Only Legitimate ‘Illegals’ Arrive by Plane?

A ‘wave of asylum seekers’ and a Mexican standoff between an Australians customs vessel and 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers has once again brought the ‘illegal immigrants’ issue into the public arena.

But has there really been a surge in asylum seekers arriving by boat like you may have been lead to believe?

The truth is that 4768 asylum seekers arrived by plane last year, at least 13 a day, 20 times more than those who enter by boat according to The Sunday Telegraph columnist Claire Harvey.

“Exact plane-people figures for 2009 are not yet available, but an Immigration Department spokesman said the figure was likely to have increased at a similar rate to that of boat arrivals, which grew from 161 to 1799 since last year, in response to increased pressures within the region, including the end of civil war in Sri Lanka, which has seen many ethnic Tamils fleeing persecution”, Harvey wrote.

The fact is that in 2008 a mere 161 asylum seekers arrived by boat, a huge difference in numbers compared to those arriving by plane.

A Nielsen poll conducted in July this year highlighted the inaccurate perception most Australians have when it comes to just how many asylum seekers are arriving by boat on our shores.

“On average, Australians believe that about 60 per cent of asylum seekers come to Australia by boat. More than a third of Australians believe that over 80 per cent of asylum seekers arrive by boat. In fact, only 3.4 per cent of people who sought asylum in Australia in 2008 arrived by boat – the other 96.6 per cent arrived by plane”, The Punch blogger Claire Mallinson wrote.

Mallinson puts the publics’ misconception surrounding  asylum seekers down to government politics and the media’s ability to sensationalise issues.

“The fact that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by plane is studiously ignored by all sides of politics and by many influential media commentators”, she said.

Perhaps the most important issue in the boat people debate isn’t the quantity of people arriving, but rather the conditions a majority of these ‘boat people’ are subject to in their home country or on their often treacherous voyage across the high seas to Northern Australia.

To add to their trauma, if or when they arrive in Australia they’re imprisoned in off-shore detention facilities on Christmas Island or Indonesia. In contrast, the vast majority of asylum seekers arriving by plane are allowed to enter the community while they wait for their visa application to accepted.

The fact is the Australian Government still hasn’t found a viable, humane and long-term solution for asylum seekers arriving by boat.

Before Australia engages in a debate, the real figured surround asylum seekers and their motivations for seeking asylum need to be communicated. While asylum seekers do arrive in Australia by boat, a vast majority arrive by plane. Beyond the politics of the issue, the media sensationalism and the number of boats arriving on Aussie shores, are people, most legitimate refugees fleeing persecution.

While Australia must monitor its borders and regulate the number of people arriving from war-torn regions, this country should recognise its humanitarian responsibility as a first-world leader and so called ‘multicultural and accepting society’, to provide a safe place for these people regardless of whether they arrive by plane or boat.

Qantas, The Spirit of Danger

QANTAS last week suffered yet another safety scare as two experienced pilots forgot to lower the wheels for landing into Sydney from Melbourne. In another incident this week, Qantas’ low-cost affiliate airline, Jetstar, also had a safety scare as a plane from Tokyo to the Gold Coast temporarily lost control of their aircraft due to “over icing” of its instruments.

This latest chapter in Qantas’ safety record follows a spate of recent problems and debate regarding the safety integrity of the airline and in their decision to cut costs and shift a majority of their maintenance offshore.

Although none of the safety incidents have proved fatal, the number of incidents and the potential for them to have escalated into a catastrophic disaster is of concern.

In July 2008 a Qantas plane suffered from a dramatic loss in cabin pressure mid-flight due to an explosion in the cargo bay of a large oxygen cylinder.  The flight with 350 people on board managed to make an emergency landing in Manila but was not without injuries. In October 2008 a Qantas Airbus made an emergency landing at Exmouth in Western Australia following a sudden drop in altitude as a result of a computer malfunction. Several people were also injured in this incident. This year in June a similar incident occurred when a plane identical to the Air France Airbus – which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean earlier this year - suffered from severe turbulence. The list of Qantas incidents in recent years goes on and on…

According to a poll conducted by AAP, 67 per cent of Australian-based Qantas maintenance workers said they have had to frequently redo work completed on the Qantas fleet by offshore maintenance teams.

