text:
Archive for 'Intellectual property' Category
Intellectual property »
Bland Eyed Soul: Analysing Brand Key
Posted on 15:03, August 30th, 2016 by E.A.
It was a toss-up between posting this or my short fiction story "John Key goes to prison". I will post the story some other time.
While doing research for a few upcoming KP posts on Asia I was distracted on the weekend by Vernon Small's article about John Key and the outcome of the Broadcasting Standards Authority investigation into a complaint about his prison rape/soap joke while on the Radio station the Rock last year and rapidly spiraled off into what you are reading now.
But it was Small's specific comment about Key "trading prime ministerial dignity for a populist hit" that really started me thinking about what exactly is going on with our Dear Leader and his carefully crafted media image.
Because while there have been recent articles claiming that Key is "plummeting" in the polls as preferred PM the reality is that he remains well head of the rest by a significant factor and while not at the Trump level of being able to kill someone in the street it's clear that John Key can say and do things other could not get away with, PM or not.
So yes Keys popularity is the lowest it's ever been and there is definite wisdom in what Small was saying but that level of analysis is not enough, right now we have only four of the journalistic five W's (who, what, where and when) while what we really need is the why.
And it's an area which has been examined before, the why of "why is John Key so popular?" question that NZ political reporters have been asking for a long time now. And with more than a few shots at it, the best of the bunch are Bryce Edwards piece in the NBR from 2011 and Tracy Watkin's recent look at having Key around for a fourth term but neither really dig into Brand Key.
Watkins focuses on the Key playbook while Edwards notes the apolitical nature of Key and these are both valid approaches but Brand Key needs an actual breakdown of the brand and both pieces remain rooted in pure politics rather than from John Key being commodified in exactly the same way a bar of soap is or how a pop star marketed to their fans.
So with this in mind I aim to have a deeper look into John "you have a pretty mouth" Key through the lens of advertising rather than politics.
Now full disclosure, while not an expert on advertising, I worked in the industry for a short period (creative, copywriter and catalog model*) and I have always had an interest in advertising itself as in many ways it is the lingua franca of capitalism and the true art of our age. So while I may scramble the terminology at times I am looking at Key in the same way as I looked at creating an ad when I was employed to do such.
To begin with we need to look at the key principles behind Brand Key which are: brand awareness; brand loyalty; brand strategy; brand definition; brand equity; synergy and brand momentum. These are the key (no pun intended) principles behind Brand Key. Of course these terms are the language of marketing but, in this case, underneath there is a creepy layer of politics that we will get to that a bit later.
First up is brand awareness or how aware are they of Brand Key. For Key its pretty good, he is the PM after all and he regularly appears in the media both politically and at times non-politically in tabloid/gossip publications like those found at supermarket checkouts. He also gets named on blogs like this (oh the irony) and his face is recognizable as the PM of NZ. Most of us know who he is and would recognize him if he stepped out onto the street (as he did one time in Wellington as I was walking to work). So say his name (try it five times while facing a mirror) and people will know who you are talking about. That's a high level of awareness.
Next is brand loyalty or how loyal are people to his lizardness. This can be measured by the fact that Key has remained popular in the polls as preferred PM for almost a decade now, that not a bad achievement despite him making rape jokes, pulling pigtails, sending in his lawyer to lobby for tax havens and all the rest of grubby little things he has been linked to. It is worth pointing out though that loyalty in public and loyalty in the party may not be the same thing as Judith Collins previous coup attempt shows that the art of backstabbing leaders remains alive and well in the National party (but they don't call John Key the "smiling assassin" for nothing so he lived though that one).
Another point to note is that loyalty for Brand Key may not translate into loyalty to the National Party as its current position in the polls exists by virtue of Key capturing the all-important (at least for the time being) middle voter demographic on their behalf. Few if any would vote for National if it was not for Brand Key (something I noted in my previous post on the party).
From brand loyalty to brand strategy (what strategy is being used to manipulate the image of Key in such a way as to appeal to voters), we now start to get into the subtle and often unspoken nuances of Brand Key which is a combination of being apolitical (as Bryce Edwards noted in his 2011 article) and that blokey, matey, kiwi every-man quality that all male politicians in NZ, and a few female ones as well, desperately want to tap into.
Well in Key's case he has nailed it and this is reflected in loyalty to Brand Key, he is perceived as being an authentic kiwi male (likes rugby, drinks beer etc) which resonates with kiwi voters in that he is a male figure that they can identify with and which also appeals to female voters in the same mold as the fresh faced, suit wearing, middle aged white men first made popular by Tony "poodle" Blair but later co-opted by conservatives everywhere has appeal.
Brand Key as an image is incredibly strong and resonates in much the same way any popular brand does and through a variety of media formats (image, sound, word etc) which makes the strategy of billing him as an apolitical middle man perfect for appealing to middle ground voters unhappy with the perceived failures of partisan politics and wishing only for a simple message and action orientated leader (if only in image rather than actual action) an easy task.
The fact that Key has kept hidden his deep ideological background to the vampire squid and all that it entails from Godzone voters is proof that this strategy has worked wonders and remains viable today.
Following on is brand equity (or capital) which is the measure of how much good will a brand has banked away for a rainy day. Again in this area Brand Key has been very successful and while things have had a bit of a downturn of late (as with the rape joke not going quite as well as planned) it remains in credit with the mainstream voting public.
Brand equity is built primarily through a successful brand strategy and as we have seen the strategy has been so successful that it has led to a windfall of equity to which Brand key has used to offset moments like a backfiring rape skit on a brain dead radio show.
Then there is brand definition (the positive, open articulation of the brand though positioning it within a particular idea or framework) which is the opposite of brand strategy (which is primarily subliminal in its articulation to people). Brand Key has been defined by words like "pragmatic" or "human" or photos of him doing human things (like having a pizza delivered to his house) which all lead to John Key often being set apart from other politicians.
Brand Key is defined as a kiwi guy, popular and the kind of person you could run up and take a selfie with, the kind you would want to take a selfie with and to which we would like to know more of his life, just like we do when we hanker for more info about our favorite celebrity, a Kardashian like politician if you will (the spawn family from Hollywood not the aggressive alien spawn from Star Trek) for the political public to consume through vicarious means.
If Brand Key could be defined in the language of soft drinks then John Key is the politician that refreshes, with no added political baggage (like ideology and such) that Labour and the Greens have (well maybe the Greens) and focused on the things that matter, like having an economic surplus and lower taxes (i.e. getting wealthy). He is the politician you vote for when you want the classic taste of economic conservatism but none of the ideological aftertaste you get with ACT.
After brand definition is synergy, a king among buzzwords, even in marketing and now in government. Synergy in this sense means the magic of bringing it all together with that extra something special that gives things mojo where they themselves had none. Its the X Factor for politicians and Key is racking up the votes while the accordion player and albino dancers languish off stage. There is no denying Key has the X factor when it comes to politics.
And finally there is brand momentum, the movement or energy of a brand. The easiest way to picture brand momentum is to imagine a brand as a shark swimming, if its stops it sinks and it dies therefore it's imperative for there to be continual movement and in marketing "movement" means exposure, new advertising campaigns (not necessarily any new products) to keep the brand in the mind of the public and keep it oxygenated and alive because there are always other predators/brands out there which will pounce on a weak brand and usurp its position as apex predator.
In the case of Brand Key there is no possible momentum outside politics. One could not imagine John Key helming the NZ version of Celebrity Political Apprentice (although I do like the idea of such a show) uttering some immortal line ("you're a tree hugging liberal!" for example) at the end of each episode as another unfortunate contestant is hauled off to some distressing little room in the Beehive basement for another session on the rack before being returned to the backbenches to mutter "I love John Key" slowly and repeatedly during sitting days in parliament.
No, with no politics there is no Brand Key, it is only within those waters does such a creature swim and out of all the principles discussed this is the one area where Brand Key has a real problem because it is here that the limitations of Brand Key become evidently clear and where the veil on Brand Key is pulled away to reveal another layer; a dirty grimy layer, coating the surface like some sticky, amorphous and unidentifiable substance stuck to one's finger that is difficult to remove and smells funny as it comes off.
And it is not the fault of any of the principles of advertising which fail when applied to Brand Key but the concept itself of applying marketing techniques and ideologies to something such as politics. Sure it shows the pervasiveness of late stage capitalism in penetrating all aspects of society but that does not mean that they will work as intended to even work well. The commonality of the public and community that politics is supposed to represent does not fit well with the highly individualized act of consumerism in the 21st century.
Branding in politics, as in any form of branding, is style over substance, it is artificially building up something which does not exists or has not yet had the time to reach such a state naturally before delivering it to an eager consumer to be consumed and in the case of John Key few if any would consider him a genuine statesman when compared to his ongoing image as Prime Minister. Key at best is a manager, a middle manager, following the orders from higher up and implementing their agenda rather than formulating any real policy or ideas of his own.
In his past career as a market speculator he may have shown some brilliance in manipulating the small variances of the market to make his vampire squid bosses rich but that was the extent of it (although there is no doubting that Key, unlike many in Nationals cabinet, is a genuinely intelligent person). His miracle advance through the ranks of National in the early 2000s has all the hallmarks of a heavily stage managed career path, not one of his own making or design (he had the talent but a bit of promotion never hurt). John Key is a cypher, of no importance himself but useful in the grand scheme which is why he is so apolitical because making money needs no real political allegiance and as PM he himself is just an actor playing a role.
Therefore the building and maintaining of Brand Key has been essential to hide this simple fact. Brands tap into the subconscious, bypass the rational and distract the mind (like a meme or a virus) with easily repeatable images and words' all of which are to hide from view the true fact that product A is exactly the same as product B.
The shaping and molding of John Key into Brand Key has been an unqualified success in the last decade but this has not been at the behest of John Key. He may have allowed himself to go under the spin doctor's knife in order to enhance his image (much like Helen Clark did with her makeover while PM, to appear more human and less like a Quentin Blake drawing) but this was in the service of his "role" as PM and not a conscious or natural evolution.
And its those spin doctors sitting in such close proximity to the PMs office that are likely the same individuals who brought about the Dirty Politics scandal which exposed the National party agenda for winning the 2014 election as one less focused on winning the vote or enacting any actual policy changes and more about smearing the opposition; using attack blogs, rumors and manipulation of the political discourse to such an extent that all other voices are drowned out and the only thing one can hear is the mind numbing buzz of the Brand Key jingle burrowing its way into your head like some brain controlling worm.
So what happens to Brand Key when John Key loses an election or decides to retire from politics, what happens to old brands when they go off to die?
Most brands don't age well, think of all those pro-smoking adds from the 1940's or other lame and nauseous adverts from the 1950's onward (like coke or Macdonald's) with their artificial realities, happy families and smiling faces hiding the grim realities (such as lung cancer or type two diabetes) which come after the product has been bought and consumed.
The chances of John Key turning out to be a classic or iconic brand are low. Brand Key has been more a series of flash in the pan media moments with its strobe light effect smashing again and again in the victims eyes, blinding them to the generic product wrapped up in marketing hype; rather than a NZ trusted brand which radiates appeal to kiwis.
The likely legacy that Brand Key will leave behind is as the Fred Dagg of his generation, a caricature of a politician with his endless media moments rather than genuine Kiwi political figures who left behind real legacies (such as Norm Kirk, Keith Holyoake, Robert Muldoon or David Lange); a smooth talking city boy with a bland soul rather than an authentic political individual that enacted real positive political change**.
I end here with a quote from a hero of mine which fits this post rather well; it came to me by chance as so many things in my life do. Take it away Bruce!
"Those who distrust the life-giving force within them, or who have none, are driven to compensate through such substitutes as money. When a man has confidence in himself, when all he wants in the world is to live out his destiny in freedom and purity, he comes to regard all those vastly overestimated and far too costly possessions as mere accessories, pleasant perhaps to have and make use of, but never essential." Bruce Lee.
*-because when you are a short, skinny dark hair guy in Asia you can work as a photo model. And yes I have a schizophrenic CV, that's my life.
