text:
{jcomments off}The following speech was given by Evan Thornley MLC, PS to the Premier of Victoria, at the launch of the New Zealand Fabian Society in November 2007...
Tena kotu, tena kotu, tena kotu.
Katoa. I pay my respects to the tangata whenua of this land.
Thank you very much, Mike and thank you all for the honour of the invitation to speak.
Prime Minister Clark, Ministers, MP's, Party and Trade Union leaders, let me also say "greetings from the last days of the Howard Government".
I hope that's right. But I should warn you, if it's wrong, it'll be time for the old "greetings from the West Island" line. If the ALP doesn't win, the universal response is "emigrate to New Zealand". For those of you wanting to really keep track, may I recommend the psephological blogs like www.pollbludger.com or www.mumble.com.au
where you'll find the inside info on all the latest polling.
I've been asked to speak on the topic "Labour as the party of ideas". It seems a tad dangerous for anyone from Australia to come over to lecture the Kiwi's about anything given our respective national election records over the past decade. You have been a great inspiration to us through some very dark days.
As you know, however, Labor is in Government in every State and Territory and the Government I serve, the Bracks and now Brumby Government in Victoria is now in its eighth year and is, like the Clark Government, serving it's people well.
But we all understand the importance of renewal within Government, if we are to receive a mandate for a further term.
And there lies the central importance of constantly renewing our ideas.
Today I'd like to cover 4 topics:
1. Firstly, to state that Progressives draw from a diverse history of traditions and we constantly evaluate new ideas and synthesise them into an ever-improving understanding and narrative
2. Secondly, the conservatives have been ideologues obsessed with just two dangerous ideas – "free" markets and punitive morality – and have tried to get better at selling their old ideas rather than developing or incorporating new ones
3. Thirdly, to advance 5 ideas that demonstrate the power of progressive politics to assault these bastions of conservative orthodoxy; and finally
4. To talk about the importance of the Ideas Institutions – particularly Think Tanks – in playing a complementary but vital role to the Parliamentary Party, the Trade Union Movement and the other Progressive Institutions that make up the Labour eco-system.
In doing so, I will dwell for some time in the world of economics. Paul Keating famously described his one-time opponent, Dr John Hewson, a PhD economist as a "feral abacus". I'm not sure if you ever got quite that up close and personal with Don Brash, Prime Minister, but regardless, I shall try to avoid the same trap today. But I hope to convince you that economics is our friend. Indeed, it is one of our most powerful weapons.
In starting to talk about the importance of ideas in progressive politics, I'm reminded of the frequent observation that Labour is an odd coalition of pragmatic, real-world experience – particularly from the trade union movement - and intellectuals and idealists. Both groups sometimes seem to think the other has too much influence.
The truth is that both pragmatism and intellectual enquiry are critical.
Senator John Faulkner, a giant of the modern ALP once remarked that he was reading the minutes of his Glebe branch from the 1930s and read about the concerns that the workers in the branch were at war with the students and academics from nearby Sydney Uni.
He realised that it has been forever thus!
So when I talk here about the power of ideas, I do not want to be seen as taking sides in that debate. I think it's a silly debate. But for today's purposes, I will champion the role of ideas.
In doing so, I can't go past the famous quote from Keynes:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years ago."
So to talk about the power of ideas, I want to do a very quick "cook's tour" of the last 200 years or so of political history to illustrate the centrality of ideas to the flow of politics.
The over-riding theme, however is this: Labour and progressive politics is a rich weave of the threads of a wide range of traditions.
We are not about just one idea or one ideology. The very nature of single idea positions is that they are conservative.
Rather, we are constantly evaluating, constantly searching, constantly adding to the store of good ideas that we can use – and indeed, on occasion, discarding those which have lost their utility or even turned out to be false.
What is enduring and essentially never change are our values.
The ideas we are willing to press into the service of those values, however, will constantly progress and evolve.
We take from our own traditions, we even take what's useful from our opponents. Then we do the hard work of thinking about how it all fits together.
Our passion for justice and progress comes from a righteous anger at injustice and the abuse of power.
There is a powerful, emotional and visceral morality that motivates our politics.
But passion without direction dies.
Passion without solutions becomes bitter.
We bring the power of ideas – a wide range of ideas – into the service of our values.
Our "cook's tour" of progressive ideas starts I think with the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought an end to the tyranny of kings and an authoritarianism that kept the people ignorant to make them pliable -- and it did so by empowering individuals with knowledge and capacity to think for themselves.
From the French and, I think particularly the more pragmatic Scottish Enlightenment, we have learned to question authority and to judge the truth for ourselves on the basis of evidence. We learned the benefit of sceptical enquiry versus blind faith.
Fast forward to the Fabian Socialists in Britain, in the MacDonald but especially in the Atlee Governments and to Roosevelt and the New Dealers and some of Johnson's Great Society in the US. From these we developed the central ideas about a welfare state and civil rights. Keynesian economics helped understand how to avoid the worst of depressions. We have learned from these traditions and we retain what worked and discard what didn't.
From the rights movements we have learned about gender equality, the rights of all "minority" groups and a commitment to wipe out discrimination in all its forms. We understand the power of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
From environmentalists we have learnt the essential lessons of sustainability and that the price of inaction often being higher than the price of change.
Recently, we have gone further. We have moved into hostile territory and taken hold of ideas that originally were set out by our opponents.
There is little debate these days on the need for independent central banks to manage inflation through interest rates and for floating currencies – "the most important price in the economy" as Paul Keating called it – to mediate our interactions with the world.
That some of these ideas were originally put forward by people like Milton Friedman is a source of some amusement to me, but it is no cause for shame on the progressive side. We are not ideologues, but we love and value and use good ideas.
I think it is a fair reading of history would say they have won more battles than we have in the last 40 years.
It is important to understand how and why.
To do so, let me begin a second brief historical tour. It starts in the time of Jim Morrison and tie-dyed combi's.
In 1971 the cause of unfettered market fundamentalism was not looking nearly as strong as it is now. Indeed, they feared they faced political extinction. The conservatives were desperate for change. They got it. But not in an afternoon. Not even in a decade. But they laid the foundations for long-term dominance of public opinion and values that has covered the best part of the last 35 years.
The irony is that the architects of this conservative "counter-revolution" modelled themselves on the strategies of social democrats (Fabian socialists and others) from the previous generation.
In an astounding leaked document written in 1971 by Lewis Powell, shortly to become a Nixon nominee to the US Supreme Court, you can see what the American Chamber of Commerce was advised to do in response to an unfavourable political climate. This rather apocalyptic document included the following:
"MEMO: Attack on American Free Enterprise System
…No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack…
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals…
… the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come – indeed, it is long overdue – for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it…
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations… will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organisation, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action…"
Powell laid out a clear, simple, but monstrously ambitious plan to take back control of the public debate through every forum available – from schools and universities to the courts, media and the churches and last, but not least, the politicians.
These days Lewis Powell casts a very long shadow. His blueprint, a couple of billion dollars from the Scaife, Olin and Coors families and a generation of aggressive activists later and the conservative counter-revolution became an unstoppable juggernaut.
By the mid-seventies, they'd established their Think Tanks to provide a well-resourced home and a loud megaphone to sympathetic intellectuals and academics. By the early '80s, the College Republicans were running riot over American campuses – training a generation of activists like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff.
By the early '90s the shock jocks owned talk radio and Fox News Channel delivered "fair and balanced" conservative propaganda. The religious Right had been mobilised into a hugely disciplined ground force at every ballot box south and west of the Mason-Dixon Line.
This was not an accident.
But if you look closer, the Conservative counter-revolution was less about creating new ideas than it was about selling old ideas better.
As linguist George Lakoff notes in his recent best-seller "Don't Think of an Elephant", conservative ideology is now packaged into emotion-laden word-brands that have been created to "frame" the debate and their political opponents.
The phrase "family values", for example, no longer has its ordinary literal meaning, but is universally understood to mean "anti-abortion, anti-gay".
The phrase "tax relief" sounds like it's a cure for something in need of a laxative!
It's a far cry from the observation of the great American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society".
These word brands are now so commonly accepted in mainstream debate that they are parroted by the media and even by ourselves. How often did Don Brash, reading from the Republican play-book, accuse us of quote "political correctness". Then there is "latte-sipping elite", "bad old days of class warfare" and so on.
These phrases didn't fall out of the sky - they are the products of years of research and, like all successful brands, ubiquitous placement. These things have been focus-grouped to an inch of their lives and then systematically launched on an unsuspecting public and, it seems, even an unsuspecting media and political class.
These "think tanks" are indeed better understood as advertising agencies – they didn't create new policy ideas so much as learn how to sell old ones much more effectively.
One of the greatest victories for the conservative language framers, however, was their first. The greatest fiction ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public – the non-existent "free market". There is no such thing. All markets have rules.
What is a game of rugby without the laws ? It is chaos.
Every market in the history of the human race has had some rules. Those rules will always change and evolve. The question at any given time is simply this: "are these a good set of rules or a poor set of rules to deliver a good game ?".
To be fair, some conservatives were rightly opposed to totalitarianism in all its forms. But then, in an over-simplification of breathtaking scope, they decided that any form of State provision or oversight was tantamount to co-ercion. They wanted to tie the valid benefits of market mechanisms to a cold-war struggle for political freedom.
The greatest linguistic couplet of modern politics was born – joining the two concepts together – "the FREE MARKET".
By characterising markets as "free" they avoided the far more difficult and to us far more fruitful enquiry – is this a good or a bad market ?
Are the rules of this market delivering a good or a bad game ? Do they accurately measure the true value of things ? Do they encourage competition or tend to monopoly and oligopoly and abuse of market power ?