“The poll was also scathing of management, with just 29 per cent of the workers indicating they had “faith in Qantas” management to understand issues relating to safety and staffing”, AAP reported.

These recent incidents have cast doubt on Qantas’ ability maintain properly serviced aircraft to guarantee the safety of its staff and passengers while financially the airline suffers with a decreasing share price and travellers opting for cheaper, more reliable airlines.

“Qantas yesterday released its latest monthly figures, which show yields – the key guide to an airline’s profitability – from international flights fell by 24 per cent in the first three months of this financial year, compared with the same period in 2008-09,” Matt O’Sulivan from The Age wrote this week.

Crikey blogger Ben Sandilands argues the recent spate of Qantas incidents is due to a number of causes such as the airline’s decision to base their maintenance overseas and Qantas’ very strong relationship with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Last year, following an investigation by CASA, damning evidence was leaked highlighting that Qantas had failed to “complete a compulsory airworthiness directive on the forward pressure bulkhead of the six Boeing 737-400s mainly deployed on Canberra routes for five years”. In what Sandilands suggests was a deal between CASA and Qantas, CASA sought to suppress the damning evidence following it being leaked to Channel 7’s Today Tonight programme.

“The critical issue that arises from CASA’s resistance to releasing all documents concerning defects in Qantas airliners and overseas maintenance processes is “why?””, Sandilands wrote.

The recent spate of incidents involving Qantas is alarming. Whether these mishaps are due to poor maintenance carried out by overseas workers or due to the airline’s inability to juggle both financial and safety requirements, are both subject to investigations. Following the recent incident at Sydney Airport, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has launched an investigation into the cause of the near-fatal mistake.

As I board a Qantas flight to LA next month, is unreasonable for me to feel slightly apprehensive considering the alarming number of closely related problems with the Qantas and Jetstar fleet in recent weeks, or should I only begin to worry when a Qantas plane inevitably crashes?

Online Gambling: Just Plain Deceptive.

THE other day, in a moment of spontaneity, I signed-up to TAB’s sports betting online gambling website. It was Caulfield Cup day and most of my friends had taken time out of their homework den to attend, but I was cooped up slaving away on my thesis. To begin with I put $20 on my account which I assumed would be enough to allow me to bet on the horsies throughout the day. It was a wonderful procrastination tool, but unfortunately by the end of the day I had spent all of money!

This got me thinking: isn’t online gambling really bad because individuals can add more money to their account and blow it all without seeing a single cent just like me? Nick Galvin, journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald, discussed a survey of 2000 people where 96 per cent of participants identified that they had no interest in online gambling whatsoever and one per cent admitting that if they stumbled across a site they would most likely try it out.

Nine years on and the number of online gamblers tells a very different story. Galvin highlights that today, “Hundreds of thousands of Australians regularly play poker on overseas servers”. He said the uptake on online gambling over the last decade indicates that Australians are willing to hand over their credit card and personal details on the Internet.

In fact another article in The Age discusses the increasing popularity of online gambling which has seen a decrease in pokie machine use.

“Problem gambling involving poker machines has decreased and there should be greater concentration on the ills of internet gambling, the club movement has argued in a submission to the Productivity Commission, “The Age‘s Andrew Clennell wrote. A submission to the Productivity Commission said that NSW was the regions with the 12th highest problem online gambling rate.

The submission argues, “Internet gambling fosters people staying at home gambling on their credit card in a totally unregulated environment, away from any watchful eye, and is in our view the most significant area for the future growth of problem gambling”.

However gambling online should not necessarily be considered in a negative light.

“The simple truth is that the vast majority of gamblers enjoy gambling as a form of entertainment, like any other. As with any form of consumption or pastime – food, alcohol, even shopping or exercise – there is, of course, such a thing as ‘too much’, but there is nothing inherently wrong with gambling as an activity or with the people who participate in it,” the report said.

