|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I like that we now have bacteria depicted on the $5 note. They don't get enough recognition for how important they are in our lives. mate don't spread seditious material about the queen
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Starshark posted:Government agencies like to hire arts students because they're better at broad research than engineers who can get to fourth year and still not know how to use a library.  This thread sometimes holy poo poo. auspol.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
bigis posted:
engineer spotted
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
I wanna see a libertarian version of the Civilisation games. Instead of great scientists or great artists or great engineers, you only get great rich people. Once a great rich person like Murdoch or Rinehart, etc. is spawned, their AI determines what gets subsidised and put into your build order. You can try and make your own choices on the tech tree, but your progress will occasionally be wiped when you have to do cutbacks to various departments. Or in the late game after TPP is researched, you can get sued for threatening profits of the great rich people, which will increase your per-turn gold costs on the budget.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
What's a library All that stuff is online now
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
I have an engineering degree and I don't know how to library.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
The noble goon scoffs at the thread and scans his library card "You want to hire out Capital Volume I again?" asks the hot librarian lady "Y-yeah, Y-y-you too" sputters the Goon. While nervous on the outside, on the inside he knew that if he posted enough about politics on an internet forum that the girl would surely fall for him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
It's been on the cards since November but in the week when Turnbull buggers off to China, protests against cuts in the ANU Asian Languages department are being mooted and there's a meeting with the new vice-chancellor today. According to an observer on Late Night Live (that hive of leftyness ooh! aaargh!), they want to cut Vietnamese, Thai, and classical Chinese. Hahahaha of course we don't need Thai, it's only a major manufacturing hub and who needs classical Chinese, its only used in half of all their communications and as for Vietnamese, don't they translate their menus?  Also, get the full ep for a rather interesting discussion of tax havens, particularly the role of England in them, and some neat tax haven tricks for when you
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Arts students: from government handouts to government jobs. Something something free market
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I disagree entirely in government funding of the fine arts. Or at least, with direct government funding of the fine arts. If you want to assign X dollars to the arts and then have the public vote where it goes, or subsidize tickets for X dollars per person per person, or find some other way to ensure the arts the public care about are funded then I'm cool with that. Otherwise we just end up funding whatever the elite consider to be worthy and perpetuate elitism that has infested the arts ever since the days when you could only survive as an artist through the patronage of the nobility. Funding arts degrees is fine as long as the program is rigorous. It doesn't really matter what you're researching or writing about as long as you're learning the proper practices while doing so. It's all transferable skill even if the field specific knowledge is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I disagree entirely in government funding of the fine arts. Or at least, with direct government funding of the fine arts. If you want to assign X dollars to the arts and then have the public vote where it goes, or subsidize tickets, or find some other way to ensure the arts the public care about are funded then I'm cool with that. Otherwise we just end up funding whatever the elite consider to be worthy and perpetuate elitism that has infested the arts ever since the days when you could only survive as an artist through the patronage of the nobility. You don't need to have public voting on the arts, just have a committee made up of artists from different mediums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I disagree entirely in government funding of the fine arts. Or at least, with direct government funding of the fine arts. If you want to assign X dollars to the arts and then have the public vote where it goes, or subsidize tickets for X dollars per person, or find some other way to ensure the arts the public care about are funded then I'm cool with that. Otherwise we just end up funding whatever the elite consider to be worthy and perpetuate elitism that has infested the arts ever since the days when you could only survive as an artist through the patronage of the nobility. One of my friends was given a government grant and a residency at a local gallery, and her art is faaaaaaaaaar from what the elite would consider worthy. She also won an award for her exhibit and sold a piece to Hugo Weaving too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Otherwise we just end up funding whatever the elite consider to be worthy and perpetuate elitism that has infested the arts ever since the days when you could only survive as an artist through the patronage of the nobility. This is still the only way to survive as an artist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's always elitist stuff that gets funded. I'm basically just not comfortable with having a small number of people empowered to make decisions on public spending in an entirely subjective field like art. If private foundations or individuals want to fund specific stuff they like or think is valuable to society then that's their business, but public money should reflect the will of the public when it comes to something subjective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I'm not saying it's always elitist stuff that gets funded. I'm basically just not comfortable with having a small number of people empowered to make decisions on public spending in an entirely subjective field like art. If private foundations or individuals want to fund specific stuff they like or think is valuable to society then that's their business, but public money should reflect the will of the public when it comes to something subjective. But when the public largely has a similar outlook on art as our friend LibertyCat you'll just end up with completely lifeless art that displeases no one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:But when the public largely has a similar outlook on art as our friend LibertyCat you'll just end up with completely lifeless art that displeases no one.  Then that's what happens. I didn't form the opinion because it'll cause funds to be spent the way I want them to be spent; I think it's the fair way for it to be spent. Don't you think it's patronizing to imagine what the public would want to fund and then be like "nah, we know better what is good for this culture"?Also if you just funded tickets/gave each individual a way to spend their arts credits or whatever then presumably people like yourself would be funding things you value so they'd not all just go away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