Now, so long as you can create a fiction of a "free" market, you can defend any distortions already existent in the current rules of that market as being "natural. It's like the divine right of Kings from the pre-Enlightenment era. This almost religious attachment to the status quo is used to brand reformers as infidels.
But can someone pls tell me, what is a quote "free" market in electricity ? One that has no rules ?? What does that look like ? I've never seen one anywhere in the world ! All electricity markets have rules and depending on how good the rules are, determines how good a game is played in the electricity business.
The same is true for markets in automobiles, lawyers, telecommunications and airlines. The concept of a "free" market is a complete fiction.
Adam Smith would be appalled – he laid out the conditions of a perfect market – but it was anything but "free". And so would Keynes. And so would Galbraith. And so, indeed, would Sir Nicholas Stern.
And the purpose of this elegantly worded charade ? To enable the wealthy to pay less tax and oppose the simple goal of quality education for all.
It is the antithesis of the Scottish Enlightenment on which tradition they would claim to stand.
As Kenneth Galbraith said:
No one likes to believe that his or her personal wellbeing is in conflict with the greater public need. To invent a plausible or, if necessary, a moderately implausible ideology, in defence of self-interest is thus the natural course. A corps of willing and talented craftsmen is available for the task.
I want to talk about something economists rather politely call "externalities". These are things that definitely have value, but which we either find difficult to measure or choose to leave out. Some are good, some are bad. This is what the climate change debate is all about.
For example, let's imagine a company pumps devastating pollution into a river for 50 years-destroying the river and its environment - without ever paying a cent in costs. The company's books may say it's a profitable enterprise, but if the lost value of the river, the agriculture on that land around it, the increased health costs to other river users and such were included, the real economics of this business may be a very large loss.
Now not all externalities are negative. When an early childhood intervention program delivers $9 in benefits for every $1 invested, then it's created massive positive externalities. Huge economic benefits that it doesn't keep for itself or count in its accounts. But those benefits are no less real just because they're not counted or accounted for.
So many of the distortions which are apparently "natural" in these "free" markets are the refusal to account for social and environmental externalities.
To account for externalities might be economically accurate and therefore lead to efficiency and higher growth, but apparently, it would make us less "free".
So the conservatives have established a plausible justification for existing market distortions but erroneously labelled them "free" and the rest of us have been buying what they're selling.
Not content with that, they then set about abusing the value of faith and spirituality to complete the task. They cling to a form of punitive morality.
These two ideas serve one over-riding purpose – to justify the redistribution of resources from the bulk of the people to a powerful elite.
Having pulled of an intellectual sleight of hand to justify market distortions as "natural" and "free", they try to cover their tracks by inventing a punitive morality code to blame their victims and use it as an excuse for further redistribution.
If I can convince people that you are a bad person, then I can convince them to take resources away from you and give them to me – if I am a good person. Take money from those "evil" sole parents and give it to "good", hard-working 6-figure salary types. Take money from those evil, slovenly under-resourced schools and give it to these well-funded over-resourced schools that people clearly "want more".
This is truly the empty morality of the Hollow Men.
All the better if you can find the one or two percent of people in any group that really aren't pulling their weight. And sadly there will always be a few. Because then you canhighlight that tiny minority to vilify the entire group. That creates a climate where we can redistribute away from them all.
For example, sadly, when the currently benign global environment get's tougher and unemployment starts to rise again, we'll have a resurgence of blaming the unemployed for their plight.
Changes in unemployment are a result of changes to the economy, not epidemics of immorality.
But flawed as the conservatives only two core ideas are, they are pervasive. And if we are going to demolish them in the public's mind, we have a lot of work to do.
We must start at the start and reclaim the foundations on which they claim to stand.
Let us start by drawing from our own history, as we in Victoria and you here is New Zealand can often do, by reflecting on the influence of the Scot's in our traditions.
The Scottish Enlightenment turned a small, backward country on the edge of Europe into the intellectual powerhouse of Western Civilisation.
And what did they do ?
They invested in broad-based education.
One of the first places in the world to see investment in the people themselves as the central enabling device for national progress.
It is a model we Progressives have shared and believed in ever since. Indeed we both benefited directly through the establishment of our respective wool industry – yours as the strong wool carpet kings, ours as the fine wool suit specialists.
But the great progressive history of the Scottish Enlightenment – the economics of Smith and Ricardo, the philosophy of Mill and Hume, the engineering of Stevenson – has been twisted into a rigid and extremist ideology by those that followed.
A deviant form of liberalism took a sharp right hand bend around the time of Hayek and Ayn Rand and kept on driving into the land of Thatcher, Howard and Bush.
They are not the inheritors of Adam Smith. He understood the role of markets and the nature of humanity.
In fact, as Kevin Rudd has frequently mentioned, central to Smith's world were two intersecting spheres – left-brained and right-brained in you will. Economics and Morality.
As not only did Smith write "The Wealth of Nations" but he also wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
Not only did he write about self-regard, but in the same breath spoke of the importance of regard for others.
Smith would roll in his grave if he could see where his ideas and his notion of what is called Liberalism has been taken today by the far right of politics.
Similarly, the punitive moralists of right wing politics would have us believe that there is a contest between individual responsibility and community responsibility. But as progressive American evangelical Jim Wallis points out in his book, "God's Politics", we actually believe in the importance of both. This contest is hollow and unnecessary and extremes of either view absurd.
I sometimes call our opponents the sharp elbows brigade. They have a faulty understanding of the world. They believe that for you to have something must mean I cannot. The genius of investing in people -- that by investing in people now, we can both have more later -- has passed them by. And so they believe that by inflicting damage on you, I will somehow be advantaged and, perhaps even more absurdly, that you will not respond in kind and inflict damage on me.
So to those on the Right who claim morality as their own I say "who was it who fought to end slavery ?", "who was it that put an end to kids working in coal mines ?", "who was it that fought Hitler but opposed a war in Vietnam ?", "who was it that fought every step for democracy and the increase of the franchise ?". If it were left to conservatives, we'd still have only male property owners with a right to vote.
Whose first meetings were held in a Methodist Church hall ? The answer, of course, is Labour.
Labour is founded on an understanding of what is right and wrong. Of what is just and unjust.
It is a morality at the heart of our values of social justice, tolerance and progress. It is a morality that is inclusive, NOT exclusive, as conservatives always are. It is a welcoming morality. A compassionate morality. Not a judgemental and exclusive and punishing morality.
Yes, we own the moral high ground. We own the economic high ground. And it is from these commanding heights that Labour enters the battlefield of ideas from a position of strength.
So step one is the most important – reclaim the high ground of economics and morality.
The conservatives have created a false dichotomy between prosperity and fairness.
It used to be said that the conservative side of politics was interested in wealth creation and the progressive side only in wealth distribution.
Maybe that was true once. If so, it certainly isn't now. Given what we've just discussed about the greatest wealth being generated by investing in the greatest number of people, this old debate has been turned upside-down.
The global economy is now a team sport. Rather than worrying about our team's capacity to compete in the global A-grade by skilling up all our players to the maximum of their ability, conservatives are more interested in fighting among ourselves as to how we'll distribute the spoils – even if it's at the expense of the team's success.
Why would you do that? Well let me tell you it hasnothing to do with economics.
Take a visit to your local bookshop and look at the "Business and Management" section. All the action is around topics like Branding, Intellectual Property, Knowledge Management, Human Resource Development, Innovation and such like. What the accountants would call the "intangibles" on the balance sheet. Because it's these "intangibles" that drive modern capitalism. It's the investments in people, their ideas and their relationships that drives value. Do Microsoft invest in their people ? General Electric ? Nokia ? Macquarie Bank ? McKinsey & Company ? Of course they do. By and large, they treat them well, invest in them and invest in supporting them.
Business people and scholars alike have been onto the power of investing in people for a while.
Since we're talking about investments, let's briefly talk about rates of return. With most traditional investments – like shares or property or bonds – returns are usually in the range of 7-12% per annum. So keep in mind this basic calibration: a 5% return is a pretty small number, a 10% return is a pretty good number and anything around 15% or over is an absolute Monty!
James Heckman, a Nobel Prize winning economist quotes the Perry Pre-School study, where two groups of severely disadvantaged kids in Chicago were split – one received a high quality pre-school program designed to overcome the symptoms of their disadvantage. The other group wasn't – they were the control group. They followed these kids for 25 yearsthrough to adulthood to keep track of the differences. The results were startling.
But let's look at the economics of the outcomes – that's what's really startling. When you measure the benefits of higher incomes and lower costs, theinvestment in these kids resulted in a rate of return of about 16% per annum. 16%! Per annum ! For 25 years of compound growth!
Again, these are outstanding returns on investment in anyone's language. You get 5% if you put it in the bank, 7-12% for shares or property and 16% if you invest in early childhood !
I should say, as a passionate advocate of early childhood investments that I read with pride and envy of your commitments in this field and the Clark Government's record. The Howard Government has the singular distinction of the lowest investment in early childhood in the OECD. It is one of Kevin Rudd's most central commitments that that will change forever under Labor.
Gary Becker, another Nobel Prize winning economist first published a book called Human Capital in 1964. He quotes studies that show the rate of return on an individual's investment in education varied from 16 to 28% per annum for completing High School and between 12 and 15% for University.
But all these investments in human capital return much more than that -- they improve people's lives; they give them dignity and hope; they help them enter or become more productive in the work force; and they help them help their own families and communities rather than needing help.
Investing in human capital is what Labor has always been about -- although we have not often used that language.