**-That does not mean the john Key as the actual human being may not turn out to be a genuinely interesting person but this post is looking at the political context only.
Posted in elections, Intellectual property, journalism, Language, Media, Propaganda | 19 Comments | Read More »
Too Clever.
Posted on 15:59, February 11th, 2016 by Pablo
The TPPA signing came and went, as did the nation-wide protests against it. I did not think that the government was going to be swayed from publicly commemorating what it considers to be the crown jewel of its trade-dominated foreign policy, but I had hoped that the numbers turning out to protest would add up to more than 100,000. At least that way the government could be put on notice that a sizeable portion of the electorate were unhappy about the surrender of sovereignty to corporate interests enshrined in the 6000 page text. Alas, the numbers assembled came nowhere close.
One interesting sidebar was the decision to stage a parallel protest at the Sky City complex  rather than join with the larger protest march down Queen Street. The specific objective of the Sky City protest was ostensibly to use so-called non-violent direct action (NVDA) and other acts of civil disobedience to block the streets surrounding the gambling complex. In the build up to signing (and protest) day the leaders of the two rival demonstrations publicly debated and largely disagreed on the merits of each. The Queen Street march organisers were concerned that any pushing and shoving at Sky City would feed into the government's narrative that the matter was a law and order issue (following reports that the police had conducted riot control refresher training and door knocked activists warning them about the consequences of unruly acts). The leaders of the Sky City blockade argued that peaceful marches were simply ineffectual and were ignored by policy-makers. As it turns out, both were right.
The Sky City protesters, some of whom showed up in helmets and assorted face coverings, were forcibly prevented by the Police from effectively shutting down access to and from the venue and surrounding areas. The activists responded by engaging in a series of rolling blockades of major intersections, including the Cook Street on-ramp leading to the Harbour Bridge and Northern Motorway. This continued well after the signing ceremony was over and while the Queen Street march was still in progress. That had the effect of causing gridlock in the Auckland CBD.
Coincidentally or not, there was a bus strike that day. Although Auckland Council allowed its employees to work from home, many other entities did not. That meant that people who normally used buses to get to work had to use alternative transportation, including cars. That added to the number of cars on Auckland inner city roads at the time of the rolling blockades. Needless to say, motorists were not happy with the seemingly random temporary road closures in and around the CBD.
That is why things got too clever. As a tactical response to the police thwarting of the initial action, the move to rolling blockades was ingenious. But that bit of tactical ingenuity superseded the strategic objective, which was to draw attention to the extent of TPPA opposition. In fact, it appeared that the Sky City activists were trying to outdo each other in their attempts to make a point, but in doing so lost sight of the original point they were trying to make. After all, blocking people from leaving the city after the signing ceremony was over was not going to win over hearts and minds when it comes to opposing the TPPA. Plus, it displayed a callous disregard for the motorists affected. What if someone was rushing to a hospital to be with their badly injured child or terminally ill parent? What about those who needed to get to work on time so as to not be docked pay? What about cabbies and delivery people who earn their livings from their vehicles? None of this seems to have factored into the blockader's minds. Instead, they seemed intent on proving to each other how committed they were to causing disruption regardless of consequence to others.
I have seen this before in other places, most recently in Greece, where anarchists and Trotskyites (in particular but not exclusively) infiltrate peaceful protests and engage in acts of violence in order to provoke what are known as "police riots" (a situation where isolated assaults on individual police officers eventually causes them to collectively lash out indiscriminately at protesters). Fortunately, NZ does not have the type of violent activist whose interest is in causing a police riot. Unfortunately, it has activists who seemingly are more interested in establishing and maintaining their street credentials as "radicals" or "militants" than using protest and civil disobedience as an effective counter-hegemonic tool. So what ended up happening was that the Sky City protestors were portrayed by the corporate media and authorities as anti-social misfits with no regard for others while the Queen Street march was briefly acknowledged, then forgotten.
On a more positive note, Jane Kelsey has to be congratulated for almost single-handedly re-defnining the terms of the debate about TPPA and keeping it in the public eye. As someone who walks the walk as well as talk the talk, she was one of the leaders of the Queen Street march and has comported herself with grace and dignity in the face of vicious smears by government officials and right wing pundits lacking half the integrity she has. I disagree about the concerns she and others have raised about secrecy during the negotiations, in part because I know from my reading and practical experience while working for the US government that all diplomatic negotiations, especially those that are complex and multi-state in nature, are conducted privately and only revealed (if at all) to the public upon completion of negotiations (if and when they are).
For example, the NZ public did not get to see the terms of the Wellington and Washington Agreements restoring NZ as a first-tier security partner of the US until after they were signed, and even today most of their content has been ignored by the press and no protests have occurred over the fact that such sensitive binding security arrangements were decided without public consultation. More specifically with regards to the TPPA, no public consultations were held in any of the 12 signatory states, and in the non-democratic regimes governing some of those states the full details have still not been released. Even so, I do think that it was a good opposition ploy to harp about "secrecy" as it simply does not smell right to those not versed in inter-state negotiations. In any event, what Ms. Kelsey did was exactly what public intellectuals should be doing more often–informing and influencing public opinion for the common good rather than in pursuit of financial or political favour.
I would suggest that opponents of the TPPA focus their attention on the Maori Party and its MPs. The Green Party's opposition to TPPA is principled, NZ First's opposition is in line with its economic nationalism and the Labour Party's opposition is clearly tactical and opportunistic (at least among some of its leaders). So the question is how to wrestle votes away from the government side of the aisle when it comes to ratification. Peter Dunne and David Seymour are not going to be swayed to change sides, but the Maori Party are in a bit of an electoral predicament if they chose to once again side with the economic neo-colonialists in the National government.
For all the sitting down in the middle of public roadways, it may turn out that old fashioned hardball politicking may be the key to successfully stymying ratification of the TPPA in its present form.
Now THAT would be clever.
Tags: Civil disobedience, Democracy, Elections, Foreign policy/affairs, International relations, Labour, Maori Party, Media, National, Protest, Representation, TPPA, trade
Posted in An inclusive society, Democracy, Economics, foreign policy, governance, History, identity, Intellectual property, intellectuals, International relations, Make a difference, Media, National identity, NZ foreign policy, Parliament, Politics, trade | 5 Comments | Read More »
Cyberwar comes to New Zealand.
Posted on 12:23, June 10th, 2015 by Pablo
News that Chinese hackers obtained personal details of 4 million US federal employees dating to 1985, following on the heels of similar attacks on the customer records of private insurance companies and retirement funds as well as the internal email networks of the US State Department and White House, demonstrate that a guerrilla cyber-war is underway. Although it will not replace traditional warfare any time soon, this is the new face of war for several reasons.
First, it does not involve physical conflict using kinetic weapons, which removes direct bloodletting from the equation. Second, it can target critical infrastructure (power grids, water supplies) as well as the command, control, communications, computing and intelligence (C4I) capabilities of adversaries. Third, it can be masked so that perpetrators can claim a measure of plausible deniability or at least intellectual distance from the action. Fourth, it can be used for tactical and strategic purposes and the pursuit of short or long-term objectives.
Much like military drones, cyberwar is here to stay.
The war is not one sided: Russian hackers have penetrated Pentagon email networks and the 5 Eyes signals intelligence alliance has dedicated hacking cells working 24/7 on targets of opportunity. Many other nations also indulge in the practice as far as their technological capabilities allow them. To these can be added a host of non-state actors—Wikileaks, Anonymous, ISIS, among others—who have also developed the capability to engage in electronic espionage, sabotage, data capture and theft.
With the most recent revelations about the hacks on the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) archival records (which include personal details of active and retired federal employees as well as identities of those who have had or hold security clearances, perhaps including myself given my prior employment by the Department of Defense) an evolution in cyber warfare is now evident.
Previously, most state-sanctioned cyber attacks were so-called "front door" attacks on government or corporate mainframes, servers and networks. The interest was in surreptitiously obtaining sensitive data or installing surveillance devices in order to engage in ongoing monitoring of targeted entities. "Back door" probes and attacks were the province of non-state actors, especially criminal organisations, seeking to obtain private information of individuals and groups for fraudulent use. However, the recent attacks have been of the "back door" variety yet purportedly state sanctioned, and the Snowden leaks have revealed that 5 Eyes targets the personal communications of government officials, diplomats, military officials and corporate managers as a matter of course.
The move to state-sponsored "back door" hacks is ominous. Accessing data about current and retired government employees can be used to blackmail those suffering personal liabilities (debt, infidelity) in order to obtain sensitive information about government processes, procedures, protocols and policy. It can target active and former intelligence and military officials and others with access to classified information. It can target former public officials that have moved to the private sector, particularly in fields of strategic or commercial importance. Likewise, obtaining sensitive personal data of employees working in private firms opens the door to similar exploitation for illicit commercial gain.
Advances in consumer telecommunications have made cyber hacking easier. Smart phones and their applications are considered to be the most vulnerable to hacking. Because many people store an enormous amount of personal data on these devices, and because they often mix work and personal business on them, they represent an enticing entry point when targeted. Yet even knowing this millions of consumers continue to pack their lives into electronic devices, treating them more as secure bank vaults rather than as windows on their deepest secrets. Not surprisingly, both state and non-state actors have embarked on concerted efforts to penetrate mobile networks and hand-held devices. Encryption, while a useful defense against less capable hackers, only slows down but does not stop the probes of technologically sophisticated hackers such as those in the employ of a number of states.
The bottom line is this: the smaller the telecommunications market, the easier it is for cyber hackers to successfully place backdoor "bugs" into the network and targets within it, especially if government and corporate resources are directed towards defending against "front door" attacks. On the bright side, it is easier to defend against attacks in a smaller market if governments, firms, service providers and consumers work to provide a common defense against both "front door" and "back door" hacking.
The implications for New Zealand are significant.
In this new battleground physical distance cannot insulate New Zealand from foreign attack because cyber-war knows no territorial boundaries. New Zealand provides an inviting target because not only is an integral and active member of Western espionage networks, it also has proprietary technologies and intellectual property in strategic sectors of its trade-dependent economy (including niche defense-related firms) that are of interest to others. Because New Zealand's corporate, academic and public service elites are relatively small and the overlap between them quite extensive, hacks on their personal data are a valuable tool of those who wish to use them for untoward purposes.
New Zealand public agencies and private firms have been relatively slow to react to the threat of cyber warfare. The data they hold on their employees, managers, policy elites and general population is an inviting "back door" for determined hackers seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in New Zealand's cyber networks. Since many Kiwis are lax about separating their work and private electronic correspondence and records, the potential to access sensitive personal information is high.
New Zealand has been the subject of numerous "front door" cyber attacks and probes on public and private agencies, including an attack by Chinese-based hackers on the NIWA supercomputer carried out in concert with a similar attack by the same source on the supercomputer run by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NIWA's US counterpart). New Zealanders have been the targets of numerous "back door" intrusions such as phishing and other scams perpetrated by fraudsters and conmen. Yet successive governments have been slow to recognize the new threat advancing towards it in the cyber-sphere, only recently creating dedicated cyber security cells within the intelligence community and just last year amending the GCSB Act to address vulnerabilities in domestic internet security. But it still may not be enough.
Until New Zealand resolves the problem of institutional lag (that is, the time gap between the emergence of a technologically-driven threat and an institutional response on the part of those agencies responsible for defending against it), there is reason to be concerned for the security of private data stored in it. After all, in the age of cyberwar there is no such thing as a benign strategic environment.
Tags: cyber espionage, Cyberwar, GCSB, Hacking, Privacy, Security
Posted in Crime, Intellectual property, Intelligence and Security, NZ Security, War | 1 Comment | Read More »
The Problem with Trading Down.
Posted on 10:13, November 9th, 2010 by Pablo
