Mediehacking

Jeg har fundet en ny akademisk helt: Poul Erik Mouritzen fra Syddansk Universitet. Han har i dag en kronik i Jyllandsposten om det, han kalder mediehacking. Artiklen passer fint ind i et tema, der har udviklet sig på min blog, nemlig interessegrupper og deres kamp for indflydelse. Læs den meget læsværdige artikel her.

DR-sang

Via Skattetryk.dk.

En sjov sang om DR og licens kan høres her. Teksten til sangen er her.

Falliterklæring fra oppositionen: Erik Clausen i Debatten *del II*

Så er jeg klar med del II af min kommentar på den seneste “Debatten” på DR2. Se del I her. Se hele udsendelsen her
Som jeg skrev sidst brugte anti-Fogh-bevægelsens repræsentant (sammen med Jelved) Erik Clausen tiden på først at kritisere Foghs retorik. Den består, ifl. Clausen, af “hårdtslående pointer”, og Fogh taler i “telegramstil”.

Lad os så lige se på Clausens retorik. Her er et udpluk af hans udtalelser om Fogh i løbet af bare de første ca. 10 minutter:

“bonderøv forklædt som voksen”

“har alle mulige spindoktorer og skræddere”

“parodi på en politiker”

Reklame for en bog

Vinder af Årets Århus-krimi, 2006, Marburg-eksperimentet, skrevet af en gut jeg kender på A Song of Ice and Fire og sin kæreste. En stor præstation, som jeg her må hylde.

Hvorfor har folk så ondt? Magasinet Penge på DR1

Magasinet Penge på DR1 laver endnu en gang et program tilegnet til kritikken af topleders løn. Folk synes tilsyneladende, at det er uretfærdigt at topledere tjener så mange flere penge, når nu de selv (de ansatte) ikke har fået en særlig stor stigning i lønnen. Jeg fik så lige den helt vanvittige idé, at utilfredse ansatte vel kan skifte arbejde, hvis de er utilfredse med arbejdet eller deres løn. Dén frihed har de vel.

Men problemet er måske noget helt andet. Måske har folk bare ondt i røven over, at andre end dem tjener penge. Der er jo en genial logik: at det går godt for andre skader mig!

Falliterklæring fra oppositionen: Erik Clausen i Debatten

Det må da være en falliterklæring af rang: som repræsentant for “oppositionen” i DR2’s Debatten (sammen med Marianne Jelved) er kulturperson Erik Clausen. Med sine simplificerende og fordummende metaforer, simili og billedsprog (Anders Fogh som cowboy?) tillader han sig at kritisere Anders Fogh for at bruge soundbites og lignende. Dobbeltmoral. Men pas på! Erik Clausen er jo uddannet kunstmaler og laver nu film. En sådan autoritet må man jo stole på!

Dernæst kritiserer Erik Clausen den politiske indblanding i kulturen. “Det er uliberalt,” siger han, “så lad den være i fred!” (Ikke et direkte citat.)

Jeg er enig. Vi skal lade kulturen være. Start med at lade kulturen klare sig uden massive offentlige bevillinger. Dét er måske ikke politisk indblanding? Dobbeltmoral, igen igen.

“Tag det dog roligt”, siger han til Claus Hjort, et par minutter efter at han selv prøver at skabe et fjendebillede af sine modstandere.

Der er idioti nok til en uge i den udsendelse. Jeg skriver nok mere senere.

Hugo Chavez: one of the more annoying people in the world

Not many people are more annoying than the populist, agitator, polemicist, and anti-American Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. The worse part is that I can just hear most of my fellow students thinking what a hero he is and how right he is.

I’m thinking of working on a spectrum of annoying people. Other obvious candidates would be Danish politician Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil and various religious heads, though obviously the list would be near-infinite.

My Political Preferences

Like many others, I hardly agree with everything any party does and thinks, so I figure it would be easier to describe my political preferences using the more diffuse term of political ideology. In short, I gather I am about 60% liberal (in the European sense, meaning libertarian to Americans), 35% conservative (in the slightly different Danish sense) and around 5% socialist. Here’s why:

60% liberal (libertarian)

I am thus mostly liberal. Being liberal means believing in the individual, in his or her right to individual freedom and his or her duty of individual responsibility. But while two different strands of liberalism agree that e.g. individual freedom is imperative, they disagree on why. These two strands are the moral liberalism and the pragmatic liberalism. The moral liberalism is the tradition of Locke, the Austrian school, and Rand, amongst others. The pragmatic liberalism is that of free-market economists from Adam Smith to Friedman and onwards. This strand argues for freedom on the basis of utility, in that freedom is necessary for optimum economic growth and prosperity, while the first does so on moral grounds (unsurprisingly). These two traditions are of course not as distinct as I here propose, though I think the distinction is useful. Thus, I lean more towards the pragmatic liberalism, although I still agree with moral liberalism, excepting some of its more extreme ingredients.

I favor limiting government interference in the lives of its citizens especially because of the damaging economic consequences of such interferences. For instance, a tax rate of 70% for the highest educated part of the population is counter-productive. In Denmark, I see lawyers and economists doing manual work on their property – simply because don’t have enough money after tax to hire professionals. Furthermore, these professionals are in the position to charge a great deal because of the scarce supply compared to demand. Free cross-border trade would allow cheaper manual labor to the benefit of society as a whole.

I am also rather socially liberal. This is a central and natural consequence of believing in the freedom of the individual. Thus, I think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t concern (i.e. harm) me. But I am not entirely consistent in this matter, as it involves some very complex moral issues.

Hilarity of the Week: Da Ali G Show

The Economist this week has a short article on the American pundit Pat Buchanan. The article mentions an Ali G interview with Buchanan. Not having seen this particular interview, and being a casual fan of Ali G, I just had to find the interview on YouTube. Here it is:

I didn’t find it as funny as the previous Ali G interviews I’ve seen, so I’ll link to one of the better ones next:

And then there is my favorite, although not an interview:

I hope you enjoy.

Go Sweden!

Like many other liberals on the blogosphere, I want to congratulate the Swedes for electing a new, conservative/liberal government. But, here is what I wrote elsewhere just before election day:

“If Sweden is anything like Denmark:

They’ll elect a liberal/conservative government which will push through some cosmetic and symbolic reforms and laws, and talk about cultural change, only later to revert to competing with the social democrats on who can put most money into the public sector, because that is what what matters most to 60+% of the population (the percentage of the population that is state-employed or dependent on state benefits), and then finally (un)officially declaring itself as a social democratic party.”

So I’m not holding my breath for Sweden…

A funny comment from the same location:

“The first exit polls are ready and it looks like a social democratic win with the bloc of the New Labour in a lead in all the polls over the Old Labour bloc.”