So beware the argument "we know it's not fair, but it's good for the economy". Check your pockets quickly after someone gives you that line. It's an eloquent smokescreen for redistributing benefits in favour of the group whose so-called attachment to "the economy" is really a tawdry excuse for trying to ensure they get a larger share of it.
The battle between progressives and conservatives should not be about prosperity versus fairness.
Labor believe that a strong economy and a fair society reinforce each other. The conservatives believe they are in conflict. That's where the battle lines should be drawn. That commitment to the economics of human capital investments is the second step in us winning the war for public opinion.
In business you learn the difference between the P and L and the balance sheet -- the difference between what you get for today and what you invest for tomorrow. The purpose of government is not to take money from individuals with one hand and give the same money back to the same individuals with the other. The purpose is to pool the resources of the community to get to the scale where we can invest in the things that we all need and which bring us all future benefits.
Given what we have learnt about human capital, Labour is the party of Investment and the conservatives are the party of Consumption. We create the wealth, they spend it. Not content with that, they'll borrow more and spend that as well or sell off the balance sheet to prop up the P/L.
In Australia, Labor created compulsory superannuation to create a huge savings pool for needed investments and to provide for workers' retirement incomes. The conservatives opposed it. Labor took high school completion rates from 33% to 75%. They've flatlined under the conservatives. Labor oversaw value-added exports growing 13% compound per annum. It's flat-lined under the conservatives.
The conservatives have visited upon us the greatest debt-funded consumption binge in our nation's history. We rank among the worst on the planet in our capacity to pay our way in the world. And this despite having the best commodity prices in over 50 years. We've had the best party on the block because we've borrowed the most money to buy the most beer.
We build it, they plunder it.
In the US, Clinton fixed the deficit, Bush has plundered it. In Australia, Howard has taken the windfall gains of the greatest mining boom in 2 generations and squandered the lot in a vain attempt at re-election. I note that here John Key promises a flood of tax cuts to inflate demand while simultaneously promising lower interest rates.
Positioning ourselves clearly in the public's mind as the party of Investment is the third step in winning the war for public opinion.
During what I call "the last war", class conflict between capital and labour used to define the political spectrum.
But there is a different issue confronting modern capitalism and Labour has a fresh opportunity to make a difference. It's the tension between the owners of capital and senior management. And with workers retirement incomes now tied to share ownership in the nations' largest companies, labour can be allied with capital.
So when management compensation goes up 15-20% per annum but shareholder returns are significantly less, what do we see? A silent redistribution of wealth from shareholders to management. When 80% of M&A deals destroy shareholder value, but 80% of the same deals lead to increased management pay packets, what do we see? A silent redistribution of wealth from shareholders to management.
The dirty little secret of management compensation is that Boards start with objective advice on industry comparables but then decide to pay their management in the top quartile of their peers. That's right, 90% of management teams are somehow "top quartile" performers! It's almost Orwellian. Contrary to the apologists claims, Boards are not paying to meet the market, they're paying to beat it. Hence the ever-upward spiral.
"Belling the cat" on management not representing the interests of shareholders is our fourth response. The conservatives will instinctively take the side of management.
Our discussion of externalities before may have seemed rather esoteric, but two words can immediately bring it to life for you – Carbon Trading. Pricing externalities into the market.
The push for emissions trading is but one very powerful example of the need to bring these "Externalities" – these accounting errors – back into the equation. Self-evidently there is a massive cost in carbon emissions. If that cost were priced back into the market, producers and consumers would behave differently. And so we have one of the central issues of our times as a vivid illustration of the previously obscure economic concept of externalities.
But the idea of externalities is not limited to environmental damage. If, as we have suffered in Australia, you have a far-right wing nut conservative Government committed to destroying the rights of working people to bargain effectively, you see whole new classes of externalities appearing.
If you can be asked to be available at any time for a shift on an hour's notice, this obviously has a cost. It creates a cost for childcare, a cost for plans otherwise forgone, a cost in lost sleep, cancelled appointments, stress. If you receive no, or vastly inadequate compensation for those costs, then they too have been "externalised" – taken out of the equation by the accountants. They haven't gone away – they've just been moved onto someone else – in this case working families – and off the books of the employer in question.
So in some ways, many of the things that progressives have traditionally opposed about markets is not really the markets at all – it is the failure of those markets to correctly value things – the failure of the accountants to measure and price those costs – and enable them to be fairly traded in the marketplace.
In some ways much of the whole of progressive politics can be seen as a battle to have the real value of things measured – to have the externalities brought back inside the equation – to have them properly measured and priced – to enable people to make rational decisions about them.
This problem is not confined to costs. Consider our case of early childhood investments.
If it's such a great investment, why are we having cake stalls to fund it ? Because we haven't counted the real value – all of these benefits – back into the equation. Those who invest in early childhood have no way of capturing a share of the returns because the accountants haven't measured and priced them.
Rather than trying to separate our environmental and social accounts into a triple bottom line, I would contend that Labour would be better off pursuing a more difficult but ultimately more rewarding approach – seek to have the externalities properly priced into the market. Thus we would retain a "single bottom line", but with radically different results.
Seen this way, a major role of Government is therefore to design markets correctly. To ensure that the true costs and the true benefits are measured and priced. In many cases, if this were done properly, Governments could then get out of the way and let the market operate – but the results would be stunning different to what we have seen from the poorly designed and, in some cases, deliberately distorted markets that we have inherited in the past.
The central role of conservative governments has not been to create markets – it has been to create or perpetuate and protect distortions and externalitiesthat their powerful backers wish to see continue.
The role of progressives is not to oppose markets, but to make them work well – to design them better – to make them truer – to value ALL, not just SOME, of the costs and benefits of any human activity.
That is our fifth step – seeing Government as market designer and ensuring externalities are priced in properly. Trust me, that's enough work to keep us busy for decades!
I hope you found those 5 ideas stimulating and useful. Now I want to turn to the question of how we ensure that our ideas marketplace continues to be rich and fruitful. And to do that, we must look beyond just the Parliamentary Party.
Our pollies have their formal Parliamentary roles and processes, all their constituent concerns and social functions, all the pressure groups and portfolio responsibilities and a relentless 24 hour media cycle to contend with. Above all else, everything has to be done under constant enemy fire. Most of them would also like to see their families! It's a tough job.
Yet many of us think the Parliamentarians are the only ones responsible for developing the big picture ideas and then winning over public opinion on them as well. Of course that is an important part of their roles, but as we saw from the example of the Powell memo, it is the development of supporting ideas institutions that really moves things along.
All of us can play a role in that process. All of us should. While we obviously hope and expect our elected leadership to play a high profile role in this effort, it shouldn't be a solo-hand. If that's what we expect, we are destined to be disappointed.
Our job surely is to create an environment where principled positions are in tune with public opinion, where progressive values are widely accepted and where resulting policies make sense to ordinary people. That's an environment where Labour is best placed to win elections and the Leader and the Parliamentary Party can have maximum effect.
Similarly, we need to find new ways of organising the thousands of progressives out there who are not so interested in traditional political engagement.
In Australia, we founded an internet based campaigning organisation called GetUp! (www.getup.org.au) Two years later it has over 200,000 members. And it's giving John Howard hell. When GetUp produced their own ad on climate change, they asked the membership to fund putting it on TV during the AFL grand final. They asked for $110,000. In 48 hours, the membership donated over $250,000!
There's plenty of scope for non-Parliamentary forms of politics.
But we also have to be willing to Invest in Ideas
When it comes to raw idea development, in Australia, we have been outspent 8:1 by the conservatives over the last 20 years. While they have upwards of 25 people working in conservative think tanks like the so-called Centre for Independent [sic] Studies and the IPA, the progressive side of politics currently has just four. And that's double what we had a year ago, before we at the Australian Fabians launched our new Think Tank, Per Capita.
Contrast this with our colleagues in the UK where about 150 people are involved in a wide range of think tanks like IPPR, Demos, the Fabian Society, Social Markets Foundation, Policy Network and so on. Even adjusting for population, we'd have perhaps 50 people to be comparable. In New Zealand, on the same metrics, there'd be a dozen or so.
Think tanks are a beginning, not an end to the process of winning public opinion. But they are vital. I'm thrilled to hear you are establishing your own Fabian Society and therefore joining the international fraternity of progressive Think Tanks. I look forward to the exchange of ideas across the pond and hope and pray we'll both have Labour Governments into the future to implement them.
So Labor is and always will be the Party of Ideas. Those ideas evolve and change – they progress – that's why we're called "progressives". The ideas change, but the values they serve never do.
We must be proud of our heritage and proud of our tradition to keep vibrant enquiry and open ears to the next set of promising ideas. Incorporate the good ones, discard the bad ones and keep moving forward. We must refresh our ideas – particularly in long term government – and to do so we must work beyond just our Parliamentary Party.
The single idea people – whether they be far right or far left – are all fundamentally conservative. They serve the idea at the expense of values. While they claim superiority in economics and morality, they have neither.
Our job is to give the people a better choice. A harder working choice. A harder thinking choice. A Party of Ideas that serves the great bulk of the people and responds to a changing world with the security of unchanging values and the dexterity of new ideas.
If Labour stays the party of ideas, we will always be the better choice.


text:
Assad Regime Hails 'Victory' After US-Russia Deal, While Rebels Say He Goes Unpunished
The regime of Syrian president Bashar al Assad has hailed "victory" after the U.S. and Russia announced an agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons, which pushes back the likelihood of a military intervention, though one of Syria's rebel groups have said this allows Assad to go unpunished.
"We welcome these agreements," Syrian National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar shared with a Russian news agency, according to NPR.org. "On the one hand, they will help Syrians come out of the crisis, and on the other hand, they prevented the war against Syria by having removed a pretext for those who wanted to unleash it (war)."