Jane Kelsey's latest book on trade, an edited collection titled No Ordinary Deal, was launched last night in Auckland. Other launches will follow in Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch this week before the road show heads to Australia. As a contributor to the book I attended the launch and enjoyed the speech given by another contributor, Lori Wallach, a trade specialist at the US research institute Public Citizen (founded by Ralph Nader in 1971). Lori, who wrote the chapter on the US domestic agenda and approach to the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, noted that the model for the TPP is not the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) but instead the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which essentially is an investor's guarantee agreement rather than one about free trade per se.
In her chapter and her speech, Lori noted that among many other downsides to the TPP, it would exempt foreign investors from domestic regulations in NZ, and should the investor be made to comply with those regulations by court order, the costs of compliance would be borne by the NZ taxpayers in the form of mandatory compensation. She went on to note how local pharmaceutical regulations and control boards would be circumvented in favour of US drug company standards, and explicated the dumping and market monopolisation efforts of US agri-businesses under this type of trade regime. As a sidebar she noted how NZ dairy exports would not appreciably increase to the US under the agreement, as well as the fact that the recent midterm elections have ridden on a backlash against trade because of presumed US job losses tied to it, which means that the possibility of the US ratifying the TPP in the next two years under the new congressional leadership (even if negotiations are concluded, which itself is unlikely) are improbable at best. Her basic premise was that she would not object to the TPP if it were about free trading of goods and services as per the Ricardian ideal. What she objects to is the use of free market rhetoric to cloak cross-border commercial arrangements that are less than free or fair and which contain pernicious costs for smaller national partners and wage labour-dependent consumers in general.
The bottom line is that the TPP is fraught and the public need to be aware of the very large downside to it. It is not a genuine "free trade" agreement in the proper sense of the term. Instead, it is a US-centric investor's agreement skewed in favour of large (mostly foreign) corporate interests rather than consumers and local producers. Among other topics, chapters (there are 19 in all) explore the impact of the TPP on indigenous rights, climate change, intellectual property, cultural exchange and, in my contribution, security. They are well worth reading, and often eye-opening.
The book is designed to promote informed debate on the matter by offering a critical counter-point to the received wisdom of the policy elites who attempt to sell it as as "win-win" universal good for all involved. As I have noted previously when writing about asymmetric trade, this is a far cry from the truth and carries with it not only the potential for a loss of economic freedom and sovereign control of strategic assets, but also the very real danger of increasing both physical and emotional insecurity in the smaller partners involved in such agreements. Since insecurity breeds fear (be it fear of job loss, fear of environmental harm, fear of forced dislocation from one's land or cultural roots, to say nothing of fear of physical harm by direct or indirect means), and freedom from fear is considered to be an inalienable human right, the downside of the TPP needs to contrasted againt the supposed upsides championed by those who stand the most to benefit from the deal, and who constitute an elite and often unaccountable minority among the constituencies involved.
More publisher information on the book and the launches can be found at www.bwb.co.nz. An information sheet on the book is here:
No Ordinary Deal
Unmasking the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement
Jane Kelsey
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is no ordinary free trade deal. Billed as an agreement fit for the twenty-first century, no one is sure what that means. For its champions in New Zealand a free trade agreement with the US is a magic bullet – opening closed doors for Fonterra into the US dairy market. President Obama sells it as the key to jobs and economic recovery, while protecting home markets. Australia hails it as a foundation stone for an APEC-wide free trade agreement.
None of these arguments stacks up. All nine participant countries except Vietnam are heavily liberalised, deregulated and privatised.* They already have many free trade deals between them. Who really believes that US dairy markets will be thrown open to New Zealand, or that China, India and Japan will sign onto a treaty they had no role in designing?
Experts from Australia, New Zealand, the US and Chile examine the geopolitical and security context of the negotiations and set out some of the costs for New Zealand and Australia of making trade-offs to the US simply to achieve a deal. 'Trade' agreement is a misnomer. The TPPA is not primarily about imports and exports. Its obligations will intrude into core areas of government policy and Parliamentary responsibilities. If the US lobby has its way, the rules will restrict how drug-buying agencies Pharmac (in New Zealand) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (in Australia) can operate, and the kind of food standards and intellectual property laws we can have. Foreign investors will be able to sue the government for measures that erode their investment. The TPPA will govern how we regulate the finance industry or other services, along with our capacity to create jobs at home.
Above all, No Ordinary Deal unmasks the fallacies of the TPPA and exposes the contradictions of locking our countries even deeper into a neoliberal model of global free markets – when even political leaders admit that this has failed.
*The US, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Malaysia joined in October 2010.
Publication November 2010
Distributor: HarperCollins, PO Box 1, Shortland Street, Auckland
Contact: customerservices@harpercollins.co.nz
Sales Manager: Tony Moores, tony.moores@harpercollins.co.nz
PO Box 12474, Wellington 6144
Email: info@bwb.co.nz
www.bwb.co.nz
The Contributors: Jane Kelsey, Bryan Gould, Patricia Ranald, Lori Wallach, Todd Tucker, José Aylwin, Paul Buchanan, John Quiggin, Warwick Murray, Edward Challies, David Adamson, Geoff Bertram, Tom Faunce, Ruth Townsend, Susy Frankel, Jock Given, Ted Murphy, Bill Rosenberg, Nan Seuffert.
Tags: Democracy, Economic policy, Foreign policy/affairs, International relations, trade
Posted in Democracy, Economy, foreign policy, Intellectual property, International relations, Politics, USA | 6 Comments | Read More »
Unattributed paraphrasing as unspoken flattery?
Posted on 12:47, October 10th, 2010 by Pablo
From time to time I read bloggers who complain that there work is stolen by MSM "repeaters" and repackaged under the repeaters' by-line or in a story under their name. This form of plagarism is hard to prove conclusively because unless the repeater uses phrases word for word, s/he can claim that fortuitous intellectual coincidence rather than malice was involved.
Then I read Kerre Woodham's column in today's HoS. The tone is similar to the thrust of my post earlier in the week about the rise and fall of Paul Henry. That's OK, as a number of people have taken the view that TVNZ management is as much if not more responsible than Mr. Henry for the debacle that his "insensitive remarks" has turned into.
But what are the chances that she and I would both use the phrase "bullet proof" in paragraphs specifically referring to the moment at the Qantas Media Awards when Henry decided he was invulnerable? Since her version appears five days after mine did, is it a wonderful coincidence and example of great minds thinking alike or an example of the type of repeating that other bloggers have complained about? In other words, is this Kerre's "Noelle moment" or am I reading too much into it and being too possessive of a widely used argument and phraseology?. Readers can compare both essays and decide for themselves.
Either way, I guess I should be flattered–except that she gets paid to write things that I dole up for free.
Tags: Media, plagarism
Posted in Blogosphere, Intellectual property, journalism, Media, This blog | 8 Comments | Read More »
Impunity, freedom and student body politics
Posted on 14:21, March 20th, 2010 by Lew
Just before the end of the university term last year, Peter McCaffrey and ACT On Campus gave the Victoria University of Wellington Student Association an object lesson in how democracy works. They successfully passed a resolution that VUWSA make a select committee submission in support of Roger Douglas' Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill (making student association voluntary) despite various machinations employed by the VUWSA members and officeholders there. These events were well documented in text by Jenna Raeburn and in video with a ridiculously triumphal soundtrack (irony noted by felix).
The fundamental problem of non-democratic (and poor-quality democratic) political systems is that they shelter those in power from the consequences of their actions. Authoritarianism (and authoritarian communism in particular) is deleterious not so much due to the economic failings of the system (such as the economic calculation problem) as due to the fact that in such systems there exists no mechanism to force, require or even encourage the leadership to act in its peoples' interest. I've written a lot about the power transfer problem of orthodox Marxist pragma, and this is an aspect of it. When the leadership is invested with the monopoly power and authority to suppress a counter-revolution, how do you ever get them to relinquish it?
The effect of impunity is similarly evident in other fields; particularly in commerce, where the customary opposition of the terms "freedom" and "regulation" are little more than straw soldiers in a propaganda battle. Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite have written at length about the extent to which so-called free trade mechanisms such as TRIPS are instruments of international coercion more than they are of international trade, and how almost the entire intellectual property system of the modern world has been so thoroughly captured by existing rightsholders that it now functions as a form of privatised regulation by asserting near-impassable barriers to entry into the information marketplace. This suppresses competition, promotes the establishment and maintenance of cartels between existing participants, and all this breeds impunity, where participants have no (or few) reasons to develop their products and services to suit their users' needs, and so they develop them to suit their own needs. The results are everywhere; for instance, in the fact that people are compelled to purchase Microsoft software with most new computers although they might hate and despise it, or simply not need it; or in the fact that those same users, having reluctantly purchased Windows since there are no easily-accessible alternatives (those having been shut out of the market years ago by patent thickets, bundling, cross-licensing, and so on) are then locked into using proprietary media formats, players, content distribution and communication systems with (in some cases well-known) surveillance functions and which are designed to restrict a users' rights to their own hardware, content and communication, so that the system — and users' participation in it — works in the provider's interest, rather than the interests of its users.
That example is just one with which I'm familiar. Much more socially and economically important examples exist; particularly around medical development and crop research. But the point is that this whole system, billed as being about "freedom", does not mean freedom for users so much as rightholders' freedom from the need to cater to their users without fear of someone else eating their lunch.
Returning to student body politics. When a student union compels fees from its students, and when students who disagree with the union's agenda are unable to withdraw their support, what incentive is there for the union to represent the interests of the student body? The political consequence of that system is a student body politic so complacent due to impunity in charge of millions of dollars a year in revenue that it literally cannot organise a SRC vote to save itself.
I am no great supporter of VSM; I view the threadbare rhetoric of "freedom" employed by Douglas, McCaffrey and so on with a jaundiced eye. I don't believe people should simply be able to "opt out" of their society if they don't like it, and I accept that the loss of revenue which will result from the (almost certain) passage of Douglas' bill will place much of the genuinely good work student unions do in jeopardy. But the integrity of political systems is more important than discrete policy outcomes, and to be perfectly frank VUWSA, for its rank incompetence and duplicity in the face of legitimate challenge, deserves to be humiliated in this way.
I hope that the lesson about how democracy works will be well understood — that is: unless people make it work, it doesn't. CSM as currently implemented promotes apathy and idiocy in student body politics, to a greater extent than it would exist in any case. That is bad for student body politics, and it's bad for students. It depresses the quality of candidates and policy, and reduces the system to a comic farce which many students are justifiably ashamed of (if they care about it at all). Much better, for me, would be the the genuine politicisation of student politics, with groups organising and campaigning on their positions, winning a mandate and executing it, as in national and local body politics. If ACT on Campus want to campaign on "letting you keep more of your money", let them do so, and good luck to them. (Of course, they have been, and it hasn't been working out for them, so the parent party has resorted to regulation in the name of freedom. Plus ça change.)
So in my view the current threats to compulsory student unionism is largely the fault of the student unionists and their sense of entitlement to membership dues without the need to prove the value of their work to those who pay for it. The Douglas bill, while it will likely prove deleterious to the good work student unions do, may have a silver lining in that it will enforce greater discipline and competence upon student politicians, and require them to prove to their constituents that the work they do is actually valuable in order to win a mandate. If the work they do is genuinely valuable, as they say it is, such a mandate should be winnable. May they go forth and win it.
Postscript: Go and submit!
Select committee submissions on the bill close on 31 March 2010. Whatever your views, make them known. As I've said, I think it's likely to pass (bloc support from ACT, National and UF), but that shouldn't prevent you from making your views known. Incidentally, I approve of the relatively impartial editorial line taken by Salient, the VUWSA magazine. Especially given that this august [sic] organ depends on CSM for much of its funding, this is a bold and principled decision. Well done Sarah Robson.
Tags: Act, ACT on Campus, Authoritarianism, impunity, Information Feudalism, Intellectual property, Jenna Raeburn, John Braithwaite, Marxism, Microsoft, Peter Drahos, Peter McCaffrey, regulation, rms, Salient, Sarah Robson, select committee submissions, Sir Roger Douglas, software patents, TRIPS, VSM, VUWSA
Posted in Democracy, Intellectual property, Make a difference | 13 Comments | Read More »
Plagarism and Double Standards.
