Ten Network revamping One TV?

Well, finally, some good news. Ten Network is going to revamp its dedicated sports channel, One TV, and relaunch it adding dramas, movies onto its daily schedule. Net profits have been falling steadily and according to Lachlan Murdoch "The half-year results are not acceptable and immediate action is already under way to address them,"

  Well finally, someone is going to revamp that channel. Watching One TV, with its focus on Australian basketball (which is a sport that not many here watch), the occasional golf show (not exactly prime time or any time sports material), it really does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I did wish though that One TV had made a more dedicated push towards broadcasting sports that the majority of Australians follow like cricket. The Cricket World Cup 2011 was embarrassingly left out of the schedule of all free to air channels, except for a couple of token Aussie games (and the one with India only showed half the innings).

Maybe a concerted effort to promote F1 Grand Prix racing with greater depth like analysis or daily highlights to reach out to the large fan following here in Australia? 

Sometimes, an acute business mind is needed more than a free flowing conversational individual dressed in a full suit. You can hardly expect One TV to compete effectively with Ten Network's dedicated TV series oriented show ELEVEN or the other TV oriented shows from the SEVEN and NINE Networks. 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ten-scraps-sports-format-as-ratings-profit-tumble-20110407-1d5ck.html?from=smh_sb

Income inequality

Today, I was surfing through the Economist and came across a quite reflective article about income inequality.

http://www.economist.com/node/18332806

It says that the gap between the richest and poorest of the rich industrialised nations of the world has widened during the recession. The article also attempted to answer the million dollar question (pardon the pun!) about what could be done.

"Does this matter and, if so, what should be done about it? To most politicians the answer to the first question is self-evidently yes. “Slipping behind Shanghai” is hardly a vote-winning slogan. And all too often the answer to the second question has involved subsidies. The European Union’s “structural funds”, more than a third of the EU’s budget, are designed to shift cash from richer to poorer parts of the single market. America has pumped federal dollars into deprived regions such as Appalachia. Now Britain’s coalition government is dusting off Thatcherite ideas for boosting left-behind areas with tax breaks: on March 5th George Osborne, the chancellor, announced the creation of ten “enterprise zones” that will get preferential tax treatment and simplified planning rules."


The thing that worries me is that people think the poor can just become rich by 'pumping dollars' into deprived regions. How would that help? Sure, you can build infrastructure or create jobs but that will hardly help because wages are determined by the skill level and demands of businesses. T


The higher the skill level coupled with a demand for those skill sets translates into a better paid job and therefore a better standard of living. Of course, you could live in a country that has monopolised businesses which can artifically set wages (as there is no other company to attract the workers needed) but we are talking about Britain and America.


The article did hit a jackpot with regards to education though;


"Second, focus on education. In Sunderland only 21% of adults have any form of higher education, compared with 39% of Londoners. Though there are other ways that the British government can help boost productivity—from strengthening infrastructure to cutting red tape—the single biggest reward will come from improving northerners’ educational performance. To be sure, the better-educated might then move. But they, and Britain as a whole, would be much better off."


Of course, when you do talk about education, in particular higher education, one has to keep  an important points in mind. Most people tend to see university education as too long, many would be impatient to start earning money quickly or feel that the job market for highly skilled workers is not too great. A mechanical engineer in Australia would earn $50,000/annum as a starting salary (does not include the tax!) and a tradesman (electrician, landscaper etc) would earn probably half that amount but their salaries would almost be equivalent after tax! One does a four year university degree and the other studies for a year at the most!

Africa, a continent in disarray

While all  eyes (and bombs) are focused on Libya, a quite real tragedy of unbelievable horror is unfolding in the Ivory Coast. The city of Abidjan is being fought over by two groups, the pro Ouattara army and forces loyal to the 'president' Laurent Gbagbo. 

The BBC carried a great article about the innocent civilians living in the frontline. According to those interviewed,     there were child soldiers carrying machine guns and almost total anarchy in the capital. The full article can be accessed on the link below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12950629

According to Doctors without borders, medical teams in the western town of Duekoue had to deal with 240 wounded since March 29th. There have been scatered reports of a Catholic charity Caritas having found 1000 bodies in the same town although verification is needed and nothing more has been heard of since. The article that carried the report was the Telegraph UK

.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8423651/Ivory-Coast-aid-workers-find-1000-bodies-in-Duekoue.html

Of course, while this brutal conflict rages on, America and the rest of NATO are bombing Libya, more concerned with securing oil supplies rather than actually spreading democracy and protecting human rights.

President Obama had this to say about America's involvement in Libya. "To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." 

Well, a blind eye is being turned on the conflict in the Ivory Coast. Is this because the country  has no strategic interest for the West. Where are all those UN resolutions which should, i repeat, SHOULD, be passed swiftly to at least attempt to forestall what could end up being a major tragedy. The world should not forget what happened the last time everyone turned a blind eye to this corner of the world; it led to the deaths of 700,000 Rwandan civilians. 