"This is a victory for Syria won thanks to our Russian friends," Haidar added.
Assad's regime has been accused by U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders of using chemical weapons on civilians in August, which resulted in the deaths of 1,429 people, more than 400 of who were children. The Syrian government has blamed the attacks on rebels with which it has been engaged in a two-and-a-half year civil war, claims which have been backed by Russia who insist that the U.S. does not have solid evidence to prove that Assad should be held accountable.
Although Obama had been looking for approval from the U.S. Congress to launch an attack on Syria and take down Assad's regime, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out strongly against such plans, and offered a deal in which Syria willingly gives up its chemical weapons. Reuters noted that one drawback for Assad in the deal is losing military advantage over the rebels, who remain determined to see an end to his leadership.
"You're looking at a re-legitimized regime here. Not just Assad but the whole entourage," said Ayham Kamel, an analyst at the Eurasia consultancy group. "For the foreseeable future the government of Syria has become the key interlocutor for the international community."
U.S. officials who accepted the deal are hoping that the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, which are estimated to be around 1,000 tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas and sarin, will be complete by the middle of 2014. Obama has not yet confirmed if this cancels all plans of military intervention in the region, however.
"We are at a very preliminary stage. Assad's partial cooperation was prompted by the desire to deter an attack," Kamel added. "It's not clear that (cooperation) will be there in the future".
One of Syria's leading rebel groups criticized the U.S.-Russia agreement, however, noting that it allows Assad to go unpunished for using chemical gas to kill civilians.
"Rebel Gen. Salim Idriss stated his objections soon after the Geneva announcement," NPR reported. "He heads the Supreme Military Council, rebels backed by the West and Gulf Arab states. He said the agreement, which includes U.N. inspectors on the ground by November, allows the Syrian president to escape responsibility for killing hundreds of civilians in an alleged gas attack in August."
Idriss added at a news conference in Turkey: "What about the murderer Bashar who gave the order? Should we forget him? We feel let down by the international community. We don't have any hope."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Powerball jackpot for 02/02/22 was $123 million, and here are the winning numbers from Wednesday night's drawing.
- First Five: 18-29-33-62-63
- Powerball: 15
- Power Play: 3x
Wednesday night's 02/02/22 Powerball jackpot was worth $123 million, with a cash-value option worth $84.7 million. The total jackpot could increase depending on the number of tickets sold around the country prior to the drawing.
The winning numbers on Monday (01/31/22) for the $91 million jackpot were: 10-15-51-61-69 with a Powerball of 14. The Power Play was 3x.
There was no grand prize winner on Monday, but there was a ticket sold in California that matched the first five white balls, and minus the red Powerball, for the game's second prize of $1 million. Had they purchased the Power Play for an extra $1, their second prize would be worth $2 million.
The last grand prize ticket was won on 01/05/22 for a $630 million jackpot. There were two winning tickets—one each in California and Wisconsin—that split the prize. Furthermore, there were 14 tickets that won at least $1 million for the second prize. The game reset to $20 million for the 01/08/22 drawing.
The previous Powerball grand prize winner before that was on Saturday 06/05/21 for a $286 million jackpot. That ticket was sold in Jacksonville, Florida, at a Circle K convenience store. The previous Powerball grand-prize winner was 03/27/21 for a drawing worth $238 million.
Powerball in early 2020 had three jackpot winners in four drawings. A ticket sold in Maryland hit the $731.1 million jackpot on Wednesday 01/20/21. The game reset to the $20 million minimum on Saturday 01/23/21, which was won, and then another jackpot hit on 01/30/21.
Previous to the last four winners, the last winning Powerball ticket was sold on Wednesday, January 20, 2021, in Maryland for the $730 million jackpot. It was the fourth-largest jackpot in the game's history. The previous winning ticket was sold back on August 12, 2020 for a jackpot worth $169 million. That ticket was sold in Florida.
Normally, the game would reset to a $40 million minimum, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced Powerball officials to cut the minimum jackpot in half, which began with the 04/11/20 jackpot.
The previous winning ticket was sold on June 10, 2020. The previous winning ticket sold was purchased in New Jersey for the 04/08/20 jackpot worth $190 million. The previous grand prize won before that was $70 million in the 02/12/20 drawing with a ticket purchased in Michigan. The grand prize winner before that was on 01/29/20. That ticket was sold at a 7-Eleven store in Bonita Springs, Florida, for the $394 million grand prize, which had a cash option of $274.6 million.
The odds of hitting the grand prize jackpot are 1 in 292,201,338, regardless of the jackpot size—according to Powerball's website.
Powerball is a multi-state lottery played every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, and one of America's two biggest lottery jackpot games. Powerball jackpots start at $20 million, and other prizes pay from $1 million to $2 million with a Power Play. Tickets are $2. You can check the numbers for tonight, or any past winning numbers, on the official Powerball website.
There are nine ways to win money during the Powerball. Just getting the Powerball with no other numbers pays out $4, and even more if the power play is bought for an extra dollar. The same payout goes for one ball plus the Powerball, and $7 is the payout for two correct numbers with the Powerball, or three correct numbers and no Powerball.
If all five white, numbered balls are chosen but the red Powerball is not correct, then the payout is $1 million, with an even higher payout if the power play is chosen.
The other multi-state lottery is Mega Millions, which is played on Tuesdays and Fridays. Like Powerball, the jackpot is reset at $20 million after a jackpot is won, and one line of numbers is $2, with a $1 option to multiply their winnings with a Megaplier. Here is the Mega Millions website for more information, or to check any potential past numbers.
Wednesday night we will post the Powerball 02/02/22 drawing payouts and tell if there was a winner and where that winner came from, if so.
Here are the all-time top 10 Powerball jackpot prizes
1. $1.586 billion (01/13/2016)
Winning tickets sold in California, Florida and Tennessee
2. $768.4 million (03/27/2019)
Single ticket sold in Wisconsin
3. $758.7 million (08/23/2017)
Single ticket sold in Massachusetts
4. $730 million — (01/20/2021)
Single ticket sold in Maryland
5. $699.8 million (10/04/2021)
Single ticket sold in California
6. $687.8 million (10/27/2018)
Two winning tickets were drawn—one each in Iowa and New York
7. $630 million (01/05/2022)
Two winning tickets—one each in California and Wisconsin
8. $590.5 million (05/18/2013)
Single ticket sold in Florida
9. $587.5 million (11/28/2012)
Two winning tickets were drawn—one each in Missouri and Arizona
10. $564.1 million (02/11/2015)
Winning tickets sold in Texas, North Carolina and Puerto Rico


text:
I've haven't had much time to paint much recently, but I certainly have been working on miniatures of late. This January I accepted a job as a game designer for the D&D Miniatures game at Wizards of the Coast, so the last few months have been a real wild ride. It's been absolutely fantastic!Unfortunately, it also involved a cross country move to Seattle, so I left Madison (my home for the past 15 years, almost half my life!) and it's quite a dramatic life change. (But a good
I've been involved as a Judge for the D&D Miniatures games at various big shows (Indy, So Cal, Winter Fantasy/D&D Experience) the last three years. The second time I was at Gen Con I talked with the man in charge of Organized Play for the game and told him that I could paint the trophies that he awards, and he agreed.I recently finished up the next set of trophies that are to be prizes at Gen Con Indy 2007. Some of these four figures are availible in the recent Night
Welcome to yet another blog!Since I already have a blog, it seems silly to have two -- but in this case I can strip out my miniature-related posts from my personal blog.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions |
Contact Us |
The Legion
Copyright © 2001-2018
CMON Inc.


text:
CHMI Study IDs How IT is being Used to Solve Global Health Challenges
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Innovators around the world are using information technology to extend healthcare access to the rural poor, manage data, and improve doctor and patient communication, authors report in the WHO Bulletin
WASHINGTON, DC (MAY 1, 2012) – In response to the considerable challenges in providing high-quality, affordable and universally accessible care in low- and middle-income countries, policy makers, donors and program implementers are increasingly looking at the potential of e-health and m-health (the use of information communication technology for health) as a solution.
Today, Results for Development Institute published findings in the May 1 issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, demonstrating that information technology is being increasingly employed to solve some of the world's biggest health systems challenges. The study, "E-health in low- and middle-income countries: findings from the Center for Health Market Innovations," is the most comprehensive survey to date in peer reviewed literature of programs using e-health to improve the quality, accessibility, and affordability of privately delivered health care for the poor in developing countries.
The Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI) maintains an interactive database that now includes nearly 1200 health programs in more than 100 developing countries. Partners in 16 countries around the world search for these programs and compile detailed profiles. The data are supplemented through literature reviews and with self-reported data supplied by the programs themselves. For this study, authors analyzed CHMI data to identify programs that are enabled by information technology, and determined what kinds of technologies are being employed, and for what purpose.
The study finds that information technology is a fundamental component of the model for 176 of 657 health programs in the study sample. In recent years, there has been much interest in how specific technologies can improve health in the developing world, but this is the first study to use a large sample size of health programs to assess the extent to which e-health is proliferating in low- and middle-income countries and to determine how it is used.
"By identifying emerging global trends in e-health, the study provides guidance on how technologies can help solve common health systems challenges in developing countries, such as reaching patients in rural areas," said Gina Lagomarsino, Managing Director at Results for Development Institute. Lagomarsino adds, "As e-health continues to evolve, managers of programs in developing countries are turning to technology to solve a wide array of problems."