Posted on 19:07, November 21st, 2009 by Pablo
I was not going to post on the Witi Ihimaera plagarism scandal, having commented under my own name on another blog that covered the matter. But as I compare my summary dismissal for writing a rude email to an unqualified and underperforming student with the lack of even a cursory reprimand for his theft of intellectual property, and then find out that apparently it is not the first time that Mr. Ihimaera has appropriated someone else's work as his own, I find myself wondering if indeed there is a double standard at play when it comes to our respective treatment by my former employer. Let me explain why, but first point to the one consistency in the handling of both cases.
The University has, as part of its collective contract with the union representing academic staff, a series of procedures and regulations that have to be followed before an academic staff member can be dismissed for serious misconduct. This includes receiving a formal complaint detailing the misconduct, attempting to mediate the matter using the offices of the Ombudsman, handling the matter within the department, issuing two formal written warnings before dismissal is sought…the requirements are pretty detailed and in fact were made even more so after my dismissal precisely because of the controversy surrounding it. Perhaps Mr. Ihimaera is not a member of the union so other procedures were followed, but that usually mitigates against favorable resolution for the employee.
In my case none of the internal procedures were honoured other than as a facade. No formal written complaint was ever made against me, but without getting my side of the story the Ombuds(person) immediately brought the issue to the attention of my department HOD, who without saying a word to me passed it on to the Dean, who after consulting with the student as to what should be done held a series of brief meetings with me and a union rep in which he shrugged off my apologies and assurances, ignored the fact I had no prior formal warnings, and sent me packing. In fact, he and his HR advisors attempted to use a couple of unrelated events from the past (an argument with a former HOD about managerial practices and an email disagreement with a colleague about a grad student who failed to attend a class) to argue that prior warnings had been given. Those were later found to be irrelevant by the ERA.
In Mr. Ihimaera's case it appears that, upon hearing that news of the plagarism was about to go public, the University rapidly pushed through an "investigation" of the matter apparently involving his HOD, the new Dean of Arts (who was not the Dean the fired me) and Mr. Ihimaera. No disciplinary board with colleagues outside of the HoD and Dean was apparently convened. Mr. Itimaera  gave apologies and assurances, and the case was closed.
What is consistent in both cases is that the lengthy rules and procedures for handling discipline cases involving academics were circumvented, in his case favourably to him and in my case not. This galls me not because I think that Mr. Ihimaera should be fired–I do not, and think that both of us should have received a final written reprimand about our respective transgressions–but because the University argued that I was fired because of the damage I did to its reputation. This line of argument continued after the dismissal was found to be unjustified, then into the settlement agreement by which formal reinstatement meant no actual reinstatement. But what about my reputation? Not only did the leaked email wind up on the front page of the national newspaper and then went global, but the University did nothing to prevent its release or demand its withdrawal when a student newspaper under its authority first published it (even though leaking the email was a violation of the email policy under which I was ostensibly fired). Moreover, the University knew well what the impact of the dismissal would be. As the Dean who fired me said to the ERA, "in a reputation-based business like academia, summary dismissal essentially means the end of a career." In my case that seems to be proving true, and perhaps it was that knowledge that made for lighter treatment for Mr. Ihimaera–but I suspect not, simply because his association with academia was one of mutual convenience rather than professional necessity.
My major question is, if what I did was so injurious to the University reputation, what about Mr. Ihimaera's plagarism? Plagarism is the single worst thing that an academic can do. Working in a genre such as historical fiction does not excuse the lifting of other's words. Plus, being housed within an academic institution means adhering to its requirements on original work, so he was, in fact, more duty bound than independent writers in that regard. Students get failed and often expelled for plagarism. Academic staff get demoted or fired for plagarism. And Mr Ihimaera did not even merit a reprimand? Now, it seems that the case gets worse, as others have come forth to claim that Mr. Ihimaera has plagarised in his previous work. If so, and if the University knew about those previous incidents, then its absolution of the latest episode is even more alarming.
The University and Mr. Ihimaera say that his plagarism was "inadvertent" and thus excusable. Even if that were true–and it stretches credulity to think that a famous author would not know the difference between his own words and sentence structure and those of others– standard guidelines on plagarism, including those specifically used and distributed by the University to students and staff, state that inadvertent or unknowing plagarism is no excuse for it. It is the author's responsibility to ensure his/her work is original and properly cited, and the crosses all academic fields and intellectual genres.
Some have claimed that because Mr. Ihimaera is Maori, famous and gay, he got off lightly. I initially thought that was ludicrous and that there were other mitigating circumstances at play. But the more I learn about the case and think about the differences in our treatment, the more I wonder as to why those differences. Certainly universal institutional standards need to be upheld over and above the specific identity and interests of any individual. That is what the University claimed in my case. Yet, was what I did worse than plagarism? Did my email to an individual student cause more damage to the University than the discovery by a book reviewer in a national magazine of the as of then unattributed passages in Mr. Ihimaera's latest book? How can he not even receive a reprimand, and how can the University claim that in both cases its standard rules and procedures were followed to the letter?
The real shame is that it is not my actions or Mr. Ihimaera's that have tainted the reputation of the University. Instead, it is playing loose with the rules and attempts to "spin" both stories in a way that gives the illusion of procedures being properly followed that sullies the brand. That has a negative impact not only on the managerial cadre that are the perpetrators of the double standard but also the staff, alumni, current and prospective students who share association with the University name. Yet, instead of being ashamed and contrite, University managers continue to obfuscate and bluster, refusing to reveal how their "investigation" of the Ihimaera case was conducted citing privacy concerns (concerns they were not so concerned about when my email went public). Â It appears that management are blissfully unaware that the ship is sinking beneath them or else are confident that no matter what they do, they will not be held to account by anyone other than themselves. Since the taxpayers ultimately pay the salaries of all involved, that should be a matter of public interest.
Tags: higher education
Posted in Education, Intellectual property, intellectuals, Uncategorized | 32 Comments | Read More »
Credulous about copyright
This morning's Insight documentary on NatRad is an example of what happens when journalists who know almost nothing about a given topic are tasked with putting together an in-depth, large-scale piece of investigative journalism on that topic. is based on the misleading assertion that copyright grants its owner an inherent right to an income.
Kim Griggs' journalistic technique is fine – she's talked to the major stakeholders, given both sides of the story and generally done very well at covering the issues. But she's labouring under a delusion about what copyright grants. Specifically, she says:
Put simply, copyright is a bundle of rights which exist once an idea is given concrete form. That form can be a song, a film, a book, a cartoon, a map, or even an email, and the copyright owner has the right to decide how it's used and to get paid for it.
My emphasis. But there is no copyright law anywhere which grants creators a right to get paid – all they have is the right to control the exploitation of their work, and if they can turn that into payment, then good on them. In the documentary John Key also makes this error, conflating "compensation and recognition" into the right to get paid.
It's this false idea – that copyright owners have an inherent right to be paid regardless of how broken their business model might be – which prevents the development of better business models which mean they don't need to treat their customers like the enemy in order to make money. Even the copyright lobby accepts this; they're just so far behind the curve that their old models have failed before their new models are even off the drawing board. Of course, if they want to keep applying the stick, rather than employing the carrot, that's their right.
The content owners have pulled a snowjob on Kim Griggs, which It is unfortunate, because there's already too much uncertainty and misinformation on this matter, without more confusion being added by people who should be clarifying the issues.
Edit: Kim Griggs has emailed me to outline her extensive experience and expertise in the copyright industry in NZ, and Pippa makes many of the same points in a comment. On that basis I have apologised to Kim for the statement above about her expertise, and for suggestion she was fooled by the copyright lobby.
Nevertheless, my broader criticism stands: the statement I highlighted is wrong in fact and is unhelpful to the cause of reasoned debate because it blurs issues around economic rights, moral rights, contract law and industry practice into a blank statement that copyright == money.
I've offered Kim an opportunity to put her case here, if she chooses.
Tags: Copyright, Filesharing, Kim Griggs, Radio NZ National
Posted in Intellectual property, Media | 32 Comments | Read More »
The Pirate Bay – sold!
Posted on 20:30, June 30th, 2009 by Lew
Swedish company Global Gaming Factory X claims to have bought The Pirate Bay, in a press release declaring the acquisition. At the same time, they purchased Peerialism, which has developed "peerialistic" content-sharing models; new models which keep content-owners as happy as consumers. Or so they reckon. The purpose of the acquisition appears to be a move away from a content distribution model of questionable legality and toward a "third way" model of sorts.
We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site, " said Hans Pandeya, CEO GGF. The Pirate Bay is a site that is among the top 100 most visited Internet sites in the world. However, in order to live on, The Pirate Bay requires a new business model, which satisfies the requirements and needs of all parties, content providers, broadband operators, end users, and the judiciary. Content creators and providers need to control their content and get paid for it. File sharers 'need faster downloads and better quality, " continues Hans Pandeya.
I don't know how credible this all is; there's no indication on the site that anything has changed. But if the news is legit, it is a major blow to the free content movement and the agenda which opposes rampant corporate control of information (about which I have written before). It could show that the fiercest ideological outlaws, people who have laughed in the face of legal and financial threats for years, are motivated by money after all. It also shows, perhaps, that losing a major lawsuit isn't always a bad thing: it's hard to see TPB, which has virtually no staff, assets or anything other than brand recognition being sold for SEK60m (NZ$12m) before the lawsuit and its Streisand Effect.
Edit: It's now official, though they use the word "might" in a way the above-linked press release doesn't.
Despite the price tag, that's apparently not the point:
TPB is being sold for a great bit underneath it's value if the money would be the interesting part. It's not. The interesting thing is that the right people with the right attitude and possibilities keep running the site.
They also roll out a good lick of market-libertarian rhetoric in their favour:
On the internets, stuff dies if it doesn't evolve. We don't want that to happen. We've been working on this project for many years. It's time to invite more people into the project, in a way that is secure and safe for everybody. We need that, or the site will die. And letting TPB die is the last thing that is allowed to happen! If the new owners will screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it. That's the biggest insurance one can have that the site will be run in the way that we all want to. And – you can now not only share files but shares with people. Everybody can indeed be the owner of The Pirate Bay now. That's awesome and will take the heat of us.
Just a bit too pat. My skepticism about their motives stands.
Tags: BitTorrent, Copyright, Filesharing, free culture, Global Gaming Factory X, Intellectual property, Peerialism, piracy, Streisand Effect, The Pirate Bay
Posted in Intellectual property | 13 Comments | Read More »
Posted on 11:14, June 8th, 2009 by Lew
Although I never got around to doing the follow-up post on the political-symbolic aspects of the Pirate Bay case (for which you can all blame my baby daughter), one of the consequences of the guilty verdict I considered has come to pass: the Swedish Piratpartiet has won a seat in the European parliament, gaining more than 7% of the vote in Sweden.
How much change they can make in that bureaucratic behemoth is another matter but their election as a Streisand effect-like result of the Pirate Bay verdict which gave them an immense boost in public profile, shows that this is a political issue with teeth.
Tags: European Parliament, Filesharing, free culture, Pirate Party, Streisand Effect, Sweden, The Pirate Bay
Posted in Democracy, Intellectual property, Parliament | 2 Comments | Read More »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Fox & Hounds
By FP Admin September 17, 2013 April 12th, 2014 Restaurants and Pubs
The Fox & Hounds pub & restaurant offers fine dining in relaxed, elegant surroundings in the charming village of Funtington, near Chichester in West Sussex, boasting a truly fantastic wine list, well-stocked bar with a wide range of real ales, large garden and impeccable, friendly service.
When it comes to food, our mission has always been a simple one: to provide the very best menu possible at surprisingly reasonable prices.
Head chef Oz and his team have a true passion for delivering tasty, wholesome dishes with absolutely no compromise when it comes the ingredients used; the Fox & Hounds is proud to serve locally-sourced produce wherever and whenever possible, backed up by impeccable and friendly service from the waiting staff.
The restaurant is open seven days a week, and has been renovated to provide comfortable, relaxing surroundings in which to enjoy a hearty lunch or dinner.
Visit our website at foxandhoundsfuntington.co.uk
or Phone 01243 575246
Around the Parish
Draft Newsletter
FrontPageMain
Grapevine Local Business Announcements


