Extrovert- Kaylee Cranley

PhoeBe levin loves ugly dogs. The uglier the better!

We satisfy your travel urges by telling you about political issues from around the globe!

Living in 2021, we’re all pretty aware that the Republican Party in the US has a pretty loose understanding of what constitutes a fair con/test (à la Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 Presidential defeat which happened by the way of a free and fair election). With this in mind, I wasn’t overly surprised to find out that the aversion of Republicans to political competition can be dated back to the party’s attempt to inhibit a contest in 2002, in New Hampshire of all places.

Don’t know much about New Hampshire? Honestly neither did I. The only important thing I knew about the state prior to looking into this scandal was that in the Twilight series, Edward Cullen planned for he and Bella to go to school there. My skills of critical deduction helped me envision what I thought the state would be like. It must be cold and grey (for a vampire to be able to walk around obviously), and have low taxes (don’t forget the Cullens have been ranked among the wealthiest fictional characters – definitely Republicans). Upon some investigation about the state, it seems all of my assumptions are correct, with New Hampshire actually having no income or sales tax, and being an intermittently libertarian stronghold throughout US history. This is evidenced by its lack of regulation, being the only US state which doesn’t require adults to wear

seatbelts in cars. My suspicion that Republicanism may be deeply embodied in the state was further supported by the 2010 census which revealed that 93.9% of the populace of New Hampshire was white.

So what, you ask, happened in 2002 which caused the Republican party in New Hampshire to turn a con/test into a con/job? If you’re not familiar with US politics then here’s the lowdown, in crude (and potentially offensive) terms. Rich white people tend to vote for Republicans, who endorse lower taxes, usually seen by their supporters to outweigh the importance of social equality. Poor white people also tend to vote Republican, but the reasons for this are a bit more complicated. Working class people, on the other hand, tend to be Democrats; however, the country’s non-compulsory voting works against these people, who are less likely to take the day off work to vote for someone they feel half-heartedly supportive of (think Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016). This leads to a lot of Democrat campaigning being focused on galvanising voters and supporting Get Out the Vote (GOTV) organisations to succeed.

In 2002, a telemarketing firm, Mylo Enterprises, was contracted to jam the phone lines of GOTV organisations – with over 900 calls being made to these call centres – to disrupt their mission of mobilising potential Democrat voters for a Senate election. Primarily orchestrated by GOP executive director Charles McGee, this strategy drew on his military training in disruption of enemy communications. This also targeted police stations so that officers were unable to offer voters rides to the polls, obviously a disservice to those without cars (i.e. not wealthier Republicans), undoubtedly contributing to their narrow victory.

The aftermath of the phone jamming scandal saw four men go to prison; the Republican candidate John E. Sununu was left unscathed however, even attempting to run again for the 2008 election (which he unsurprisingly lost). But the biggest takeaway from this scandal isn’t that US Republicans actively obstructed fair political con/test (as that isn’t too unlikely to believe in the aftermath of Trump’s presidency). No, it’s having to grapple with the fact my childhood crush would’ve probably supported it.

How Algorithms are Reshaping Our Political Contests

ahMeD suliMan lives inside a Dell laptop, only emerging on the birthday of Tutankhamun each year.

When WA’s first general election was contested in 1890, most voters on the fringes of the Perth area did not hear of the results until riders on horseback and newspapers arrived the next day. The outer rural districts were even further behind, and would not know the results for over a week or more.

I was reminded of this as I watched the ABC’s indefatigable election analyst Antony Green call the recent state election in record time, a mere forty-two minutes after polls closed. This was not only due to Labor’s sheer dominance (though it was certainly extraordinary), but also the sophisticated technology sitting on the ABC’s servers, translating the raw voting results in the background.

One thing most viewers don’t know about Antony Green is that he’s also a computer scientist with a background in statistics. In addition to his electoral analysis duties, he creates the algorithms and graphic systems that support the ABC’s coverage of elections across the country. Those systems receive local-level information, like how many people voted for each party at your local primary school-turned-polling place. They then turn it into meaningful aggregate results, allowing Green to predict results in individual seats in real time, and eventually call the outcome of an entire election.

The growing influence of computer algorithms on electoral contests stretches far beyond mere analysis of the results, however. They are frequently used as a tool to influence the outcome of those elections.

In a democracy, there are two paramount considerations for the success of a political campaign. The first is tailoring the right message, and the second is getting that message out to its intended audience. Political parties have increasingly turned to algorithms to achieve both of those tasks.

In 2016, during the viciously contested referendum on the UK’s status as a member of the European Union, pinning down exact voter sentiments appeared elusive to many observers, including pollsters and the media. The campaign apparatus in favour of the UK’s exit, known as Vote Leave, created a tool known as Voter Intention Collection System, or VICS for short. VICS was a sophisticated

software that utilised computer algorithms written in Java and Javascript to aggregate voter sentiments. It brought together data from social media, search results, mailed surveys, and phone canvassing to determine which campaign messages were resonating in particular geographic areas. This allowed Vote Leave to adapt to changing voter sentiments far quicker than their rivals, and contributed to their eventual success in the referendum, which has reshaped British politics ever since.