The study's findings identify options for program managers, funders, and policy makers to more effectively utilize information technologies to make good quality health care more affordable and accessible in developing countries. It highlights six ways technology is being used:
• Extending geographical access to overcome distance between physicians and patients,
• Facilitating communications between health workers and patients,
• Improving diagnosis and treatment for health workers,
• Improving data management,
• Streamlining financial transactions, and
• Mitigating fraud and abuse
Authors also find that despite the heightened focus around the use of text messages for health, voice and software applications are more frequently used. In addition, programs launched before recent advances in information technologies are not rapidly adopting new technologies when compared to newer programs with technology built in from the start. The study also finds that about half of programs using e-health received their primary funding from donors. This heavy reliance on donor funding could jeopardize their long-term success.
"We have found that various types of information technologies are being employed by private organizations to address key health system challenges," said Lagomarsino. "For successful implementation it is critically important that more sustainable sources of funding, greater support for the adoption of new technologies and better ways of evaluating impact are found."
Center for Health Market Innovations: The Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI) promotes policies and practices that improve privately delivered health care for the poor in developing countries. Operated through a global network of partners since 2010, CHMI is managed by the Results for Development Institute. Details on more than 1000 innovative health enterprises, nonprofits, and policies can be found online at www.HealthMarketInnovations.org
CHMI's in-country partners include ACCESS Health International (India, Bangladesh), the Asia Foundation (Pakistan), Center for Investment in Health Promotion (Cambodia, Viet Nam), Freedom from Hunger (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru), the Institute for Health Policy, Management & Research (Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda), MercyCorps (Indonesia), and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (the Philippines).
Results for Development Institute: Results for Development Institute (R4D) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to unlock solutions to tough development challenges that prevent people in low- and middle-income countries from realizing their full potential. Using multiple approaches in multiple sectors, including Global Education, Global Health, Governance and Market Dynamics, R4D supports the discovery and implementation of new ideas for reducing poverty and improving lives around the world. To learn more visit www.resultsfordevelopment.org


text:
Tom Spurgeon's Web site of comics news, reviews, interviews and commentary
Quick Links
Find Your Local Comic Shop
Find an Indy/Alt-Comic Shop
General Industry Data and Analysis
Characters, Titles, Publishers, and Creators Database
Buy My Book (2003)
Syndicate This Site (RSS 1.0)
Syndicate This Site (FeedBurner)
> CR Interviews
An Interview With Joe Casey (2007)
posted June 10, 2007
If he's amenable, I would like to interview the writer
Joe Casey
once every couple of years for the rest of the time he and I both work in or near comics. Casey's current projects include the extended meditation on mainstream cosmic comics
, with the artist
Tom Scioli
, and
Iron Man: Enter the Mandarin
, with artist
Eric Canete
. Casey is also I think pretty typical of today's mainstream comics creators in that the work he does anchors a wider variety of interests in television (he's part of the
Man of Action
group responsible for the recent animated series
), music (he's played in several bands) and film (he's recently directed a movie).
An admirable element of Casey's work is that recurring values of obvious personal importance show up in his comics no matter how out-sized or fantastic they might otherwise be. As we established in
a longer interview for
The Comics Journal
, one of those issues for Casey is personal responsibility. One that I think comes out in his most recent round of work, which includes
and a second installment of the
Earth's Mightiest Heroes
retro-Avengers series
, is the notion of psychological trauma as an
of certain vocational choices, what we do to cope when we have a daily existence that makes us feel really, really bad about ourselves.
Other reasons I like talking to Joe is that I think he sees the process of interviewing as a valuable thing in and of itself, and he's practically unfazed by any stupid, rude notion I'll put on the table.
What do you know now about writing for comics that you didn't know five years ago?
Heh... talk about a loaded question. I think, at this point, the language of comic books is completely second nature to me now. I've written enough that the basic semiotics involved just seem to flow without effort. Now I don't mean to suggest that, just because I know the language, every comic I write now is great, chock full of skill and brilliance and perfect in every way. Far from it. But telling a story using the medium is so ingrained now, it's hard wired into my brain. The trick now is to continually challenge myself and find areas of the craft that feel new and different to me. It gets tougher and tougher, because there's not a lot of techniques I haven't at least tried. But, for better or worse, I do think I found my voice and so these days, it's just about refining it as best I can. I'm always learning.
Two years ago I watched you do a couple of panels at
San Diego
. You were at the center of the
panel, and kind of off to the side of the Marvel one, and I thought that sort of reflected where you were at the time. How do you feel about where you are in a career sense right now?
Let me put it this way, if you catch me on a panel this year at Comic-Con, I'd be shocked. Having said that, I'll probably do the Image panel, because I'm really just representing myself there. Plus, it's very low key (as you saw last year). But I've got a very "been there, done that" attitude to a lot of the
of a professional comic book writer's career. I'm ten years in this game, Tom. I've experienced the ride as both boy and man. At this point, I'm only interested in writing good comic books, fun comic books, and letting my creative juices flow where they will. You can't hold onto these things too tightly, you'll strangle them. So, when it comes to my career, I try to tone down my Type-A personality and just try and do good work. It's actually interesting that you made a distinction between the two panels and the two companies' place in the comic book landscape, as if there really were a "mainstream" within the publishing hierarchy. I suppose there is, but I don't really make those distinctions any more. It's all comics to me.
You did an autobiographical comic book story I think about five or six years ago where you kind of stepped back and saw yourself really working hard and almost lost in your work. How much of your time is spent on comics now? How much time is spent on other writing?
I'd say about one-third of my time is spent writing comic books, which I guess is just about right for me at this point. I've got family obligations now that have come to the forefront, and obviously I've ventured out into other kinds of writing. With Man Of Action, having created
opened quite a few doors in animation, and I'm in post on a film I wrote and directed. If there's any work I get "lost" in now, it's probably the film... mainly because it takes so much focus and energy to make a film. At the same time, it's also been the most rewarding creative experience I've had in the past few years, so naturally I'm going to gravitate to the thing that engages me the most. Having said that, I love comic books too much to ever give stop doing them. Those are skills that were too hard won to ever put down.
What was the experience like working with the later
material in your
Earth's Mightiest Heroes
miniseries as opposed to the early material? What do you feel changed in comics between the first period, 1963 or so, and the second, 1966-1967?
was the series I was really looking forward to writing, even as I was writing the first series. The
Roy Thomas
era was one I was more familiar with (mainly because the
Stan Lee
stories -- especially the first year of
-- weren't the most compelling comic books he'd ever written). I tried to approach
in the same manner that Thomas wrote his stories... more soap opera, more of a potboiler, more character continuity... all the things that made Thomas' run crackle with a specific kind of energy. Of course, he also had
John Buscema
Sal Buscema
Gene Colan
Barry Smith
Neal Adams
drawing his run... always a bonus.
I think, if you're comparing Stan and Roy, it comes down to this... Stan created the universe, but Roy was the first writer that really got to play in it. That's the difference. It's obviously rewarding to create something... but it's also great fun to play. That's basically the reason to write
for Marvel or DC... because you get to play.
Why can't anyone seem to write
Iron Man
The thing is, anyone
write Iron Man, if they meet certain criteria. You have to 1) know how to write superhero comics, 2) know the character and its history, 3) have some insight into the character and its history, and 4) Marvel Comics has to hire you to write Iron Man. In a way, the idea of quality doesn't
to enter into it. It does for me, but those are my own personal standards. Actually, the only one that really matters out of that list is #4. For me, Iron Man is a childhood favorite (especially his appearances in
and the Michelinie-written runs of his own book), so I take that gig extremely seriously (in the sense that I'm serious about having fun with it). Just like my work on the
mini-seires, I hope the die hard Iron Man fans enjoyed
The Inevitable
I did with
Frazer Irving
and that they'll dig the IM/Mandarin mini I'm currently writing (with art by my former
Mr. Majestic
collaborator, Eric Canete).
Tell me more about the film project. In fact, tell me as much as you can about the film project.
Honestly, there's not much I want to say... until it's finished and ready to be seen (which will hopefully be in the next month or so).
Why are you reluctant to talk about it?
C'mon, how many times have we seen guys announcing an option or some nebulous Hollywood deal, puff up their chests and soak in the envy they assume we're all feeling, and then nothing happens? The list is long and tedious. I did an end run around all that bullshit by simply going out and making a film. I went the indie route. The thing is, I'd rather create than talk about creating... which absolutely makes me an anomaly in practically every field of entertainment, including comic books.
The experience itself was amazing. Putting together the production, assembling all the pieces to make the thing happen, then working with the actors... it was all great. The shoot was blessed from day one, no major disasters, we made all our days, etc. Post has been kind of a drag, because you scale back to a small crew again and I really miss all the folks from the shoot, but I think the end result will be worth it. Writing comic books is a lonely life. Making a film is an extremely social endeavor. Sometimes it's frustrating, because of the sheer size of a feature... but overall, the positives absolutely outweigh the negatives.
Outside of your own perspective ten years ago to now, how do you feel about the way your friends and peers are treated in the industry? It seems to me you've reached that point where you're all no longer on the same page as up and coming guys... so is it a good place to work? Do you feel like your generation of creators is being treated well as you head into your second decades?
I think I've seen every kind of career trajectory play out around me over the past decade. I don't necessarily think there's a blanket statement I could make about the "treatment" myself and my peers have received. Everyone ultimately receives the treatment they deserve, and it's always a case-by-case basis. I also have to be completely honest, I've gotten to the point where I'm fairly disinterested in the "moves" that I see being made. Except for my friends in the business, where I have an interest beyond their careers, it's just kind of... boring, really. To hear publishing reps -- and even creators -- talk about their participation in company-wide crossovers like no one's ever thought of doing this before is laughable. It's
been done before!
in 2007 is no different than Marvel in 1997 or 1987. Same with DC. It's about crossovers and events and gimmicks. That's what mainstream publishers are
to do. But just don't act like you thought of it or that you're doing it better than it's ever been done before. I guess I have been
the industry long enough that I now see the patterns pretty clearly... I've experienced the cycles myself.