text:
Wayne Wang x 3
Life Is Cheap… But Toilet Paper Is Expensive
Wayne Wang
October 13, 2022 8:10
"A fascinating, disturbing, witty, and beautifully shot film [bristling] with energy."
Michael O'Pray, Sight and Sound
Maverick Chinese American filmmaker Wayne Wang made zero concessions for mainstream appeal with Life Is Cheap…, his blunt-force, X‑rated, neo-noir comedy set against the sleazy underbelly of a pre-handover Hong Kong. Vulgar, violent, and wickedly entertaining, this freewheeling punk-ethos indie follows a nameless San Francisco cowboy (Spencer Nakasako, also co-writer) who arrives in the "Wild Wild East" to deliver a mysterious briefcase to a crime boss (Lo Wei). When the briefcase gets snatched by rival hoods—setting off a truly astonishing, guerilla-filmed foot chase through a tangled maze of market alleys—the clueless courier must track down the cargo while keeping his relationship with the kingpin's mistress (Cora Miao) secret. Juggling disparate tones and stylistic approaches with gutsy, go-for-broke aplomb, Wong's ferocious film, a Rotterdam winner, is a provocative, inky-black satirization of Hong Kong in its apocalyptic leadup to reunification. This 2021 director's cut, Wang's "definitive version," incorporates additional footage shot in 1996. In English and Cantonese with English subtitles.
Advisory: Life Is Cheap… contains graphic scenes of poultry slaughter.
"A pop-noir cartoon, a turbocharged blast into postcolonial, pre-1997 Hong Kong … A nasty, sly piece of work and one of the best films you'll see this year."
Manohla Dargis, Village Voice
"Of all the films to get slapped with an X rating this year, Wayne Wang's Life Is Cheap… But Toilet Paper Is Expensive is easily the most outrageous … Not for the fainthearted."
Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
Centre A: Vancouver International Centre for Contemporary Asian Art