In reflecting back on my moment of spontaneity in signing up to the TAB online gambling website, it really worries me that people who may not have the ability to say enough is enough, or those underage, that making gambling more accessible to everyone could pose considerable problems for society in the future. As the Internet generation grows and new media technologies become further entrenched in our lives, maybe online gambling will become a bigger problem than the pokies?

Apple or PC, Which do you Choose?

APPLE or PC, it’s an age old question but today, in the lead-up to the launch of Windows 7 and following the monumental success of the iPod and the iPhone, which do you choose?

Maybe like me you’re a bit of a floater between the two, you own an iPod or iPhone but use a PC. Or maybe you’re against PCs and believe they’re unreliable pieces of junk.

The Australian PC Authority predictably argues that PCs are considerably more affordable and reliable compared to Apple Macs which represent consumer greed and elitism. They came up with 32 reasons to as why PCs are better than Macs, allow me to share some with you.

2. Not everyone wants or needs a computer that looks like it fell of the back of a truck. Macs routinely cost more than their PC equivalents. The cheapest Mac you can buy, the Mac mini, costs $949 and come witha  piddling 60GB hard disk, a meagre 512MB of RAM and no screen.

7. If you want cutting-edge hardware, you need a PC…

11. Macs never crash or go wrong, obviously. Which is just as well, because the standard Apple technicaly support offering is nothing short of scanalous. You could pay $25,664 for an absolute top-of-the-range Mac Pro or $949 for a Mac mini, and you’re still lumbered with Apple’s standard warranty, which comprises a pitful 90-days, telephone support and just one year’s return-to-base hardware warranty.

And the list goes on…

On the other hand there’s plenty of Apple Mac supporters out there too, like technology columnist Bill Hustard who swears by the reliability and slick lines of the Apple Mac.

“I do think Apple machines are stylish and less likely to be hit by a virus. In my home, we’ve stayed with PCs, but I’d be pleased if my finances could justify the price of an Apple laptop”, he said.

But beyond the simple handware comparisons is perhaps the biggest difference between PCs and Apple’s, the way they market themselves. Unlike PC, the Apple brand is built around exclusivity, style and individuality. The old saying goes, there are Mac people and there are PC people which was supported by a very popular series of Apple advertisements which I’ll post down the bottom. For some reason the Apple Mac marketing beast is extremely effective despite the fact that Apple Mac’s may not be all that much more reliable, cheaper or state-of-the-art as their PC counterparts.

Technology blog Popular Mechanics goes beyond the marketing hype to examine closely Apple Macs and PCs.

“If the marketing is to be believed, [Apple Mac users] are hip, sport-coat-and-sneakers- wearing type of guys who uses their computer for video chatting, music mash-ups and other cool, creative pursuits that starchy, business-suited PC users could never really appreciate unless they tried them on the slick Apple interface. Then again, Windows PC enthusiasts probably think that Mac people are smug slackers with an overpriced toy that can’t do any serious computing anyway. Funny thing is, both stereotypes are wrong”, Popular Mechanics blogger Glen Dehrine wrote.

“With a 7.5 percent market share, Macs are no longer just the computer choice of artists and unemployed writers. And now, more than ever, the guts of both platforms are remarkably similar. Both types of machines use Intel processors. Both buy memory, hard drives and graphics cards from the same small pool of suppliers”, Dehrine said.

So if both machines are pretty similar in their internals, why are do people  pay considerably more for effectively the same, if not more outdated, product?

In a few days the new PC operating system Windows 7 will hit the shelves. Channel Web Blogger Steve Burke argues that the new operating system, which has been hailed as the savior for the doomed Windows Vista, will present several challenges for Apple.

“When you come right down to it, there is no contest. If you’re going out and buying a system starting Oct. 22, there is no better ride for the money than Windows 7. That’s right Apple fans. Get over it”.

“[An] Apple Mac Pro is nearly four times the cost of HP Pavilion [notebook]. Does anyone really believe the Mac is four times better than the HP Pavilion? And who has that kind of cash to spend on a system in this day and age?” Burke wrote.

This blog isn’t intended to be an Apple Mac bashing session because, as I know, many users are quite emotive about this issue. But if I have to choose between a computer which outdated, under-powered, overpriced and not all that ‘cool’, I’d rather choose a machine based on its technological credentials rather than a hyped-up product and fall victim to a very clever marketing machine… But maybe that’s just me?