We've seen exponential growth and untold money and attention pouring into comics the last five years. Are creators sharing in that wealth and attention to the same extent it's coming in. If not, why not?
Is this a trick question?
I hope not.
Creators will never share the wealth in a manner that anyone could classify as "fair." We've talked about this before... creators get screwed. Artists get screwed. The model for the industry has always been that way, and probably always will be. We do get the attention, so if that's what you're after as a creator, to see yourself in
Wizard Magazine
or be mentioned on
, then I suppose it's all good. But having "fame" is one thing... having power is another. Fame is easy. So easy, I can't even tell you. But getting some power is a much trickier thing, and in the long run, is much more valuable to a creative person. And I mean
power, not the power I see people trying to trick the rest of the world into thinking they have.
But certainly the last two periods of growth led to increased benefits for creators, particularly those working mainstream American comic books. The 1980s Shooter-driven growth provided creators greater benefits through a royalty system. The 1990s Image period, for all of its excesses and horrors, provided some cartoonists with previously unheard-of financial opportunity. Has anyone benefited at all in this new period? Who? Where?
My feeling is that we're now operating in a landscape that's pretty wide open at this point. How a creator benefits from that all depends on what they ultimately want to get out of comics. Look at
Frank Miller
... not only did he co-direct, but it was an adaptation of his own comic book.
Dan Clowes
is another example of a creator who shepherded his own comic book material into new media. So, the walls have broken down significantly, just in the past five or six years.
When I broke into the field as a professional, comic books seemed so off the cultural radar, it never occurred to me that I could parlay the work in one field into work in another. Now, here we are and not only are comic books a main source to be exploited in Hollywood and other media, the creators themselves often have the clout to be intimately involved in the translation of their creations. We're been taken much more seriously for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we often control our creations, we own them fully. And ownership is everything in Hollywood. Y'know, I suppose the real trick is not falling out of love with the medium that provided you with all these new opportunities in the first place...
In our interview for
The Comics Journal, you expressed a level of dismay for the fundamental lack of respect for the professionalism of creators you'd experienced during your years as a freelancer. Has that changed, or are you still treated poorly? If it has changed, how have you noticed it to change and why do you think it has?
Well, I think it's more that
changed. I tend to expect less and that tends to make it easier. Or, at least, I don't leave myself open to abuse. I also seek out better people to work with. I'm pretty happy with the editors I've worked with at Marvel over the past few years. They've been pretty professional with me and that's all I could ask for.
The fact is, freelancers are treated "poorly" only when they open themselves up for that treatment. I've done it in the past, and hopefully I've learned my lessons. If a publisher offers you a shitty deal, don't take it. After ten years of writing comics and getting my work out there... there's no one project that's make-or-break with me anymore. Sometimes people I work with don't quite get that, and have tried to somehow hold me hostage by what they think is my own burning desire -- that "I'll do anything"-desire" -- to see a project come to fruition. But I'm just not desperate like that, and I have no intention of bending over for
just to get any one project out there. Besides, I've worked long enough and hard enough that I have plenty of options for whatever I end up wanting to do. Right now Image has been a real home to me in the projects I've had a genuine desire to do. Couple that with the fact that they have the best deal in the industry and there ends up being no reason whatsoever for me to have to take shit from anybody.
That's kind of depressing in its implications, though, Joe, isn't it? Aren't you basically saying that comics is an abusive, exploitative system by nature and the way to get around that is to a) not give a shit and b) take enough crap for long enough you get in a position where you have other options? That's like the
G. Gordon Liddy
school of creator's rights.
Without seeming
glib about it, welcome to the entertainment business. There is a fray and you can place yourself above it all, if you so choose. Especially after you've been in it for a while and gotten a taste of it (or a distaste, as the case may be). I'm certainly not suggesting my approach to the business is the best approach, it's just the one that's worked out for me and my sanity. Let's be real here... fundamentally, exploiting artists is what every facet of the entertainment business is all about, including comic books. The word "exploit" can be used in its most negative connotation, or it can simply be the word that describes what goes on. Both can apply, depending on your point of view.
The thing is... artists can exploit the entertainment business right back. When I write for a mainstream publisher, am I exploiting them and their considerable presence in the
Direct Market
to get
name out there more? Sure I am. Are they exploiting me by paying me less than I'm worth for a product they'll get a lot more in return for? Absolutely. I think it's only depressing when you have a different view of what the entertainment business
be. Particularly one that somehow
you something. I don't have that view, and to do the work I enjoy doing, I need to master the system that's there, evolve when it evolves, bob and weave when it throws another punch. I'm not depressed about it at all, really. You can yearn to change the system, but you have to realize going in that the system doesn't
to be changed. And at this point in my life, there are other things -- other people -- much, much closer to me that I can actually have a direct effect on, where I
affect real change, so that's where I tend to concentrate those particular energies. I hope no one thinks that I'm somehow ducking a cause... but it is my life, isn't it?
What's the single thing that you and other pros talk about that readers would be surprised to hear is something on your minds? Is there something in pro-bitching zeitgeist we can get out there on the table for everyone to consider?
No, it's still the same petty bullshit we're always talking about. It is funny to hear some of my friends bitch about the things
used to bitch about. Actually, this may not be so surprising to hear, but I get a kick out of it... pros can look at other pros' careers and know instantly ways to "fix" them. But their own career... no clue whatsoever. It's easy to look at someone else's situation with an analytical eye and really come up with solid solutions or even just valid insights but it's terribly difficult to turn that eye inward. And, of course, the last thing pros want to do is take the career advice of fellow pros. I've seen readers on the message boards try to play career counselor, but they never quite get it like we do in the trenches of the industry. You could name me five writers or artists and I could instantly tell you what they should do next to further enhance their careers. But for me...? Hell, I feel like I'm just winging it most of the time. I'd never be able to analyze my own career with such certainty.
How has working on
changed the way you view how comics work?
BEN 10 has been a nice paycheck. One day I'll actually watch the show.
What can comics offer that film and animation can't?
Comic books at their best have an autonomy that no other medium can provide. Now, I should qualify that statement... it's not complete and total autonomy. But it can be significant. Especially for a writer/artist/cartoonist. I'll never have the kind of autonomy that guys like
Kyle Baker
Jeff Smith
Jim Mahfood
Erik Larsen
Evan Dorkin
have. Those guys don't need anyone to make comic books, which is fantastic. I would think that, in that respect, animation, film and TV could learn more from comic books, not vice versa. If anything, comics -- the industry, not the medium -- have learned the wrong things from Hollywood, in terms of behavior. But, that's how it goes, I guess.
You mentioned the notions of playing a couple of times. If you and other are writers find the greatest benefit in working in a setting like the Marvel Universe in that you're getting to play, how come so many of those comics are fussy and depressing?
Well, I can't speak about how other writers get their rocks off when they splash around in the Shared Universe Pool. I only know what
get out of it. And I honestly don't read too many Marvel comics so I can't attest to how fussy and depressing they are. I guess it stands to reason, since most of the writers working at Marvel were probably '80s readers and haven't shaken the
/Miller influence yet. Hell, that influence has infected film and television, too, hasn't it? Talk about fussy and depressing!
How has wanting to have more fun in your work changed the way you approach your work? Are you as concerned with things like the development of theme or saying something through your work? Do you have aspirations for work like
, that they achieve a certain level of greatness or quality?
I suppose my main aspiration these days is to get rid of as much self-consciousness as possible in the writing. With
in particular, it'd be real easy to get caught up in the "bigness" of the ideas... cosmic gods and the origins of the universe, etc. It could easily fall into some trap of self-importance that, for me, would really undercut the fun of the whole thing. Superhero comic books are entertainment, first and foremost. What I get out of writing them personally is my business. What any reader gets out of reading them, above the pure entertainment value, is their business. It's not that my expectations are low, but I've already gotten off just getting able to write the thing. Anything past that is icing on the cake. But it's about the act of creation, the sheer fun of making shit up.
Do you think
has been interpreted unfairly and perhaps dismissed as a Kirby pastiche?
Tom's art invites those comparisons. If anyone has dismissed the book on that basis, that's their choice. I can say without question that it's a lot more than a Kirby pastiche.
How would you articulate your wider aims with the series?
I may sound like a broken record at this point, but I've always seen
as a thoroughly modernist series. Plus, Tom and I both know we'll never be as good as Kirby, so why even try. He did his books, we're doing ours. He played in the sandbox he created, we're doing the same. Tom's use of the Kirby style is nothing more than the use of a specific comic book language.
was created to speak in that language.
One of the interesting things about
for me is that it's reframed a certain kind of mainstream comics as a 20th Century artifact, as in, say, the way they approach Armageddon-like threats from the sky. What does a comic like
say about right now that might be different than how these stories were used in the 1960s and 1970s?
I think I'd take what you said one step further... those "Armageddon-like threats from the sky" are really our future that's just come a' knockin'. In the past, that particular dramatic trope was representing things that were much more sinister in nature... the enemy beyond our shores, for instance. More than anything, I think the book demonstrates the ignorance of humanity. How we're fearful of change, how we hate what we don't understand, even as it comes from within ourselves. I'd hate to get too deep about it, but the real antagonist in
is a humanity that doesn't embrace the future.