text:
source ${ciop_job_include}

# define the exit codes
SUCCESS=0
ERR_GPT=10

# add a trap to exit gracefully
function cleanExit ()
{
   local retval=$?
   local msg=""
   case "$retval" in
     $SUCCESS) msg="Processing successfully concluded";;
     $ERR_GPT) msg="gpt returned an error";;
     *) msg="Unknown error";;
   esac
   [ "$retval" != "0" ] && ciop-log "ERROR" "Error $retval - $msg, processing aborted" || ciop-log "INFO" "$msg"
   exit $retval
}

trap cleanExit EXIT

# Apply-Orbit-File parameters
orbitType="`ciop-getparam orbitType`"

mkdir -p $TMPDIR/output

# loop through the inputs
while read input
do
  mkdir -p $TMPDIR/output

  local_input=`echo $input | ciop-copy -o $TMPDIR -`
  base_input=`basename $local_input | sed "s/.N1//"`

  ciop-log "INFO" "Processing $base_input"

  /application/shared/bin/gpt.sh -e Apply-Orbit-File \
    -PorbitType="$orbitType" \
    -t $TMPDIR/output/${base_input}.dim \
    -Ssource=$local_input

  [ $? != 0 ] && exit $ERR_GPT

  tar -C $TMPDIR/output -czf $TMPDIR/output/${base_input}.tgz ${base_input}.dim ${base_input}.data

  ciop-publish $TMPDIR/output/${base_input}.tgz

  rm -f $local_input
  rm -fr $TMPDIR/output
done

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Management, Business, and Information Services Joseph E. Evans, Jr.
The above list of key personnel was updated 4–2019.
The Congressional Budget Office independently analyzes budgetary and economic issues to support the congressional budget process.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601), which also created a procedure by which the Congress considers and acts on the annual Federal budget. This process enables the Congress to have an overview of the Federal budget and to make overall decisions on spending and taxation levels and on the deficit or surplus these levels generate.
The CBO assists the congressional budget committees with drafting and enforcing the annual budget resolution, which serves as a blueprint for total levels of Government spending and revenues in a fiscal year. Once completed, the budget resolution guides the action of other congressional committees in drafting subsequent spending and revenue legislation within their jurisdiction.
To support this process, the CBO makes budgetary and economic projections, analyzes the proposals set forth in the President's budget request, and details alternative spending and revenue options for lawmakers to consider. The CBO also provides cost estimates of bills approved by congressional committees and tracks the progress of spending and revenue legislation in a scorekeeping system. CBO cost estimates and scorekeeping help the budget committees determine whether the budgetary effects of individual proposals are consistent with the most recent spending and revenue targets.
Upon congressional request, the CBO also produces reports analyzing specific policy and program issues that are significant for the budget. In keeping with the Office's nonpartisan role, its analyses do not include policy recommendations, and they routinely disclose their underlying assumptions and methods. This open and nonpartisan stance has been instrumental in preserving the credibility of the Office's analyses.
The CBO estimates the budgetary impact of the proposals in the President's budget using its own economic forecast and assumptions. The CBO's independent reestimate allows Congress to compare the administration's spending and revenue proposals with the CBO's baseline projections and other proposals using a consistent set of economic and technical assumptions.
Each year, the CBO issues reports on the budget and economic outlook that cover the 10-year period used in the congressional budget process. Those reports present and explain the CBO's baseline budget projections and economic forecast, which are generally based on current law regarding Federal spending and revenues. The reports also describe the differences between the current projections and previous ones, compare the CBO's economic forecast with those of other forecasters, and show the budgetary impact of some alternative policy assumptions.
The CBO also analyzes specific program and policy issues that affect the Federal budget and the economy. Generally, requests for these analyses come from the chair or ranking minority member of a committee or subcommittee or from the leadership of either party in the House or Senate.
The CBO provides cost estimates of every bill to show how it would affect spending or revenues over the next 5 or 10 years, depending on the type of spending involved. The CBO also provides informal estimates at the committee level and other stages in the legislative process.
As required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the CBO analyzes the costs that proposed legislation would impose on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. The CBO produces mandate statements with its cost estimates for each committee-approved bill.
The CBO provides the budget and appropriations committees with frequent tabulations of congressional action affecting spending and revenues. Those scorekeeping reports provide information on whether legislative actions are consistent with the spending and revenue levels set by the budget resolution.
The CBO maintains an active blog.
The CBO posts answers to questions that vendors frequently ask.
CBO employees and interns analyze public policies and their budgetary and economic effects, work with policy analysis experts, support the Congress, and provide nonpartisan and objective analysis. To carry out these activities, the agency relies on professionals with superior academic backgrounds and experience in defense, environmental and resource, financial, health, and labor economics; industrial organization; macroeconomics; public finance; and public-policy analysis.
According to the Partnership for Public Service, the CBO is an outstanding place to work in the Federal Government. Among 29 small agencies, it placed third in the 2018 Best Places To Work rankings.
In "Expected Costs of Damage From Hurricane Winds and Storm-Related Flooding" (April 2019), the CBO reports: "Without limits on emissions, the rise in sea levels is predicted to accelerate in the second half of this century . . . . Those increases, along with other changes caused by warming (such as increases in droughts and the spread of certain invasive species), will adversely affect economic output in the future and have other negative effects that are not captured by change in GDP (such as decreases in biodiversity)."
The nature of the inquiry determines the best way to contact the agency. The "Contact Information" page has specific contact information for Members of Congress and congressional staff, members of the public, representatives of the media, job candidates, vendors and contractors, and for those wanting to leave a comment about the CBO website.
The Congress relies on CBO cost estimates for implementing budget enforcement rules and procedures.
The CBO analyzes the possible consequences of planned reductions in funding for the military's force structure and acquisitions. It also studies the budgetary implications of Department of Defense plans, including military personnel, weapon systems, and operations plans.
The CBO posts answers to the most common questions that people ask.
The glossary is available online in Portable Document Format (PDF). It defines terms that are commonly used in CBO reports. Many of the entries conform to those published in "A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process" (Government Accountability Office, 2005).
The CBO was birthed in the crucible of conflict: President Richard M. Nixon had threatened to withhold congressional appropriations for programs whose activities diverged from his policies. Members of Congress responded by enacting the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This law reasserted Congress's constitutional control over the budget and created new legislative institutions for implementing the new budget process. One of these institutions was a new legislative-branch agency. To learn more, visit the CBO "History" web page.
CBO informational, nonpartisan products include baseline projections for selected programs, budget and economic data, and major recurring reports.
The "Interactives" web page allows visitors to simulate a variety of budget-relevant scenarios and explore their potential costs. For example, the "Force Structure Tool" determines the costs and capabilities of customized plans for the Armed Forces.
The CBO projects the 10-year costs of nuclear forces every 2 years. The report of January 2019 contains projections for the period from 2019 to 2028.
An organizational chart is not available on the CBO website.
The most recent CBO news is available online. Each Thursday, the agency posts a list of key publications that are likely to be released during the coming week or soon thereafter.
The CBO has a SlideShare account.
The CBO tweets announcements and other newsworthy items on Twitter.
The CBO posts videos on its YouTube channel.
The CBO has posted the 10 most important things that it wants people to know about the agency.
The Topics web page allows visitors to browse subjects ranging from agriculture to veterans' issues.
By prioritizing its commitment to transparency, the CBO seeks to promote better understanding of its work, to help people gauge the potential change in estimates when policies or circumstances differ, and to enhance the credibility of its analyses and processes.
The CBO welcomes applications from analysts and scholars in all fields; however, it has a special interest in collaborating with experts in macroeconomics and financial, health, and public economics.
The Sources of Information were updated 4–2019.


