The Iranians carry a symbolic box (they would not know what a coffin is of course)
Isn’t it amazing? Even though Moviment Graffiti is supposed to be really radical – though let’s be honest, nobody really radical would haul out that coffin cliché in 2009 – its members are betrayed by their nice-boy Maltese Catholic upbringing. They think all burials involve a coffin and that all coffins come with crosses on. I’m guessing they didn’t even stop for a second to think about the significance of that cross when they painted it on, and that what they’re telling us, in effect, is that the earth buried inside was baptised into the Christian religion. All the funerals they’ve been to have involved coffins with crosses, so what do they know. – Daphne Carauna Galizia (The Malta Independent)
What a load of codswallop. I do not know what is more ridiculous – Graffiti’s display of passé activism or Galizia’s false naivety about the role of the coffin as a symbol of death in the global village. Desperate to poke fun at the young protesters – and believing to have found the usual easy target – Daphne is suddenly blind to all the Middle East protests featuring coffins prominently among the usual panoply of burning flags and effigies.
True, Muslims are not buried in coffins. But to claim that the representatives of Mediterranean governments would be oblivious to the symbolism of a coffin is extremely far fetched. Maybe this fixation with crosses has really gone to everyone’s head. Or maybe some people have run out of relevant things to write about.
Medicine could be bought directly by the government if importers stop bringing over products issued with a price order after being deemed too expensive. “If we have a situation where an importer says he cannot bring over a particular medicinal product at the price established by the price order, then the government can choose to source the medicine itself,” Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said.
The battle clouds are looming as Minister Tonio Fenech takes on the healthcare businesses represented in the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry by Reginald Fava. What is at issue here is the (alleged) repeated offence by vendors of medicine of keeping prices high notwithstanding the (apparent) possibility of selling such healthcare products at a lower price. Medicinal products are cheaper elsewhere than in Malta and the government allegation seems to imply that prices on the Maltese market are artificially inflated.
“I pm di Milano Alfredo Robledo e Francesco Caiani hanno chiesto quattro condanne tra sei mesi e un anno per altrettanti dirigenti di Google accusati di concorso in diffamazione e in violazione della privacy in relazione a un video messo in rete l8 settembre del 2006 che ritraeva un portatore di handicap sbeffeggiato e vessato dai compagni di scuola in un’istituto di Torino.”
The prosecutors in Milan are asking for a condemnation of four Google directors for having allowed the distribution of a notorious video that depicted the beating/bullying of a young disabled person at a Turin school. The link being made between the video and the directors is an economic one:
Per tre imputati David Carl Drummond, Georges De Los Reyes e Peter Fleisher la richiesta è di un anno, per un altro imputato accusato solo di diffamazione la richiesta è di sei mesi. «Ci sarebbe voluto ben poco per fornire un servizio responsabile e tutelare la privacy – hanno detto i pm – il problema è trovare un equilibrio che ci deve essere tra diritto di impresa e tutela dei diritti individuali che sono tutelati dalla Costituzione. Ogni volta che si clicca su un qualsiasi video Google ci guadagna. È un dato economico».
The prosecutors are therefore creating a nexus of responsibility for the results provided by the search engine. The reporting of the case is not very clear in that the responsibility in this case is more direct since we are talking of Google’s own video hosting site (Google Video) and not a search result that leads to an offensive third party site.
Google have been forced to apologise (to the public? to Michelle?) for a search result. Apparently when one googles an image search for “Mrs Obama” one of the pictures in the resultant search is racially offensive. BBC reported that Google “apologised” for the result but what Google did is not exactly an apology. In fact what happens now when you search “Mrs Obama” in Google Images is that one of the paid ads above the search links to Offensive Search Results. If you click on that link Google provides this “explanation of our search results”:
Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.
Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
It’s an interesting take on the responsibility for information carried within search engine results. Some would argue that forcing Google to remove the offending result from its results would be ridiculous. After all, all that the search engine does (or claims to do) is provide a faithful reproduction of the most popular sites that contain the information that the searcher is seeking. As Google states, even the most innocuous of queries could result in disturbing results. Even in that moral backwater that is Malta jokes about googling “pussy” have made it to the mainstream of mass entertainment that is panto (a forum where we tend to conveniently put aside our scruples just for Christmastime).