In your first
Earth's Mightiest Heroes
series, you did a nice job unpacking the Iron Man character in terms of his feelings of responsibility towards holding together a lot of disparate threads, some of which involved doing things that are a lot less gratifying than giving someone the finger and walking away. In this latest one, I thought you provided a nice snapshot through
of the horrible psychological pressures that must face people constantly undergoing life or death pressure. Would you say this is an extension of your interest in vocation and adulthood? Do you realize you're exploring this kind of thematic material as you write?
I would say that kind of stuff is in there somewhere, although for the most part it's probably as unconscious a thing as it ever was. With the
Hank Pym
character in
, I approached it like this... there's the man you want to be, and then there's the man that you truly are. It's a question of self-image. Can any of us be completely honest with ourselves about who we really are? It's something I struggle with quite a bit, actually. Especially in a field like comic books, where you're thrust into branding yourself as a part of the normal career path. The brand may not be reality, but how we wish others to perceive us.
With Hank Pym, this was a character that I felt had a lot of integrity. He wasn't pretending to be a greater hero than he was. But, eventually, being that normal and well-adjusted in a world of gods and monsters will get to you... and Hank Pym cracked. In a way, his persona as "Yellowjacket" was a subconscious commentary on just about every other superhero he'd ever encountered over the years, from the bluster of
to the wise-cracking of
and so on. Now, add to that the fact that my ideas on what "adulthood" is tend to morph and change over time... I guess I can't help but to explore that in the work.
The other thing about the Avengers is how, when I was reading the book as a really young kid, I always associated that particular team with the concept of being an adult. These were adult characters, often with adult problems, talking to each other as adults, doing a job (the Avengers got paid a stipend, y'know). I honestly felt like I was sneaking a peek into the adult world. If anything, that's a testament to the writers at the time --
[Steve] Englehart
[Jim] Shooter
[David] Michelinie
-- not writing down to their audience, which at one time consisted mainly of children. Hard to believe now... when it seems like hardly any kids are reading Marvel and DC comics.
Your career is marked by long runs on stand-alone titles, while the industry is becoming increasingly driven by event books and crossovers. Good idea or bad idea for mainstream comics to move in that general direction? Why?
I actually don't mind event comics or crossovers... as long as they don't suck. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. It's when retailers get fooled into ordering shit comic books because they think they "matter" to the event that I get a little nervous about the future. It's a real chicken and the egg situation... what comes first, retailers' desire to make a buck... the publishers' desire to exploit that fact... or the readers' desire to be completists? And do those desires overlap from group to group? I think they do... which makes it even more of a fucking quagmire.
Your run on
Adventures of Superman
was distinguished by never having the lead throw a punch. This is the same tactic employed in the recent Superman movie. Would you like to apologize for that film sucking?
All I can really say about that is... the Superman I wrote was happily married. To a woman. Nuff said.
Wait, are you suggesting that heterosexuality is a crucial component of the Superman myth?
I wouldn't necessarily know the answer to that, my friend. It's been a while since it was my job to think about the crucial components of the Superman myth. Ask
Dan Didio
Paul Levitz
that one... and let me know what they say (in case I ever write the character again).
There seems to be a disconnect between the way you talk about your
work as play and fun comics and the way you're presenting that work in a massive hardcover out this summer, complete with testimony about the work in essay form included in the book. Does this reflect some sort of ambiguity you have about creating serious works of meaning, or doubts that you have about your ability to the same? All deflective bullshit aside, Joe, how good do you think this work is? And if you don't have a high opinion of it, why should a reader?
Don't get me wrong, Tom, I think
is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But that opinion comes from my own personal experience writing the thing. It's as close to the thrill of being a kid, making up comic book stories on the floor of my bedroom, when I was just doing it for myself. Having said that, I'm extremely proud of it, and of the fact that it's lasted this long. And the work that Tom Scioli, colorists Bill Crabtree and Nick Filardi, and designer
Richard Starkings
have done truly
this Celestial Edition format. As [Howard] Chaykin once said, it's not going to replace sex, but it's definitely work that I'd put up there with the best stuff I've done.
Besides that, I have to admit that while I'm gratified that Image thinks it's worth putting out this hardcover, it wasn't my idea to do it. Nor was it Scioli's. The thing is, we're now in a market where hardcovers are a viable publishing option. Marvel puts out hardcovers like they're going out of style... but that's because there's a market for them. So, why shouldn't
compete in that market, if we're given the opportunity? Besides, you wrote such a great essay for it... people have to be able to read that in a permanent edition, right?
I'm always writing for the trade, Joe. Hey, say you're given an opportunity to jump in the wayback machine and and travel back in time to have a business lunch with the 1998 version of Joe Casey, but you're only allowed to give business advice. What would you encourage him to do differently?
Oh, man... I don't know. That's a loaded question. My first though is that I wouldn't want to fuck anything up for Casey '98, because all the shit he'll/I'll go through gets me to Casey '07, which ain't a bad place to be. Even being a loudmouth got me to places I never thought I'd get to, so I don't know if I'd even dissuade him/me from doing that. I don't have any serious regrets, so it's weird thing to consider. Plus, there's always the possibility that Casey '98 would never agree to having a "business lunch" with an old fuck like Casey '07. Interesting question, Tom... do you happen to possess a
Flux Capacitor
that the rest of us don't know about? Oh, wait... you said "wayback machine." My apologies,
Mr. Peabody
How can that be a loaded question or even an interesting one when your answer is a serene "I wouldn't change a thing"? What are you reluctant to say?
Well, c'mon... it's loaded because I could tell Casey '98 everything he/I would need to know to become King of the Fucking World, couldn't I...? And I'd be tempted to, believe me. Hell, the pitfalls of a comic book career would be small potatoes when it comes to that kind of power. But then, that would expose the inherent megalomania that I try so desperately to lock down. Ultimately, I do take a Captain-Kirk-in-
approach to life: "I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!"
Has the pleasure you derive from the act of writing changed in the last 10 years? How would you describe how you feel about the physical act of putting work onto paper at this point in your life? You talk in terms of really busy times, fully absorbed in your work. Is that an intensity you can maintain when you get older?
I think I'm becoming more efficient in the time I spend at the keyboard. I have more outside concerns now than I did even two years ago, so it's less likely that I want to sit here, 24/7, like I've done in the past. I sometimes miss the workaholic I used to be, because it was a great, gratifying period to be so into the work I was doing. Just completely immersed in it. But you have to move through a period like that, you have to evolve beyond it. I've had to learn how to let other things take precedent in my life. The benefit of that, I think, is that it begins to inform my work in new and interesting ways.
You pointed out that a lot of my work related to a search for and an exploration of adulthood. Of maturity. Of being a grown man, not an overgrown kid. I'd never disagree with that, I think it's true. But, I think I'm here now... more than I ever imagined I would be. Even working on the film -- which is as immersive a project as I've tackled in the past few years -- doesn't take my focus away from my family like it might've a few years ago. At least, I hope it doesn't. And, if it does, I get frustrated and even angry about it. That's certainly a big change from before, when I tended to use work to try and escape from those things.
Does that sound too self-aware? Yikes...
During our
Comics Journal
interview a few years back, we talked about the fact that a writer you admired,
Mike Baron
, wasn't working a lot at that particular point in time. Now that you're old enough we can point to established, working writers who came after you --
Robert Kirkman
Matt Fraction
, for instance -- do you ever worry about being one of those writers who one day no longer gets work? If not, what is it about you that you don't think this will happen? If so, are you comfortable with that notion?
Well, I think something that might've been seen as a career detriment has actually turned out to be an advantage for me in the long term... which is that no one, neither editors or fans, can completely pin me down as to what I "do". If you took something like my work on
[Adventures of] Superman
and compared it to something like
Automatic Kafka
, I don't think you'd think it was the same writer. I may have a voice, but there's not a style or a genre that I've been pigeonholed in so it's kept me out of being lumped in with whatever fads might have come and gone -- in the mainstream at least -- over the last decade. That's kept me pretty viable as a writer. Also, I've never been a top guy, the Hot Shit for this year. And I'd rather be tenth in line for twenty years than first in line for one.
I'm running a marathon here, not a sprint. So there's that... but there's also the success that Man Of Action is having with a show like
, which is just the tip of the iceberg for us. That sense of not having to completely depend on writing comic books -- not for the mainstream publishers, at least -- gives me a lot of freedom, a lot of room to maneuver in my career. And I think I've been enough of a student of my heroes in this medium to learn from their mistakes as best I can. They made their various choices and sacrifices and mistakes so that I don't have to repeat them.
Having said that, it's beginning to look like I'll have more mainstream work in the coming year than I've had in quite a while. That's come mainly from being fairly precise about what I want to
in the mainstream, and going after those projects with some degree of tenacity. Writers fall out favor when they start to expect that publishers and editors will just automatically keep offering them work, and that it'll always be like that. That's just setting yourself up for a rude awakening. You can't coast when you're dealing with the Big Two. You can't depend on a corporation's generosity and your certainly can't count on their loyalty. If you want something from them, you have to get in there and fight for it... creatively speaking. I've never shied away from that process.
For instance, this mini-series I'm writing for Marvel,
Iron Man: Enter the Mandarin
, is a project I brought to
Tom Brevoort
, pretty much as a cold pitch. I brought on Eric Canete as the artist. It wasn't something that Marvel had lying around, in search of a creative team. The series wouldn't exist if I hadn't thought of it first. I kinda' dig that. It all came down to my own initiative. And had they not accepted and approved the project, I wouldn't have been too broken up about it. That's just how it goes. There's always another idea.