The PS-8593-C0 is our ResoMax NW2 Wraparound Bridge with a chrome finish. This lightweight, high strength bridge will increase harmonic content and leave your guitar dripping with tone. It comes preloaded with our String Saver saddles for reduced string breakage and improved tuning stability.


1. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereign authority;royal.
2. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
Growing up in church, I'm no stranger to the idea of a sovereign God. But growing up hearing about the idea of a Sovereign God and deciding to BELIEVE and TRUST in a Sovereign God are completely different.
The first 30 hours after submitting our application for adoption has been a roller coaster of emotions. I have gone from extreme joy to ultimate fear and back again. I've gone from complete trust to extreme doubt and held my breath through the loop de loop. A few hours after hitting the submit button I felt like I was looking for a lifeboat. I found myself googling "adoption panic" wondering if I was the only one to feel this way. I'm fortunate to have some friends that I trust to give me wise counsel. I know that they share my beliefs and faith. They steered my lifeboat last night and early this morning.
One of my biggest worries wasn't for me and what bringing this little boy into our family would mean for us. I'm not going to lie, those thoughts have been going through my head as well, but my thoughts are on this little boy. What happens if the doors close on this process in 3 months and we are not able to bring this little boy home and in the meantime he's missed out on being matched with another family? I almost felt guilty for starting the process to become mommy to this little boy. As if little ole me could thwart the plans that God has laid out.
I'm thankful for a friend that simply reminded me that "God is sovereign." Ultimately, He has a plan. He has a plan for my husband and me. He has a plan for our grown biological children. He has a plan for my young son that is 6500 miles away. If bringing this little boy home is truly meant to be, then I believe that the doors will open. If the doors close, then I believe that we are following the call that we're supposed to be following and experiencing what God wants us to experience in the process. And either outcome, God has an amazing plan.
Even as I finish writing this blog entry God is still reminding me that He is sovereign. I haven't visited Eric's website in months, if not well over a year. I was clicking through the links in my post to make sure that they work. I could just tell you what happened, but instead I'll let you experience this with me…… After you click on the link to visit disproportionatejoy.com click on the link for "Other Writing" at the top of his page and see what the top item is on that menu and then have a read. Sovereign.
Remember your history, your long and rich history.
Calling that eagle, Cyrus, out of the East, from a far country the man I chose to help me.
I've said it, and I'll most certainly do it. I've planned it, so it's as good as done.


Looking ahead. To understand how a man can cook a bacon mac 'n' cheeseburger in Vegas, host a TV show at a diner in the middle of Iowa and sample his latest vintage in Sonoma at what seems like the same time, it's important to understand what "looking ahead" means to him. It doesn't mean just big picture. It means tomorrow.
"We have a system inside my company, Knuckle Sandwich, that generates tomorrow's agenda by 5 o'clock the night before. We call it 'the Lock,' and it outlines all details of the day coming forward." It's the Herculean task of Fieri's assistant to, as he describes it, "capture all the butterflies" and generate this hyperdetailed agenda. It's obsessive on the minutiae, down to, say, the name and phone number of the driver taking Fieri to his photo shoot for this magazine. It puts everyone in the company on the same page and avoids wasting a busy person's most precious commodity: time.
"This way, my staff knows not to call me at 2:30 in the afternoon, because they know I'm in a high-pressure interview with the badass from Entrepreneur magazine!" he says, laughing.
The Lock isn't just about scheduling. To him, it's also about creating trust. When everyone knows what's going on, he feels comfortable that they're executing his vision.
Although sometimes he doesn't exactly spend that personal time alone. This past summer, while vacationing with his family at Disney World to celebrate the opening of his new concept in the park, Chicken Guy, a wildfire began ravaging his native Northern California. He hopped on a plane back home, and then, along with his son, drove up to Redding and helped feed more than 20,000 people. "People were volunteering to help us who'd just lost their homes," he says. "They'd say, 'I have nowhere to go. I can't just sit in a shelter. I want to help.' What can you say to that besides 'Grab an apron'?" This wasn't work, and it wasn't exactly family time. It was just time to do what felt right -- a mental state as important as anything else.
And that leaves plenty of energy left to talk to his attorney and his accountant.


SOUTHFIELD, Mich., Aug. 17, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:BAGR) ("DRH" or the "Company"), the creator, developer and operator of the unique, full-service, ultra-casual restaurant and bar Bagger Dave's Burger Tavern® ("Bagger Dave's") and the largest franchisee for Buffalo Wild Wings® ("BWW"), today announced its newest Buffalo Wild Wings opening in Adrian, Michigan. This opening marks the 20th Buffalo Wild Wings location for DRH in the state of Michigan and 62nd overall.
The restaurant is located in the Adrian Mall, which is an enclosed regional mall featuring specialty and other retailers including Hobby Lobby, Elder-Beerman, American Eagle Outfitters, MC Sporting Goods, Bath & Body Works, Christopher & Banks, Finish Line, Kay Jewelers and many more.
"We are delighted to be opening our newest Buffalo Wild Wings in Adrian and becoming a part of the local dining scene. This restaurant showcases Buffalo Wild Wings' enhanced Stadia design and promotes customer excitement and a high–energy stadium experience through a dynamic sports viewing atmosphere. We look forward to serving customers as they socialize with their friends, kick back during the week and perhaps watch the game on the weekends," said Michael Ansley, President and CEO.
Regular restaurant hours will be Sunday through Wednesday, 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM, and Thursday through Saturday, 11:00 AM to 1:00 AM.
Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:BAGR) ("DRH" or the "Company") owns and operates Bagger Dave's Burger Tavern, a full-service, family-friendly restaurant and full bar with a casual, comfortable atmosphere specializing in custom-built, proprietary, fresh prime rib recipe burgers, all-natural turkey burgers, hand-cut fries, locally crafted beers on draft, hand-dipped milk shakes, salads, black bean turkey chili, and much more. There are currently 23 company-owned Bagger Dave's restaurants in Michigan and Indiana. For more information, visit www.baggerdaves.com.
The Company also operates 62 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar franchised restaurants in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Florida.
The Company routinely posts news and other important information on its website at www.diversifiedrestaurantholdings.com.
The information made available in this news release contains forward-looking statements which reflect DRH's current view of future events, results of operations, cash flows, performance, business prospects and opportunities. Wherever used, the words "anticipate," "believe," "expect," "intend," "plan," "project," "will continue," "will likely result," "may," and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements as such term is defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and the Company's actual growth, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows, performance, business prospects and opportunities could differ materially from historical results or current expectations. Some of these risks include, without limitation, the impact of economic and industry conditions, competition, food and drug safety issues, store expansion and remodeling, labor relations issues, costs of providing employee benefits, regulatory matters, legal and administrative proceedings, information technology, security, severe weather, natural disasters, accounting matters, other risk factors relating to our business or industry and other risks detailed from time to time in the Securities and Exchange Commission filings of DRH. Forward-looking statements contained herein speak only as of the date made and, thus, DRH undertakes no obligation to update or publicly announce the revision of any of the forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect new information, future events, developments or changed circumstances or for any other reason.


