Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 62, February 14, 2005

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment
by John Nordin
Stupidity on parade

Contrary to what you might discern from this publication, George Bush does not have a corner on bizarre, irrational behavior. There is plenty of it to go around.

From the United Kingdom ...

 

For those who don't know the figures, by the way, more than 700 hours of parliamentary time were devoted to the [fox] hunting ban, as against seven hours spent on the decision to invade Iraq, a comparison that sums up the way we are governed.
(Geoffrey Wheatcroft, 2/14, The Guardian)

  

Wheatcroft's larger point is that the 'courageous' stand against fox hunting by Blair and company was a total sham. A sop to appear liberal and progressive by bashing a very small minority of people who still cared about fox hunting, while pushing a conservative agenda on more major issues.

For that matter, defenders of fox hunting stormed the parliment in an act of civil disobedience. Something opponents of the Iraq war never did.

From Germany ...

 

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalized in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. (Sunday Telegraph, 2/15)

  

Unfortunately for those of us who love to be outraged, this story is mostly likely false. Other reports are quoting Federal Labour Office officials to the effect that this claim is bunk. Germany also has laws prohibiting people from being forced into the sex business. The Telegraph is pretty anti-Europe, so that might be the reason for jumping on the story.

On the other hand ...

 

German brothels are to be ordered to offer work experience and trainee posts if they want to continue doing business. According to a draft bill that has been agreed by the coalition government, all companies with more than 10 staff members must provide work experience and training places.

... A number of Green Party politicians have called for an exception to be made for the sex industry. They say it would lead to bordello owners registering fewer girls as staff members in order to avoid the extra costs affiliated with providing training. (Ananova)

  

From right here in the United States ...

 

Carly Fiorina, the chairman and chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, has resigned.
Ms Fiorina, one of America's most powerful businesswomen, said she was leaving after a dispute with the company's board over future strategy.

The company has struggled to remain profitable since Ms Fiorina pushed through a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002.

Investors cheered Ms Fiorina's exit, HP's shares rising 10%. (BBC, Feb. 9)

  

The board is still around. This is the board that approved the odd merger with Compaq that weighted down HP. And it is the board that is giving Carly, who they forced to resign, a $21 million severance package.

 

Hooray for the Deficit

(Title of a Wall Street Journal editiorial. Feb. 8)

  

The theory of the WSJ is that federal government deficits control spending. They want to control spending so therefore the bigger the deficit, the more pressure there is to control spending. And why do they want to control spending? Well, they used to say it was because it caused deficits.

 

FEAR AND FAVOR
by NICHOLAS LEMANN
Why is everyone mad at the mainstream media?
(The New Yorker, 2/14)

  

This article spends about two-thirds of its space to discuss conservative anger with the media for being "too liberal". It fails to mention most of the real scandals of conservative water-carrying for Bush, except in passing. The whole tone of the article is elitist and out-of-touch. The only real problem, according to the author, is that people out there just don't understand that media is objective and so that the media is attacked from both sides is proof that they should just explain themselves more. The real threat, according to the author, is that a polorized public no longer values objectivity and therefore the poor, tender media may be sunk for lack of an inteligent, appreciative public.

Not discussed is the growing wealth of media personalities, the growing concentration of media control, the replacement of news values with entertainment values. Nor is the alignment of media with interests of the wealthy at all considered worth discussion.

The author evidently doesn't read media, and certainly shows no sign of having read any of the professional journals that comment on media, such as the Columbia Journalism Review.
Gyroscope Home