You mention a few questions back that you enjoyed the act of creating
because it took you back to being a kid and making comics on the floor of your room. I was thinking of the fact that you created
Stacy X
, one of the least-liked characters in modern superhero history, and the two acts of creation may make you uniquely qualified to answer this question. Given the talent and resources that have been put into superhero comics, why aren't there more successful, iconic characters created? Is it that it's a genre that's suited for child-like outlook? Because I don't think of
Jack Kirby
as child-like. Is it a restrictive genre? A poorly utilized one?
First of all, let's not gang up on poor Stacy X. She was an honest character before other writers fucked her all up. At least she got people talking. I do think you might have something close to a point there... to really create something that breaks through barriers and becomes iconic is, to me, an instinctual thing. I always felt that's how Kirby worked... completely on instinct. You can't over-intellectualize something like that. And I'm not sure you can do it purposefully. I can't imagine Superman was created to
an icon. Or Batman. Or Spider-Man. Comic books is a medium of accidental icons. And I think the dominance of DC and Marvel superheroes for the past 50 years pretty much answers your question about whether or not its a restrictive genre.
You've had some difficulty throughout your career with your endings. Do you have ending in mind to your professional career? What one thing would you like to accomplish -- even if it's just doing comics consistently throughout -- before you go?
There's no such thing as retirement for writers. At least, not as I see it. It's much more than a job, it's a life. And a "career" is generally a byproduct of simply doing the thing that you're inexplicably compelled to do, the thing that you'd do for free anyway. It's amazing to me that I've been doing this professionally for ten years now. I followed my bliss and it actually worked out for me. It's the longest commitment I've ever had to
...! At this point, I guess I don't think much about what I want to do for the breadth of my career... I spend more time just thinking about what I want to do
Why are there so many ugly people in the comics industry, Joe?
You mean, physically? Or spiritually? That's a good question... even if it's a rhetorical one.
When was the last time you were really, really frightened and why?
Hmmm... probably something to do with a personal family situation that your readers would no doubt find very boring.
If you're alluding to what has frightened me, comic book career-wise... I wouldn't have a good answer for that, either. First of all, there's nothing or no one in comic books that's worth being scared of. I used to think there was such a thing as "making it" in the comic book field. I guess it used to stir up some fear and anxiety in me that I would never make it, whatever that meant to me at the time. Now I see that you don't "make it" in comic books. You never cross a magic threshold of success where you can kid yourself that all your problems are gone. Has Alan Moore "made it"? DC still pulped his book when they felt like it. Has Frank Miller "made it"? I guess we'll find out when
his Batman-vs-Al-Qaeda book
comes out. It's the fallacy of fame, isn't it? So anyway, once I realized that, so much anxiety I'd had about the business just went away.
Wait, I take that back, Tom... your question about Superman and heterosexuality frightened me a little.
Godland Celestial Edition
, Joe Casey and Tom Scioli, Image, hardcover 360 pages, July 2007, 1582408327, $34.99
Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes
Vol. 2, Joe Casey and Will Rosado, Marvel, hardcover, 192 pages, July 2007, 0785118519, $29.99
CR Reviews
Frontier #18 (Tiffany Ford)
A Fistful Of Drawings
Heroes For Hire #5
The Beagle Boys #36
CR News
Do You Know Me? TCAF 2017 Exhibitors In Unidentified Photos
The Collected Notes From The Comic-Con International Floor, 2013
Ongoing Link List To Publishing News Stories From San Diego's Comic-Con International 2013
Kim Thompson, 1956-2013
Albert Weinberg, 1922-2011
CR Interviews
News Interview: Matthew James-Wilson
CR Sunday Interview: Eric Reynolds
CR Sunday Interview: Joe Decie
CR Letters
Michael Grabowski On Laundry Land As A Habit-Changer For Alt-Comics Consumers
Jim Salicrup On Russ Heath's Last Comics Works
Brad Bartkus On People Having Beefs With The Lenticular Process
Mike Catron On TCJ's Long Ago Coverage Of Wally Wood's Passing
Ivan Brunetti On His Informal Lecture In Chicago, March 28
Send e-mail to
CR Commentary
Welcome To Nerd Vegas: A Guide To Visiting Comic-Con International 2014 (The Placeholder Edition)
The Comics Reporter Planned Convention And Festival Schedule For 2014
The Comics Reporter Group-Facilitated Reconsideration List, 2013
Comic-Con Coping Guide 2013—180 Tips To Survive And Thrive San Diego Con Weekend!
Photos From The Matt Fraction Hawkguy Sandy-Relief Signing At House Of Secrets In Burbank
Bart Beaty's Conversational
Conversational Euro-Comics: Bart Beaty On The Angouleme 2012 Program Sent Out This Week
Conversational Euro-Comics: Bart Beaty On Kolor Klimax
Conversational Euro-Comics: Bart Beaty On The Recent, Slyly Revealing Diary Comics Of David B.
Conversational Euro-Comics: Bart Beaty On Recent Work From Lewis Trondheim
Conversational Euro-Comics: Bart Beaty On Jean-Christophe Menu Leaving L'Association
CR Calendar, Dates, Events
Forthcoming Comics-Related Events For January 2020 And Beyond
List Of Columbus (Ohio) Comics Shops
Crystal Ball: Scheduled Books and Major Releases
CR Comics 101
A Brief Overview
Buying Comics
Getting Published—Comic Books
Making Mini-Comics
Getting Published—Comic Strips
Reading Mini-Comics
test post
Collective Memory
Ted Stearn, 1961-2019
Batton Lash, 1953-2019
Best Comics And Graphic Novels Lists For 2018
Marie Severin, 1929-2018
Harlan Ellison, 1934-2018
Lists and Links
Books About Comics
The Comics Registry
Comics Creators And Related, All On Patreon
North American Comics Shows (Plus)
Original content ©2023 Tom Spurgeon. All rights reserved.
All bylined articles and art/statements utilized through Fair Use and are
©2023 their respective copyright holders.
Portrait of "Spurge" by
Sam Henderson
Logo courtesy of Eric Reynolds.


text:
Stanković, Srboljub J.
Link to this page
|Authority Key
|Name Variants
|Authority Key
|Name Variants
|Advanced technologies for monitoring and environmental protection from chemical pollutants and radiation burden
|Physical and functional effects of radiation interaction with electrotechnical and biological systems
|Joint research of measurements and effects of ionizing and UV radiation in medicine and environmental protection
|ELICSIR - Enhancement of Sceintific Excellence and Innovation Potential in Electronic Instrumentation for Ionising Radiation Environments
|Utilization of by-products and recycled waste materials in concrete composites in the scope of sustainable construction development in Serbia: investigation and environmental assessment of possible applications
|Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia, Grant no. 451-03-68/2020-14/200026 (University of Belgrade, Institute of Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy - IChTM)
|A new approach to foundational problems of quantum mechanics related to applications in quantum technologies and interpretations of signals of various origins
|Synthesis, processing and characterization of nanostructured materials for application in the field of energy, mechanical engineering, environmental protection and biomedicine
|17RPT01 DOSEtrace
|Bilateral cooperation project between Turkey and Serbia: "Tailor made self-compacting heavyweight concrete with waste materials"
|Bulgarian National Scientific Fund [KP-06-H37/32]
|EMPIR [Project 17RPT01 DOSEtrace]
|European Commission [857558 - ELICSIR, WIDESPREAD-2018-3-TWINNING]
|Characterization, analysis and modeling of physical phenomena in thin layers for application in MOS nanodevices
|Synthesis, modeling, physicochemical and biological properties of organic compounds and related metal complexes
|Effects of laser radiation and plasma on novel materials in their synthesis, modification, and analysis
|Studies of enzyme interactions with toxic and pharmacologically active molecules
|Antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens in Serbia: phenotypic and genotypic characterization
|Development of Institutional Capacities, Standards and Procedures for Fighting Organized Crime and Terrorism in Climate of International Integrations
|Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia, Grant no. 451-03-68/2020-14/200012 (Istitute of Material Testing of Serbia - IMS, Belgrade)
|Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia, Grant no. 451-03-68/2020-14/200017 (University of Belgrade, Institute of Nuclear Sciences 'Vinča', Belgrade-Vinča)
|Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia, Grant no. 451-03-68/2020-14/200135 (University of Belgrade, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy)
|Modulation of intracellular energy balance-controlling signalling pathways in therapy of cancer and neuro-immuno-endocrine disorders
|Lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells - research and development
|Development, optimization and application of energy-harvesting sensors technology
|Development and Modeling of Energy-Efficient, Adaptable, Multiprocessor and Multisensor Low-Power Electronic Systems
|Cleaner production: power plant wastewater treatment process development
|Research and development of the method of operational control of traffic based on electric traction vehicles optimized by power consumption criterion
|Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Serbia [141030G]


text:
How to: Activate Service Broker Message Delivery in Databases (Transact-SQL)
By default, Service Broker message delivery is active in a database when the database is created. When message delivery is not active, messages remain in the transmission queue. To determine if Service Broker is active for a database, check the is_broker_enabled column of the sys.databases catalog view.
|Security Note
Activating Service Broker allows messages to be delivered to the database. A Service Broker endpoint must be created to send and receive messages from outside of the instance.
To activate Service Broker in a database
- Alter the database to set the ENABLE_BROKER option.
USE master ;
ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2008R2 SET ENABLE_BROKER ;


text:
Requests crossword clue answer. Playing Universal crossword is easy; just click/tap on a clue or a square to target a word. Then fill the squares using the keyboard. To change the direction from vertical to horizontal or vice-versa just double click. Don't hesitate to play this revolutionary crossword with millions of players all over the world.
Did you find the answer for Requests? Check the other remaining clues of Universal Crossword September 19 2023.