spinbadz own

"A worker cleans spare parts at an automobile spare parts recycling shop in Mumbai April 11, 2007. Indian workers earn between 150 Rupees and 200 Rupees (around $3 to $5) a day working in the city. (INDIA)"

Reuters churns out some really attractive photos these days.

In the age of YouTube, the Internet, mobile phone-cameras and high resolution screens coffee table book quality pic collections can be compiled every single day by a news/opinion organisation with digital cameras everywhere. And you and I can browse and enjoy them for free.

Of course, in the case of Reuters, their management team does not seem to be tremendously concerned with checking veracity, or with providing context.

Nor do they seem to be reticent in swinging their own specious opinions around at every given opportunity.

So there is no surprise that the lead group of photos in many of their slideshows pander to certain themes. Particularly the theme of showing some evil Israeli action vis-a-vis some poor innocent Palestinian, like the one showing an Israeli dog "attacking" a Palestinian (old) lady (in the link above at the time of writing).

Perhaps credibility must be sacrificed for the sake of instant art and dedicated picto-bombast. Reuters seems to be populated with a large number of poorly paid, semi-educated and nameless drones who live in a world where "terrorism" only exists inside quotation marks and is otherwise a legitimate response to Israeli, US and capitalist oppression.

Fine and sometimes meaningful pictures are, however, sometimes transmitted from this high-sense world, particularly where a pet drone theme is not involved.

Like the picture at top of an Indian automobile worker's hand, with its telling caption: Five bucks a day. Imagine that.

Here in Australia, much of the political talk seems to be focused on the evils of the Howard government's recent "Workchoices" legislation, which sought to curtail or reverse a number of luxuries previously enjoyed by Australian workers at the expense of their employers. Things like: making it barely possible, rather than virtually impossible, to fire an employee for an offence short of murder, arson or provable embezzlement.

Things like: removing established minimum wage "awards", which guaranteed an Australian worker of equivalent skill a minimum of about twenty times the wage of the Indian workers alluded to in the photo.

PM Howard and Treasurer Costello have busily stumped the aims of "Workchoices". The intent is to make Australian businesses more internationally competitive. Business success and growth will translate into higher living standards and more jobs, they say.

Yet noone seems to be listening. Like the Reuters drones globally, the Australian trade union infrastructure is locally ubiquitous. Its paradigm (workers=good / bosses=bad; workers=good / profit=bad) seems to have the country in thrall:

- Even as jobs and entire Australian enterprises drift away to Asia and the US.
- Even as Australian households are assailed daily by sales calls from "Australian" business operations in Mumbai.
- Even with awareness of the burning example of Japan's success. Most know full well that modern Japan was born in the stigma of both post-WW2 poverty and "Made in Japan" branding. We have seen Japan mature, in the wake of enterprise leadership, into the technology and wage behemoth of today.
- And even with satellite, cable, Internet and international travel enabling many Australians to be aware, in real-time, of both:

a) the many products, ideas, companies and opportunities that simply don't filter Down Under, due to the crippling costs of shipping to or producing in what is in any case a small and distant market, and
b) the exorbitant relative cost of many products that do make it here.

Yet noone seems to be listening to Howard or Costello:

'Well, Australia's just not good at manufacturing, never has been'

you hear the detractors say, and it's amazing how many people take that as a given, without thinking about the simply deflected enormity involved: not good ... at manufacturing.

Along came Howard and Costello, trying to do something about that. "Workchoices" was meant to prompt the tiniest, tiniest step along the path to enterprise reform. The response has been as predictable as it is appalling. From out of the parallel universe the critics poured, in their thousands onto the streets. Screaming in protest against "Workchoices".

Then in the parallel, parallel universe of medialand, the Reuters-esque denizens dutifully exaggerated those protest figures: tens of thousands were there, the headlines screamed, not hundreds, not thousands. Polls were headlined too. These of course showed how unpopular Howard and Costello are - mainly because of Workchoices, so the pollsters said. Then Howard's party's NSW state branch lost an election, with the victorious opponents highlighting "Workchoices" as a prime election issue.

Which it no doubt was, the perception becoming the reality, as can happen under the influence of a misleading picture.

And which, for myself, begs several questions: Will reality come crashing down on Australian heads one day? If so when and how, and how badly?

******************

Meanwhile US Republican presidential candidate John McCain has confronted "Warchoices" with Reagan-like determination. On (US) 60 Minutes recently, he was asked why he refuses to repudiate the Iraq campaign, even when it is so unpopular, and even when such a stand could kill his 2008 election chances:

"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want. I still believe the majority of the American people, when asked, say if you can show them a path to success . . . then they'll support it."

The Senator replied that he'd "rather lose a campaign than lose a war."

Mr. McCain is making clear he understands that leadership is often by nature unpopular. He has been equally clear about the consequences of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq--"chaos" and "genocide" were among the scenarios he painted...

Spinbadz Own is trying to fathom the apparent discrepancy, in mainstream discourse, between routinely:

a) Placing the phrase "war on terror" (and its primary, "terrorism") in quotation marks and/or
b) Preceding the above described with the qualification 'so-called'

whilst denying similar treatment to the expression "anti-war". These days "anti-war" is routinely used to describe people who protest against:

c) American combatant action, American detention of prisoners, American combatants and pro-Bush American politicians and their supporters, but who never protest against
d) Anti-American combatant action, anti-American detention and murder of prisoners, or anti-American combatant figureheads and their supporters.