Yes, the Libyan people stood up to Gaddafi after thirty years of totalitarian darkness. But what the world forgets is that both the Libyan and Ivory coast people want is peace and stability, something that has been lacking in African nations for a very long time. The UN, being a world organisation, should act less like America's stooge and more like a global body, sending help to every corner of the world where it is needed. That is what the peacekeeping mission is for. Bombs don't solve problems, they exacerbate them. Libya seems to be descending into an all out civil war, and the Americans are mulling an arming of the rebel forces [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels].

The question to carry away is; what about the Ivory Coast? Is there progress made in 'spreading democracy' to Libya, or is this all going to end/escalate into a civil war, and ruin any chances for peace and stability for the people of Libya?

Ignorance is bliss

Sometimes, politicians must believe like the great philosopher David Hume once believed; that is humans are slaves of their passions. The concept of 'too much democracy' which drove the Howard years Liberal policy was that us citizens are not rational creatures and cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions; we use our emotional more than our logical side. 

 It seems to me that Labor are following in Big Papa Howard's footsteps too. As of right now, there has not been an NBN cost benefit analysis publication by the government, and there has been very little said about the nature  of the carbon tax. Just a whole lot of slogans! This feeds right  into Tony Abbott's strategy of filling in the blanks and of course, he has filled in the blanks with a lot of sometimes crude figures which have not been explained in any detail and were probably conjured out of thin air. 

There has been a Treasury paper apparently got under the Freedom of Information Act (does not seem to be available freely on the Internet though or through any other means of information transfer), modelling by how much household costs would rise.

An article from ABC tells us the following

"A treasury minute released under Freedom of Information laws, reveals that the cost of living could rise by $16.60 a week, under a carbon tax of $30.

The figures were in a 'Cabinet in confidence' document prepared for the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, just last month.

Over a year, the cost would be $863 if fuel were excluded under the carbon tax plan. "

If you raised your eyebrows, frowned in confusion and/or cursed under your breath, you probably have ever right to do so. How is this going to help an ordinary citizen, a citizen in a so called democracy with participatory options, to decide whether or not a carbon tax is the right move for the country? How is this even going to promote any sort of debate? All I can say is that vague information like this is exactly why there has been dirt, misinformation and mass hysteria from both sides of the political spectrum. For  god's sake, be more transparent!!!

This debate is going to go on for a few weeks at least before the media and eventually politicians get tired and sweep the whole thing under the carpet (as it seems to have been achieved with the National Broadband Network fiasco). 

Colonel Gaddafi's friendship issues

  You think Wikileaks is incriminating, a quick Google Image search 'unearths' some marvelous pictures. The same leaders who, as shown above, were all in smiles and handshakes a year before, are now bombing Col. Gaddafi's soldiers  and accusing him of war crimes. Now the major problem is, Gaddafi IS a tyrant, an unstable dictator who had no qualms about blowing up passenger jets or throwing out tens of  thounsands of Palestinian refugees from his land.

 He had no qualms about setting up a brutal police state in the country where a culture of fear brings about Stalinist memories to the surface. The self styled Colonel also launched an unproved aggressive war against his African neighbour Chad, a war that killed over 10,000 people. 

There are many other crimes that this unrepentant dictator has committed and it seems almost surreal that after  Gaddafi renounced the right to nuclear weapons, every Western country ran to kiss his feet forgetting quite a long list of criminal activities against his own people and crimes committed abroad. Tony Blair evidently forgot the horrendous mass murder of the Lockerbie bombings when he attempted to hug the Libyan Colonel?

Sometimes, images like the ones above show the double standards practiced by many countries in 'promoting democracy and human rights' and coddling up to tyrants. America and the European Union should really say ' we look up to OUR national interests more than promoting human rights and democracy, no one in our respective governments gives a rat's ass about suffering citizens!' I guess the problem with hiding behind a 'democracy promotion' slogan while really advancing your national interests is that democracy really does take hold and then the countries behind those slogans have to really say "hey, we support y'all in your protests!" The same situation took place with Hosni Mubarak, another dictator.

'Pragmatic' Gillard vs 'Spoilsport' Brown

Well, today turned up an interesting sequence of events. Julia Gillard, the enlightened PM of Australia turned on  the Greens....yup, the same party that had forced her to pass the carbon tax in return for their support for her policies.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/shes-making-a-mistake-bob-bites-back-in-stoush-with-prime-minister-20110401-1cp3l.html

Apparently, she called the Greens a 'protest party'. The Greens have certainly lost standing due to them being seem as the prime movers for Julia Gillard's carbon tax scheme. They fell short in Marrickville and only look like they will dislodge Verity Firth , the former NSW Education Minister, in Balmain.

