Hello Cruel World

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Some Online Photography; Local conflict/politics
The Photography Channel
The Digital Journalist - A Multimedia Magazine for Photojournalism in the Digital Age
Changing the Face of Power: Women in the U.S. Senate Gallery - The Digital Journalist
Angry Monkey Photography
and one of my favourites, as seen in the sidebar, from top left pixel, the Daily Dose of Imagery

Some Local Conflicts & Politics

Rolly Smallacombe wrote
... Local activists tried to stop the Harbour Bridge being built, they tried to stop the Opera House and so it goes.

[1] http://www.thennewcity.info/
[2] http://g.msn.com/8HMAENAU/2755??PS=47575

------------------------

I find this argument has very low validity.

(But firstly, how sure are you of the truth of those two statements? And how do you define "local activists"?)

I could also say "Local activists tried to stop the car park replacing the QVB" and
"Local activists tried to stop the Redfern Housing Commission Towers being built".
One campaign succeeded, one didn't, is the result of either better or worse for that?

Indeed, along the lines of Gerard Henderson's article last year about Hitler
having supported similar environmental ideals as the Green Party, I could
similarly point out that he was a strong supporter of traditional Christianity,
"Family Values", the protection of children from "degenerate social ideas", and
healthy physical exercise. How do you think he improved his approval from a
mere 30-odd percent in 1933 to a strong majority? It wasn't hate-speech and
terror all the way. Tilly Devine & other sly-groggers fed money and support
undercover to the temperance campaigners who kept 6-o'clock closing in force
for many years by appealing to similar ideals.
(And which were 'local activists' there?) Did that make the ideals wrong? Or the campaign right?

So what if different people had different ideas before, and there was discussion
of the best things to do? The point is whether the developments we are looking
at now are good in themselves and good for the rest of the city, its society,
and the supporting natural & artificial structures around it for the generations to come.

Not solely whether people of influence can take a good profit out of it, return
to *their* preferred residences, and leave the residents and future public good
and funds to suffer: Leave them to pick up the pieces of social disruption, to do the
extra maintenance and policing, and try to deal with all the problems as future
economic swings go up and down, energy use changes so tall buildings are less
viable, the methods of supplying and removing water and waste change, etc, etc, etc.

And of course there are very strongly held views on several sides of these
questions. I believe that there are good reasons to support my views on a
number of issues, and I support those who argue for them. For various reasons,
I've not been able to be very active in the community at all for a while now,
but I do what little I can, and try to support those I agree with.

On many other issues I have a fairly open mind, but try to apply my basic
ethical principles to all, which are apparently at variance with some others'.
(Luckily, for the moment, these differences can be safely discussed in
Australia. Long may they remain so.)
[permalink][comment] - posted by Mez @ 1/31/2006 12:59:00 pm

Comments: Post a Comment

This is my blogchalk:
Australia, New South Wales, Sydney, English, photography, reading, natural history, land use, town planning, sustainability.