Even if we make an effort to avoid lawspeak and examine the issue with the purely deontological approach much favoured by islanders, I do find that Google could have a case here. The issue would only become a bit more complicated if we were to factor in the question of whether or not Google’s “computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query” include an algorithm related to payments made to Google in order to move up the search result ladder.
Interestingly the fact that Google has not removed the offensive picture plays on the big brother, voyeurist bug that affects everybody. It means that people who read the BBC article (and others) will immediately google “Mrs Obama” to find out what this is all about. Yes, that includes you.
I spent a day in Brussels this week, mostly lounging around the cafes and eating very homely Italian food while my better half was busy submitting to the exertions of European civil service examinations. Regular readers of J’accuse will be no strangers to my dislike of the city that boasts of being Europe’s capital. I confirm that Brussels is still filthy, its transport is still impossible and there is still not much to charm you into coming back again and again.
Yet I am cursed. Fate seems to throw up the occasional appointment in the city that never ceases to stink and I am therefore condemned to submit to the trials and tribulations that accompany such journeys. To be fair to the city of pissing boys and magnified atoms, much of the blame for my discomfort this time around lay squarely on my knee. The previous weeks’ exertions in the five-a-side football league had proven too much for the assortment of fibulas, tibulas, patellae, quadriceps et al and I was therefore obliged to limp around the smog-infested jungle.
Never mind the kneecaps then, and while I waited with bated breath for the (hopefully) positive outcome of the orals and writtens, I got to meet a number of colleagues and fellow bloggers over a variety of (Belgian) coffees. It’s not like there was nothing to talk about – within two days the European Union would be choosing its first ever President and High Representative – and there was the small matter of who would ultimately make it as Maltese EU commissioner. Would Joe Borg be confirmed? Would another suitably qualified personality be suggested for the post? Or would the Maltese government, like others before it, use the nomination to exile a personality who has become an uncomfortable presence at home? In other words would Malta have its own Mandelson?
At 18.48 Le Monde broke the news. Herman Van Rompuy (Belgium) was designated as the first “President of the EU” while Catherine Ashton (UK) is to be the first High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The Council meeting was widely expected to last into the early hours of morning so the sudden announcement comes as a surprise. As I type (1900) the (TV) BBC is still running a speculative piece that mentions both Rompuy and Ashton as favourites. So are Europe’s first President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs the result of Europe’s greatest quickie?
To be continued. (Refresh page regularly)
UPDATE #1: RTBF Sat (Belgian) TV is still speaking of Van Rompuy as a good candidate and not as a president.
UPDATE #2: It appears that the Irish Prime Minister is raising the Henry Handball issue with Sarkozy during tonight’s meeting. (BBC) Sarkozy has urged the Irish government to keep out of football.
UPDATE #3: Although still using cautious term “to propose” EURONEWS scroll states “EU Presidency to propose Belgian PM Herman Van Rompuy as EU President and British EU Commissioner Catherine Ashton as Foreign Policy Chief – EU Diplomats”. Somehow you suspect that this could be a pre-emptive media measure announcing the choice as a fait accompli before the actual decision is taken. No big surprises if this whole media Breaking News business is part of the wheeling and dealing.
UPDATE #4: Le Mondejust included the article announcing the appointment on their website: click here.
UPDATE #5: BBCWORLD update (TV) Sweden has formally proposed Herman Van Rompuy as first President.
UPDATE #6: Spare a thought for the Kingdom of Belgium – rudderless once again if their PM is whisked off to the head of the Union.
UPDATE #7: BBCWORLD has announced the appointment as official (although they still use the terms “it appears”) – they’ve just added a roundup of main headlines and are still describing Van Rompuy as frontrunner (we still think the French cheated their way to South Africa)
UPDATE #8: EURONEWS enroll expert Piotr Kaczynski to commenton choices. The interview is on the lines of “unconfirmed reports”. Kaczyinski comments that Ashton would be a weak choice since she has not previously filled the post of Foreign Minister. Ashton is in all probability a good bureaucrat but will she be a good political leader? As for Van Rompuy.. does Kissinger finally get his answer?