Julia Gillard and the Labour machine are obviously going into damage control after the disastrous NSW performance. One thing to keep in mind though is that NSW Labour was always going to lose horrendously, their leadership over the past two years was non existent. Their policies were hounded, their unity was called into     question and the whole party and its policies stagnated. This will be a good kick in the ass for them to dust off their disappointments and start over.

The carbon tax has created a huge hullabaloo throughout the country with crazy figures, outlandish statements and fear mongering on both sides that is typical of Australian politics. No one ever seems to sit down and do a rational analysis of what the carbon tax entails and whether it is good or bad for this nation. Figures are thrown about haphazardly by all the major news networks and it all seems a bit ungainly. So my next post will deal with the carbon tax and whether it is good or bad for this nation....don't hold your breath though!

-Headline news on Independent UK-


Portugal sell Christiano Ronaldo to Spain in 160 million pound deal on national debt


"Weighed down by debt, and reeling from the latest downgrading of their country's credit status, Portugal's finance ministry has secured the co-operation of football's highest-paid player in an audacious bid to draw the nation back from the brink of economic collapse

In a move which some observers claimed "will lead to the destruction of the World Cup", Cristiano Ronaldo has agreed to "act like a patriot" and be sold to neighbouring Spain for €160m.

Last week, Prime Minister José Sócrates resigned after his government's latest austerity package was rejected by parliament. His move followed the downgrading of his country's credit rating to the category above "junk". While Ronaldo's fee, though double the current record (paid by Real Madrid to Manchester United for Ronaldo's club affiliation in 2009) barely dents the €12bn Portugal owes, Mr Socrates, now caretaker premier, believes that the international bond markets will take it as a symbol of Portugal's determination to tackle the crisis, and respond accordingly. 

Although no footballer has ever previously been "transferred" between countries, there is extensive precedent for changing nationality, especially in Spain. Two of the greats, Alfredo di Stéfano and Ferenc Puskás, played for the Spanish national team after representing other countries and then taking Spanish citizenship. Di Stéfano – who is still involved at Real Madrid and is thought to have influenced Ronaldo's decision – had played for Argentina and Colombia. Puskás even played in the 1954 World Cup final for Hungary but went into exile after the crushing of the 1956 revolution. As recently as Spain's 2008 European Championship triumph, Marcos Senna, Brazilian by birth and parentage, was a key player.

Senna, however, had not played for Brazil. Since Puskás' day, Fifa, the world governing body, has tightened its rules. Once a player has played a competitive international for one country – at any age group – he cannot switch allegiance unless he had dual nationality at the time, and was educated in the second country. Mikael Arteta, Everton's Spanish midfielder, abandoned an attempt to play for England because he had played competitively for Spain under-21s. But Fifa's secretive executive committee is expected to meet today, in extraordinary session, to adapt its statutes to permit such moves in circumstances where both governments agree.

"It's insane," said a spokesman for the Bruges-based Keep Football Pure organisation. "Those idiot administrators have not thought it through, as usual. There's now nothing to stop Qatar buying a World XI. It'll destroy the World Cup, it will turn it into another Champions League – only worse."

Opinion is divided in Portugal. While many see Ronaldo's agreement to the move as the "ultimate patriotic gesture" others regard the transfer as a "surrender". Paolo Fril, professor of political economics at Lisbon University, told The Independent: "We were ruled by a Spanish king for 60 years [1580-1640] and had to go to war to win back our independence. This is not about Spain saving us –they are restoring the Iberian Union by the back door."

There are doubts in Spain, too. The issue is not naturalising Ronaldo, but whether he is needed. Spain are the current world and European champions, with a style of play that relies more on passing than the soloist skills for which Ronaldo is known. "If we are going to buy foreigners we should buy Lionel Messi [Barcelona's Argentinian star]," said one fan.

But if Ronaldo is unappreciated in Spain, his skills may be in demand elsewhere. Late last night, reports suggested that David Cameron was preparing a counter-offer, of £200m, to persuade Ronaldo to play for England. "The Premier League is where Ronaldo became a star," said the Prime Minister, "so it is only right and proper he should play for England." He added that Vince Cable had proposed a "Ferrari tax" to pay for it, though Ronaldo himself would be given exemption."

Can I just say this is the perfect first post to my blog? I nearly fell for this witty April Fool's joke too and strangely enough, in this world of fast money and short term benefit (I did hear rumours of a few Indians willing to sell a kidney to get tickets to the Cricket World Cup finals in Mumbai), it would not be an impossibility that Portugal would be willing to consider parting nationalities with a star football player to Spain of all countries. I did feel sorry for Socrates and his bungled austerity measures, truly economics is the harbinger of boom or bust.