Therefore it seems to us that, beyond a few syllogistic or semantic exceptions, the present lot of "anti-war" protesters are not really anti-war protesters pure and simple, but rather:

e) Anti-American, anti-(Bush) Republican and/or anti-capitalist, or else
f) Pacifists who unconsciously or consciously choose to focus only on apparent American combat action- usually in Iraq.

Moreover, the so-called "anti-war" protesters also seem to ignore the fact that:

g) the vast (vast, vast) majority of deaths in Iraq and other theatres of current conflict are being perpetrated by the people fighting against the Americans.

The people fighting against the Americans have deliberately attacked civilian targets in London, New York, Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Many of them are committed to warring ("jihad"), anywhere on the globe, until Islamist world hegemony is achieved.

So "anti-war" protesters, one would think, ought to be devoting at least part of their efforts to protesting against the jihadists. But they aren't, which leads us to believe that said protesters:

g) Are accurately described as "anti-war" protestors (with quotes) or as so-called anti-war protesters, and not as anti-war protesters (without quotes).

Are we wrong? If so, please help explain the apparent discrepancy. Please write to us at spinbadz@yahoo.com.au.

Most enlightening answers will be "published" here.

In the meantime, here are a couple of samples throwing light on the various correct uses of quotation marks.


1) Denoting a phrase or description that may be regarded as unusual or unnatural, or which has meaning in a particular context, or which has meaning in accordance only with a particular understanding of the word or description:

(The) BBC report(s) that 40 per cent of Turks support the practice of "honour killing", by which Muslim women can be killed for transgressions as minor as going out on a date. Thirty seven per cent favour having an adulterous woman killed, with 21 per cent believing that her nose or ears could be cut off.

2) As with 1):

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee asked the Pentagon ... to remove CNN reporters embedded with U.S. combat troops, saying the network's broadcast of a video showing insurgent snipers targeting U.S. soldiers was tantamount to airing an enemy propaganda film ....

CNN producer David Doss wrote in a Web log Thursday the network televised the footage in an effort to present the "unvarnished truth" about the Iraq war.

3) Denoting the exact words someone has said:

"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive," (Ahmadi-Nejad) said, "The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests."

4) As with 3):

A videotape shows a Reuters cameraman encouraging rioters to throw large chunks of rock at Israeli vehicles in Bil'in.

(The accused) is heard shouting: "Throw, throw!" and later "Throw towards the little window!"

5) Where a quote is shown within a quote, a distinct form of quotation mark is used:

"We shall win," (Ahmadi-Nejad said) ... and added: "One day I will be asked whether I have been in touch with someone who told me we would win, and I will respond: 'Yes, I have been in touch with God'."

6) Usage of the type shown in 1) can also be combined with quotations denoting the exact words said:

Ahmadinejad also rejected as "illegal" a Security Council demand that Tehran suspend its own uranium enrichment activities, state-run television reported Monday.

"They [U.S.] use the council for threats and intimidation."

Back in February, Spinbadz Own mentioned the impending announcement of an unprecedented partnership between a top European fashion brand and a locally famous Australian - and famously blue-collar - sports franchise.

We didn't name names at that time. By now many a sports watcher Down Under has heard about the deal between Italy's Giorgio Armani and the Australian National Rugby League (NRL)'s South Sydney Rabbitohs. The deal was facilitated by South Sydney owner and Hollywood actor Russell Crowe.

The red and green made-to-measure suits have been a huge public relations success. The (many) Doubting Thomasses mentioned in our initial report are dumbstruck, with photos and stories about the suits and their original, Crowe-inspired, insignia appearing outside the sports pages and in all media.

Which is certainly a good thing. Had publicity of the deal been restricted to only the sporting press, it seems very unlikely that Armani could have expected much increase in its client reach. The average rugby league supporter has for many years been inured on sports stars graduating from a distinguished NRL career to "acting" in television commercials for a clothing store called ... wait for it ... Lowes.

Lowes' Sydney city store is just around the corner from Armani, but the pricing distance between suits at the two stores is a figure with many zeros. Even the normally reliable Sydney Sun-Herald sports journalist Danny Weidler, fishing for a mandicle-plummeting revelation on the cost of Souths' Armani outfitting, seems to have furnished a significant underguesstimate. He may have figured that his readers simply couldn't wrap their minds around the kinds of prices Armani actually charges. Weidler says the value of the outfitting is between $100,000 and $250,000. But if we look at the Souths' outfits item by item, even a conservative estimate goes way beyond that:

$5,000 - 1 specially made GA suit, with extra pair of pants:
$1,000 - 2 pairs GA shoes:
$700 - 2 shirts
$300 - 1 GA tie
$400 - 1 GA belt
$200 - 3 pairs underwear

That's a - conservative, as I said - total of over $7,500 per person, and a squad (including coaches and other personnel) of between 50 and 70 were outfitted. You do the rest of the math.

At least the Souths' players seem to appreciate the gear. From all reports - after a few teething pains - they love the new threads and maintain them very well. Even the underweargate scandal we alluded to in February seems to have been misconstrued: at the first fitting, the players came straight from training, which is why one or two of them neglected to put on underpants. When the Armani staff supplied the naked offender(s) with daks, the other players cottoned on to the ploy as a way to milk the sponsor of cool Sat'd'y night panties. So they all turned up at the next fitting panty-free, prompting The Gladiator to ask the sponsor for 3 pair for each player ...