I'm quite happy to say I know jack poo poo about art and would be quite happy for an expert panel to dole out the grants. It's not elitism, it's the same as any other tender process, it gets evaluated by people who are qualified in the area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
How many non-white artists do you think would receive grants or residencies if the public could vote on what sort of art or artists are worthy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Higsian posted:
Direct democracy requires revolutionary consciousness and discipline to work. hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
It would depend on how the voting worked. If people got to vote for whoever and then anyone over a certain threshold got funding then I'd imagine a proportionate amount of non-white artists would get funded, and if not I'm sure you could tweak the variables. If people voted with (subsidized) wallets or a system like Patreon then I'd imagine the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Counterpoint: stop subsidising anything that isn't art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
This is one of the many advantages of basic income, btw. Instead of having to review and decide which art is worthy or not, or worry about bias for who gets the grants, just ensure a baseline subsistence for people. Then if they have a desire to devote their full time to their art, they can go ahead and try. In before Negligent: "Oh so everyone should just run off to rainbow unicorn follow-their-dreams land, and-" Well, everyone who thinks they can and should be an artist, and doesn't mind living on the subsistence wage only. So why not? If they're really just playing around, they'll get no profit while successful artists and those with more stable jobs are making more money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Direct democracy requires revolutionary consciousness and discipline to work. hth. We're talking arts funding, not general budgets. General budgets should be constructed by experts on behalf of the people and reflect what is best for the people. Arts budgets should reflect the desires and tastes of the people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Arts Council allocates funding based on the recommendation of a peer panel of people from that respective field. The panels you can apply for a grant from: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Arts and Disability Community Arts and Cultural Development Dance Emerging and Experimental Arts Literature Multi-art form Music Theatre Visual Arts The peer panel membership changes as grants are awarded and based on the requirements of the grant approval. The selection criteria for peer panel members: – Artistic practice – artists and arts professionals with different artistic stylesand philosophies, respected within their field. – Professional specialisation – artists and arts professionals who perform a variety of different professional roles in the arts that are relevant to the category. – Cultural diversity – artists and arts professionals representing the cultural mix of Australian society. – Disability – artists and arts professionals with disability. – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander – representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and arts professionals. – Regions and communities – artists and arts professionals from different geographical regions. – Gender. – Age – artists and arts professionals of different generations The Narrator fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Higsian posted:We're talking arts funding, not general budgets. General budgets should be constructed by experts on behalf of the people and reflect what is best for the people. Arts budgets should reflect the desires and tastes of the people. I disagree. There's a greater public interest in having controversial art than having more consumer friendly art.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:
Agreed. Having only 'safe' art, or commercially-viable art, goes against art's role in challenging the people that consume it and their ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Sooooo, you want to add a few more ballot sheets at the next election for which art to fund? How does this public voting happen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Arts funding is the equivalent of parents forcing their children to eat their vegetables. If you let the children eat what they want, all they would eat is McDonalds, and they'd all be obese. That's why art is funded by the government. To make sure that society gets to be exposed to varied arts, even if some people don't appreciate them, because it makes society as a whole better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
The Guardian posted:Journalists at News Corp Australia have called on management to reject the views of Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Blair who mocked and downplayed the issue of domestic violence on his blog. I'm glad his own people are calling him out on this
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Sooooo, you want to add a few more ballot sheets at the next election for which art to fund? How does this public voting happen? Yeah I dunno. I'm just spitballing when I talk alternatives. I just want the system to be more democratic and open.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Essential Research is 50-50 with Fairfax due out this week, it was meant to be yesterday but who knows now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Yeah I dunno. I'm just spitballing when I talk alternatives. I just want the system to be more democratic and open. I think the best you're going to get is panels of informed experts deciding, which sounds like what we already have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
