreude. The current news cycle is indulging both of these weaknesses. How wonderful it is to see the mighty fall, or at least be temporarily inconvenienced. Turning on any news channel to see my two favourite media types hounded is a rare luxury.

Both Mr Murdoch and Mr Assange fighting for their reputations and their enterprises. To see the diametrically opposed ends of the media simultaneously wallowing in misery strikes me as too profound a coincidence to be happenstance. The situation must have a cosmic significance that we can only ponder. Yet is there more to this picture, should we simply laugh and dismiss it as just desserts, or is there something profound to be learnt, is there a moral to be found here? I am not talking about those ridiculous old fashioned morals like pride cometh before the fall, the arrogance of power coming back to haunt the mighty. No, it must be far more profound, more web 2.0.

Both Murdoch and Assange - from their respective positions - have been waging an assault on the media spectrum. Murdoch in this instance probably is more familiar to us. He is simply trying to institute media hegemony, which although unprecedented in our era, is essentially familiar to us. He is persisting with the paradigm of extending comprehensive control over mass media.

Assange is playing the opposite end of the spectrum. He too is making a major play for power within the media universe, yet his approach to structure is radical. Rather than extend formal control he is attempting to institute a new paradigm for information networks. Within this paradigm individuals leak highly sensitive information to him, assuming risk, and foregoing remuneration. He inturn engages traditional media outlets to act as agents in disseminating this information. Interestingly his business model follows that of the established churches: alongside a separate profitable business model he also draws on public donations for the Wikileaks good works program.

In this view we can imagine Murdoch as the 20th century media baron and Assange as a 21st century media godfather. The interesting issue is that they have come up against something seemingly large and immovable. This seems to be the power of the state. Long considered dead, killed off along with cross media ownership laws, or overwhelmed by globalisation, states seem to be coming back to life. Of course at this stage the most we can see is a glimmer: the faint rise and fall of the chest, a fluttering of eyelids, by it is there. It surprises few that the radical Assange should be targeted for his assault on state information and secrecy. However, that Murdoch should likewise find himself target of state sponsored ire is a wonder.

Although Assange certainly captured attention with some of his louder exploits, the flaw in his paradigm is obvious. He doesn’t make the news unless - as is currently the case - he becomes the news. He relies on someone, somewhere, to somehow provide him something juicy. Murdoch - in the traditional capitalist mode - owns the means of production. As we now know if the news isn’t flowing, he hires someone to get out there and make it flow. This capability led many to consider that he had the power to make and break governments and drive policy.

While it is too early to believe Murdoch or Assange are falling, it is highly ironic that such pathetic indiscretions are the basis for both characters’ current woes. Deception lies at the heart of this. Whereas Assange is attempting to highlight deception in unveiling it, Murdoch is in trouble for illegitimately peeking behind the veil, without the safety line of public interest. His great error seems to be hacking innocent victims alongside targets the public enjoy such as celebrities and politicians. This is the inconsistency that makes the whole situation absurd.

For all the show and fun of the media, we must admit that ultimately it is a spectacle. The red tops are moronic and no one seems to take the stories Assange has to share seriously. The public seems more interested in tabloid reports of his sex life. To argue that public trust has been abused, or anyone has found themselves less reliably informed is surely a grand joke. No one was ever forced to buy the News of the World: people liked it. Likewise despite the public opposition to the war in Iraq, no public averted that war, no public figure will be held to account now.

Rather, in the case of Mr Assange as in the case of Mr Murdoch governments have leapt upon a disturbance in public sentiment to attack impediments to their power. In both instances public mood is predicated on the on ability of each campaign to allow the individual to embrace aggrieved innocence. Assange allows us to believe that the international realm is predicated on secrecy: our politicians deceive us therefore we are not responsible for their disastrous policy. Likewise, unknown to the public Murdoch does horrible things to publish the stories we love to read. Ultimately it seems the only moral the public is willing to embrace is whatever happens, it’s someone else's fault.


the Colonial