The experience of adoption leaves many children with questions about their roots, but Chinese and American parents have different responses.
It is 6 p.m. on May 7, and Cai Fengxia is sitting at the dinner table with her biological parents in Jiangyin City, in eastern China's Jiangsu province. This is the first meal she has eaten with her birth family since they abandoned her 37 years ago. Now, having finally found the people she sought for 12 years, she is unsure of how to act.
"It's like a dream, seeing my birth parents," said Cai, who has spent half her life seeking closure about her origins. After finally reuniting with her biological family, a lot of the tension has been released.
I first met Fengxia as part of a research project I undertook into the Chinese and American adoption systems. Between 2014 and 2015, I spent 18 months in America on a Fulbright scholarship. During that time, I traveled across the country visiting 30 Chinese adoptees in 20 American families.
For a long time, Fengxia had given up trying to get her adoptive parents to tell her about her biological family. Her childhood, spent in Dangshan County, Anhui province, was filled with rumors and neighbors' idle gossip. "Her mother is barren," they would say, "so she's adopted." She dared not ask her parents where she came from and felt the subject was taboo.
In 2004, just before she passed away, Fengxia's mother told her daughter details about her biological parents. But the information didn't help her enquiries, until four years ago, when the now mother-of-two joined an online volunteer group that helps reconnect adopted children with their families. Soon afterward, she took a DNA test. In March this year, she found out that she was a 99 percent match to a mother in Xiaoqi.
In both Chinese and American families, adopted children often struggle with identity issues as they grow up. They commonly feel self-conscious or out of place in their new environment, curious about their origins, and frustrated at the difficulty of finding their birth families. However, the way that adoptive families treat children's early memories and their wishes to find out more about their biological parents varies substantially between cultures.
In 1979, Cai Fengxia's adoptive father, Cai Xiling, collected the baby girl from an orphanage in the nearby city of Changshu. With only 30 yuan ($4.43 at today's exchange rate) in cash, he started the train ride back home to Dangshan.
Fengxia was small and malnourished, wrapped in a large bedsheet her father had brought from Dangshan. This bedsheet was the family's only possession that told the story of that day. But when they got home, it was discarded.
The way that adoptive families treat children's early memories and their wishes to find out more about their biological parents varies substantially between cultures.
None of the 17 Chinese families I visited kept their children's original clothes as a token of their previous lives. However, all 20 families in America kept the original objects or documents of their adopted children.
Last year, I met a girl called Xijin, now aged 12, in New York state. She was adopted by Suzanna when she was just over a year old, and brought to America.
On top of Xijin's wardrobe lies a red package. Inside, there are the clothes she wore as an infant at an orphanage in Anhui. To preserve Xijin's connection to her birthplace, Suzanna brought the clothing back to America with her.
Xijin first became curious about the circumstances of her birth at around 7 or 8 years old. She started asking her mother why she was in America, how big China was, and whether her birth parents wanted to find her as much as she wanted to find them. She joined a Facebook group for adopted girls, looking for people with similar experience among her peers. Everything about China interested her.
Suzanna believes it is harmful to the child to keep his or her origins a secret, and transparency is therefore the healthiest option. However, she dislikes the word "abandoned" because it is hurtful and carries implications that are not always accurate.
Attitudes towards adoption vary greatly between China and America. Most Chinese adoptive parents keep information from their children as a form of protection. Worried that their children will feel hurt, parents try to shield them from social stigma.
However, adopted Chinese children in America are often visibly different from their new parents. For that reason, their new guardians know from the outset that talking about the child's origins is inevitable. It is therefore helpful to keep anything that could aid in easing the confusion their children might feel when such conversations arise.
The Chinese government recognizes 54 international adoption agencies currently operating in the United States. Every summer, many of these agencies organize trips for adopted children in an effort to help them find their roots. These trips allow adoptees to volunteer at Chinese orphanages and learn more about their native culture. Local organizations also exist to help them search for information about their birth families.
Although some volunteering organizations work with DNA testing centers, the lack of a nationwide database in China means that for many adoptees, finding a match is like searching for a needle in a haystack. With information stored in different places and across different systems, many children never come across their birth families.
China has taken significant steps to reduce numbers of abandoned children, but major barriers still exist for those seeking to learn about the circumstances of their adoption. What is needed is a state-funded nationwide platform for adoptees, as well as a central DNA database. Perhaps then more families, separated by the vicissitudes of time and place, will finally be able to bring closure to the often traumatic experience of adoption.
After 12 years of searching, the moment of reunion between Fengxia and her mother was bittersweet. But communication between them was difficult. While Fengxia spoke fluent Mandarin, her birth mother spoke only the Wu dialect.
In the Jiangyin region, it is traditional for mothers and daughters to share a bed if the daughter returns to visit after marriage. On the first night of Fengxia's visit, both of them lay silently on either side of the bed. Their occasional conversations had to be translated by Fengxia's niece.


Personal Details: Born into a USAF family, loved flying from an early age. Following the death of his parents, he enlisted in the Air Force and rose through the ranks, notorious for his fearless exploits. Transferred to the Space Program in the 1950s. Met with Professor Popkiss and Dr. Beaker in 1958 and resigned from NASA to join them as Supercar's pilot.
Personal details: Born in Hungary to Swiss parents and moved to Switzerland in 1903, where his sister Heidi was born. Graduated From Geneva University in 1931 with degrees in Electronics, Aviation and Rocketry and set up his own research lab. Moved to the USA in 1937 and set up a new lab at Black Rock, Nevada. Was invited to join the Manhattan Project, but turned down the offer. After the war, taught at MIT and met Dr. Beaker and in 1955 they began to work on Supercar.
Personal Details: A child prodigy who excelled at school before attending Oxford University, where he coxed for the Boat Race. Left university with degrees in Electronics, Biology and Mathematics and worked for Vickers Aviation before teaching at Cambridge. Worked with the Ministry of Food during the War, and returned to teaching in 1945. Met Professor Popkiss in 1953 during a tour of America, and the two of them began working on the Supercar project in 1955.
Personal Details: Born to zoologist parents, who died whilst on safari in Kenya, leaving the responsibility of raising raising Jimmy to his older brother, Bill. Jimmy was sent to a boarding school whilst Bill built up his business. During the school holidays in 1960, the brothers were involved in a plane crash and were rescued by Supercar, and Jimmy was taken in by the team, allowing Bill to continue with his business. He owns a pet monkey, Mitch.
Personal Details: Educated in Boise City and became a mechanic. Following the death of his parents in 1956, he was given custody of his younger brother, Jimmy, and used the money that they had been left to set up a business in transport. Following the Supercar team's fostering of Jimmy in 1960, the business prospered, and 1962, Bill joined the Air Force, leaving the business with a manager. Successfully applied to NASA. In 1964, he married his childhood sweetheart, Anne Stephens.
Personal Details: Born to a well off family and left school in 1929 with little need to work. Served in the Albanian Army during World War II, and was known to be a coward and a bully.
Traveled Europe and America searching for criminals to assist him in increasing his wealth. Unfortunately, he chose the incompetent Zarin. Is obsessed with obtaining Supercar.
Personal Details: Born to a long line of criminals, Zarin followed in his family's footsteps. However, he was not a very competent thief, and was caught more often than not. He has a weak personality.


text:
After an accident left her paralyzed, this woman started a wheelchair dance team
By Rheana Murray
Chelsie Hill always imagined a career as a professional dancer — she just didn't know she would be in a wheelchair once she got there.
At 17 years old, Hill was part of her high school dance team and had been dancing competitively for more than a decade. She was three months away from graduation in Pacific Grove, California when she got into a car accident with a group of friends, leaving Hill paralyzed from the belly button down.
In an instant, everything changed. Suddenly Hill, now 25, couldn't move — let alone dance — like she used to.
Meet The Rollettes, the wheelchair dance troupe that's redefining dance
"In the beginning, I thought, well, when someone breaks a bone, they heal," she told TODAY of the weeks after her accident. "It takes a little bit, but they get back to their life. I didn't really understand the extent of what had happened (to me). I knew there was a car accident, and the doctor said, 'You're not going to be able to walk again,' but I didn't know what that meant. I didn't know what the future looked like."
RELATED: Company creates clothes designed for wheelchair users
Hill spent 51 days in the hospital, but it took much longer for reality to sink in: The doctor was right. But while Hill was starting to realize she wouldn't ever walk again, she refused to give up dance.
Chelsie Hill danced competitively as a girl.Courtesy of Chelsie Hill
"When it first happened, I was like, 'OK, how am I going to get dressed? How am I going to do this?'" she said. "But I always knew I would dance again."
Two years after she was released from the hospital, she organized a dance showcase with some women she had met in the wheelchair community, and from there, the idea for a wheelchair dance team was born.
She launched the Rollettes (formerly known as Walk and Roll, and before that, Team Hot Wheels) in 2012. The group of six women performs across the country at various abilities festivals and expos, and will dance at the upcoming Wings for Life World Run in Santa Clarita, California, which raises funds for spinal cord research.
Chelsie Hill before she was injured in a 2010 car accident. The crash left her paralyzed from the waist down. Courtesy of Chelsie Hill
Hill, who also appeared on SundanceTV's reality show "Push Girls," considers the crew "family" and often leads practice each week, teaching new choreography or training for an upcoming performance.
RELATED: Hawaiian surfer creates opportunity for wheelchair-bound to paddleboard
"I have built my whole life these last seven years basically normalizing my situation," Hill said. "Of course I'm still in touch with friends from before the accident, but my favorite part about this team is knowing that I have a group of girls who are my best friends, my sisters. Being able to travel with them and not feeling different."
Hill founded a wheelchair dance team called the Rollettes in 2012.Samantha Annis
RELATED: When these parents couldn't find a wheelchair for their baby, they built their own
On social media, the Rollettes show off moves to hits from Selena Gomez and Ed Sheeran — they even experiment with burlesque and ballroom dance. The women jerk, sway or rock their upper bodies, and use their hands to swerve their wheelchairs or, in one case, "shuffle" to the beat of LMFAO's "Party Rock."
Dancing is "second nature" to Hill, but learning how to move in a chair was entering a whole new world.
"Half of my body was taken away from me and I have to move it with my hands now," Hill said. "It definitely took a lot of learning and patience."
Six women make up The Rollettes. They practice once a week in Los Angeles and travel across the country for various events.Courtesy of Chelsie Hill
Five years later, Hill has accepted her new normal. In fact, she embraces it.
"Of course there are things I miss being able to feel — leaps and kicks and backflips," Hill said. "But when I'm performing, I still feel the same rush that I used to. And when I go on stage, I don't feel my chair. I don't feel different. I'm just dancing, and that's where my heart is."
Infinite Flow, a Wheelchair Ballroom Dance Company, Is Leading a 'Social Movement'
Nov. 25, 201601:59


text:
Heritage property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act
Goodall, B., Pottinger, G., Dixon, T. and Russell, H. (2004) Heritage property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act. Property Management, 22 (5). pp. 345-357.
To link to this item DOI: 10.1108/02637470410570734
Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience, but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration. Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities, widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. Historic environments enjoy considerable legislative protection from adverse change, but now need to balance conservation with public access for all. This paper discusses the basis of research being undertaken by The College of Estate Management funded by the Mercers Company of London and the Harold Samuel Trust. It assesses how the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has changed the legal obligations of owners/operators in managing access to listed buildings in tourism use. It also examines the key stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other important players in the management process.
Faculty of Science > School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science
Heritage, Buildings, Tourism, Disabled people, United Kingdom
03 Feb 2010 14:17 Date item deposited into CentAUR