We should start an AusPol Gallery where every poster submits art and whoever is voted best gets to perma-ban LibertyCat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Spudd posted:We should start an AusPol Gallery where every poster submits art and whoever is voted best gets to perma-ban LibertyCat. Just give it to Vlad as we all know he would piss it in with a nutella and whipped cream painting or whatever his latest medium is. Or if you allow dramtic readings in the contest: Tithin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I'm not saying it's always elitist stuff that gets funded. I'm basically just not comfortable with having a small number of people empowered to make decisions on public spending in an entirely subjective field like art. If private foundations or individuals want to fund specific stuff they like or think is valuable to society then that's their business, but public money should reflect the will of the public when it comes to something subjective. This is essentially what the Australian Research Council does as well. But it is also getting budget cuts, so maybe poo poo's hosed regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:This is essentially what the Australian Research Council does as well. But it is also getting budget cuts, so maybe poo poo's hosed regardless. haha. "maybe" of course poo poo is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Spudd posted:We should start an AusPol Gallery where every poster submits art and whoever is voted best gets to perma-ban LibertyCat. This should be tax-payer funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:haha. "maybe" Absolutely and here's why! Bankers Association chief Steve Munchenberg has refused to rule out a mining tax-style ad campaign to fight Labor's proposed royal commission into the banking and finance sector. The head of the nation's banking lobbying cautioned the lobby group is not "actively considering" an ad campaign at this time, ahead of an expected July 2 double dissolution election, but said it remained on the table as one of a range of options under consideration. And marketing consultant Toby Ralph, who has worked on 50 election campaigns across 3 continents including for the former Howard government, said he had "no doubt the banks can run a campaign that will turn the political opportunism of a royal commission into an electoral nightmare for Labor". In 2010, the mining industry spent about $22 million on a six week ad campaign opposing Labor's proposed Resources Super Profits Tax. The campaign effectively blew up Kevin Rudd's prime ministership and he was dumped by the ALP for Julia Gillard, who rapidly made peace with the big miners. Labor proposed a two year, $53 million inquiry last Friday after a series of scandals at the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Bank and National Australia Bank, and allegations from corporate regulator ASIC that the ANZ and Westpac rigged the bank bill swap rate. Mr Munchenberg told Fairfax Media that Labor had not made the case for a banking royal commission and that the ABA had "not ruled out" an ad campaign. "We are not currently looking at such a thing [an advertising campaign] but we are actively considering an appropriate response from the industry. Our main focus at this stage is to highlight the fact of why we think a royal commission would not achieve anything beyond what is already being done," he said. Mr Ralph said a campaign "would cost banks $20 million or so, being around one 10th of what they'd spend on responses to a commission". While banks made easy targets, Mr Ralph said voters disliked politicians too. "What makes campaigns of this nature successful is impact at the ballot box. I'd demonstrate the core truths, rather than simply claiming them, then run a marginal seat campaign talking about how a commission will increase mortgages, arguing that a vote for Labor is a green light for increased home loan rates. That would cost them seats." Monash University economics professor Rodney Maddock has estimated the cost of the royal commission could run to $250 million - including as much as $50 million for each for the major banks. Meanwhile, former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin accused Labor of playing a "dangerous game" with a fundamental pillar of the Australian economy. " When the global financial system is under pressure, you don't want to be having a review based purely on politics. Banks are a key pillar of the economy and this is a dangerous game to play," he said. Both sides of politics traded blows over the inquiry on Tuesday, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten arguing ASIC did a good job but pointing out it had been hit by a $120 million, four year funding cut in Tony Abbott's first budget in 2014. Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said a royal commission would - as well as examining the financial sector - probe the power and ability of sector regulators, including ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. "Is Mr Turnbull really suggesting the right way of determining the resourcing and ability of ASIC is to have ASIC conduct an inquiry into themselves? That is what a royal commission is for." Treasurer Scott Morrison, whose office released a fact sheet arguing ASIC had equivalent powers to a royal commission, questioned Labor push for the probe when it had ignored the findings of the royal commission into trade unions. "It [ASIC] actually has more powers than a royal commission, because it can go ahead and prosecute ... it can act on its own motion, it can take referrals from ministers, it can compel witnesses," he said. The federal government, which is under pressure from its own backbench for so rapidly ruling out the inquiry, has indicated ASIC could receive a funding boost in the May budget. The government fact sheet pointed out both ASIC and a royal commission had coercive investigative powers, that penalties existed for failing to give evidence or concealing documents and that in both cases statements made under compulsion were not admissible in civil and criminal proceedings. But Labor released a separate analysis from the independent parliamentary library that showed ASIC faced time constraints on its investigations, that ASIC's investigations occurred in private whereas royal commissions were typically conducted in the full gaze of public scrutiny and that when summoning witnesses an ASIC officer needed "reasonable grounds" for the summons whereas a royal commission generally faced no statutory prerequisites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
The free market should decide what art gets funded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Anidav posted:Essential Research is 50-50 with Fairfax due out this week, it was meant to be yesterday but who knows now. Does 50/50 mean labor has a shot or is it one of those 50/50s where the 50% of supporters are concentrated in labor safe seats and the Libs have a polling advantage in all seats that matter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 10:18
|
|