It’s On, Social Networking VS. You

*ASSIGNMENT*

– Currently published in: ‘features, when not at work’ on Vibewire

THE potential for new media technologies to ‘reduce the sociability of young people’ has been of frequent discussion in academic and social circles over the last decade.

The argument is that social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and many others allow users to operate in an artificial social landscape which may be affecting young people’s ability to build and maintain real-life relationships.

Leading psychiatrist, Dr Himanshu Tyagi says that whilst communication via social networking platforms carries potential benefits, there is also a downside. “It’s a world where everything moves fast and changes all the time, where relationships are quickly disposed at the click of a mouse, where you can delete your profile if you don’t like it, and swap an unacceptable identity in the blink of an eye for one that is more acceptable,” he said.

Professor of synaptic pharmacology, Lady Greenfield at Lincoln College Oxford agrees, adding not on

ly are social networking sites impacting young peoples’ ability to build and maintain real-life relationships but they are interfering with an individual’s attention spans thus threatening the users.

“If the young brain is exposed from the outset to a world of fast action and reaction, of instant new screen images flashing up with the press of a key, such rapid interchange might accustom the brain to operate over such timescales. Perhaps when in the real world such responses are not immediately forthcoming, we will see such behaviours and call them attention-deficit disorder,” Greenfield said.

On last Thursday’s Q&A program on ABC1 Janet Albrechtsen, Columnist at The Australian newspaper, commented on the effects of social networking communities – such as Facebook – have on young people. She said that in the past children would socialise together in the tree house or over a hot cup of chocolate but today children spend “too much time in a ‘netherworld of social interaction,’” which can then threaten the natural development of our young people.

Beyond these simplistic perspectives are the facts. Whilst a great deal of public discussion is centred around the effects of new media and the Internet on key societal structures and the notion of sociability, empirical research would suggest contrary to populist opinion. As argued by well-known theorist Manuel Castells, most of these arguments surrounding the detrimental effects of communication via social networking sites attempt to simplistically justify what is really a complex set of societal structures that should not be viewed as a mutually exclusive phenomenon.

The fact is that a variety of studies by well-known researchers have pointed to the positive effects of social networking sites on the sociability of young people. Although social networking users may well access their profile or information in geographic isolation, research would suggest communication via social networking sites aims compliment existing off-line relationships. The proportion of young people who use these sites to make friends, beyond their existing real-world friendship base, is pretty small

To me this debate represents (again) an attack on us Generation Y’s. Although I might be succumbing to the same ignorant perspectives as our Baby-Boomer and Generation X forefathers, these perspectives represent, to me, a form of jealousy all because they themselves can’t use this technology.

Perhaps then the questions should not revolve around the potential for these technologies to affect us Gen Y’s but instead focus on the reasons why older people refuse to acknowledge their potential to shape and create a better future for society!

Hey Hey It’s Not Funny

*ASSIGNMENT*

– Current Headline on Vibewire

WHEN plastic surgeon Anand Deva took to the Red Faces stage during last week’s second Hey Hey It’s Saturday reunion show, he would not have expected the furore which would follow his seemingly innocent skit of the Jackson Five.

The skit involved Deva as Michael Jackson and six of his friends from medical school donning black face paint to represent Jackson’s brothers. Whilst the singing was pretty terrible, the cultural significance of the skit was highlighted by guest judge and renowned jazz singer Harry Conic Junior.

When host Daryl Somers asked Conic for his opinion of the skit he said, “If they turned up like that in the United States, it’d be like, Hey Hey There’s No More Show”. Later in the show Conic expressed his disappointment in the act saying that he was deeply offended and that as an American he felt he needed to speak out.

“We’ve spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons that when we see something like that we really take it to heart. If I knew that was going to be part of the show I probably – I definitely – wouldn’t have done it” Conic said.

Realising the obvious inappropriateness of the skit, host Daryl Somers, Channel Nine and the ‘Jackson Jive’ apologised for any offence that may have been caused by the un-funny act.

But the damage was already done. Within minutes of sketch going to air social networking sites had already began to condemn Hey Hey It’s Saturday, with some international personalities even branding Australians as racists for finding the sketch amusing.

Top rating American talk show The View debated the racial undertones of the sketch during their discussions on air this week. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly even discussed the sketch on his prime-time show.

But was the Jackson Jive blackface skit racist or has political correctness just gone too far?

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt says Channel Nine and Somers aren’t guilty of racism, they’re guilty of stupidity for allowing the act to go to air in the first place and that it was run the same night New Orleans born Harry Conic Junior was a guest judge on the show.

A commentator on Bill O’Reily’s show disagreed, adding that Australian are racist and that its ‘civil rights for black people are behind the US movement’.

“Here’s the deal with Australia: Australia’s a little bit behind the US insofar as their civil rights movement. It has started, but it started a little bit behind ours” Fox News anchor Margaret Hoover argued.

Although the skit was clearly in poor taste, the irony of the situation is that the members of the Jackson Jive group are made up of a wide variety of multicultural backgrounds. I’m not suggesting that the background of the performers necessarily justifies the skit, but is important to analyse this issue in context.

“So this is a “scandal” about racism without a single racist” Bolt argues,

A scandal in which people are not attacking racists so much as advertising that they’re not one themselves… In fact, the only hint of racism in Deva’s [apology] is the suggestion that because he’s Indian he can’t have been racist towards blacks…” Bolt wrote in his weekly Herald Sun column.

The questions that need to be answered are directed at Somers, Channel Nine and the Hey Hey producers for how this act got to air in this first place.

What do you think? Was this a blatant performance of Australia’s racism or has political correctness gone mad?

The Red Faces Skit and Harry’s Reaction

What The View Thought of the Skit

Social Networking Sites Encouraging Public Mobilisation

OVER three million Aussie’s tuned in to the reunion special of the country’s famous 90s lifestyle entertainment show Hey Hey It’s Saturday last Wednesday. Although it was odd to be watching a show supposed to be on Saturday on Wednesday, the movement to get this iconic variety show back on TV was perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. You may not know but one of the main reasons the reunion specials were approved by Channel 9 was because over 250,000 people had joined a ‘bring back Hey Hey’ fan group on Facebook.

With the development of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and blog sites, a debate is emerging about the potential for these Internet-based platforms to encourage a new breed of activists. Social media strategist Jye Smith in a blog post on The Age online argues that Internet-based campaigning is an effective way to empower a large audience. “Social media raises awareness like never before because it’s more accessible to larger audiences”, Smith said.

Another perfect example of Internet-based activism is the uproar earlier this month surrounding the naming of the new Vegemite product. After a nation-wide competition with over 30,000 entries, Kraft decided to name its new cream-cheese Vegemite fusion spread, iSnack 2.0. Within seconds of the name being revealed during half-time at the AFL Grand Final, bloggers, Twitterers and Facebookers had already set up groups denouncing the name and calling for a redraw.

After considerable pressure was placed on Kraft to make a statement about the new name  spokesman Simon Talbot admitted consumer negativity was immense and that they would review the name. Acknowledging the damage the new name was causing to the Vegimite and Kraft brands, a new competition was announced where consumers could choose the name online from six different options.

The opportunities offered by Internet-based communication for businesses are immense but as demonstrated by the iSnack 2.0 example, if managed ineffectively internet communication may be nothing more than crisis management for an organisation. For individuals though, the accessibility of new information communication technologies gives the consumer unparallel access to organisations and the mass media.

According to Nathan Bush, social media expert at DP Dialogue, digital activism falls short in changing bigger issues such as political situation – especially in countries with limited Internet access. “I think that the Government won’t take it as seriously as businesses and corporations” he said.

But is Internet activism really a fad? Does it have the potential to make a real difference or does it need to be coupled with offline activism aswell?

Most of us are a member of Facebook ‘fan’ or ’cause’ groups but would you be prepared to compliment your online membership with offline activism? I imagine most of you wouldn’t s,o maybe, for the moment, public mobilisation via social networking sites is just a phase. The old-fashioned petition or vocal protest wont be retired any time soon.