Once the right message is tailored, algorithms are also playing a significant part in amplifying it. According to Forbes, Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, spent an eye-watering USD$60 million on Facebook ad spending during his brief run for the US presidency. Facebook’s ads platform uses algorithms that compile user behaviour on the platform, and make predictions regarding various interests or inclinations that user may have. Bloomberg’s campaign used over 31,000 ads that leveraged Facebook’s microtargeting algorithms to home in on particular geographic regions, demographics, and even predicted occupations. While Bloomberg didn’t get far, the final two contestants in Biden and Trump spent over USD$174 million on similar strategies between them over the final months of the campaign.

Aside from the explicit tactics of political organisations, algorithms are of course also affecting the way we consume information about political con/tests. Research has shown that ‘newsfeed algorithms’, which curate what content users see on social media sites based on previous behaviour, can create virtual echo chambers that severely limit what political messaging individuals receive. Those algorithms are essentially designed to give you more of what you already consume, because that is more likely to keep you engaged (and viewing ads). These algorithms have been linked to increasing polarisation in both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries over the past decade.

Some might consider the above, and wonder about a future eventuality where entire political systems are handed over to algorithms. While it might be tempting to just cut out the middleman, the prospect of such a ‘cyberocracy’ would terrify most, and is fortunately not imminent. However, it is increasingly becoming a major interest for science fiction writers and futurist academics alike.

What is clear, though, is that the influence of statistics-driven algorithms on political contests is only increasing, whether it is to understand voter sentiments, change them, or reinforce them. These algorithms, particularly on social media, are often ‘black boxes’ which are not easily scrutinised from the outside. This is an area which is only beginning to receive the academic attention it deserves, and requires greater transparency across the board.

Eurovision: A Tool for Peacekeeping and Protest

luke BaRBeR will try to convince you that the Carnarvon Space Museum is worth a visit.

Most Australians only think about Eurovision in two distinct circumstances. Annually, when we undergo the ceremonial nomination of a B-list Australian celeb to fly to Europe and compete, or when some big political story comes out of the contest and makes the headlines for a day or two.

But the political eminence of Eurovision goes far beyond recent protests over Tel Aviv’s hosting in 2019, or the controversy over Sweden’s success year after year. It is an inherent aspect of the contest fundamental to its very DNA…

A POLITICAL ORIGIN STORY

It’s no secret that Eurovision’s genesis was a political one. Following World War Two came an intense period of cooperation and political integration in Western Europe. Aimed at keeping the peace, this was the period where the European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor to the European Union (EU), was founded, beginning a process of economic and political integration. The forming of Eurovision came in the wake of this movement, and early song contests were some of the first cross-border television broadcasts in Europe.

The first Eurovision contest was essentially unrecognisable from what we know as Eurovision today: seven countries participated, with only solo artists being able to enter. All artists were accompanied by a 24 piece orchestra, and the world wasn’t quite ready for the glorious camp outfits or extravagant props and dance moves now synonymous with the event. There were, however, still political statements from the very beginning; notably, the first ever entrant for Germany, Walter Andreas Schwarz, was Jewish, in what appears to have been an effort to combat the long shadow of the Holocaust for German identity.

It didn’t take long for particular artists to begin using the international contest as a forum for protest. In 1968 French competitor Isabelle Aubret sung La Source, a song which controversially discussed the subject of rape in detail. Further protest entries ensued, with anti-war songs becoming commonplace across the 1970s.

GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS

As the entrants to the competition expanded, so too did the scope for geopolitical disputes to manifest themselves at the contest. Following Turkey’s 1974 invasion of Cyprus, Greece chose to withdraw their entry in 1975 over Turkey being allowed to enter.

More recently, the lyrics of entrants’ songs have been used to make statements. In 2009 Georgian candidate Stephane & 3G were disqualified for their not-so-subtle criticism of Putin’s invasion, through the lyrics of their song We Don’t Wanna Put In.

“We don’t wanna put in, The negative move, It’s killing the groove. Imma try to shoot in, Some disco tonight To boogie with you.”

In 2016 Ukraine actually took out the contest with Jamala’s song 1944, which was about the deportation of Crimean Tartars by the Soviet government in 1944, a historical event involving ethnic cleansing. Although more a criticism directed at Stalin and not Putin, the win certainly caused tension, and the following year when Ukraine hosted they were able to block the Russian entrant from entering the country to compete, forcing their withdrawal.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR

With the end of the Cold War, several nations leaving the Soviet Union became entrants for the first time. For some, this was an opportunity to develop an identity for themselves on the international stage, and was taken very seriously. In particular, in Estonia and Latvia, some citizens had been aware of Eurovision for decades despite Soviet censorship, as people could access broadcasts of the contest from across the border in neighbouring Finland. Estonia celebrated its first win in 2001, and Latvia in 2002.

THE PROLIFERATION OF QUEERNESS

Today, Eurovision is near synonymous with the queer community, and has cetified itself as a staple event on the LGBTQI+ calendar for many. This is certainly a more modern development, with the modern day campness and queer visibility not emerging during the first several decades of the contest.

It was not until 1997 that we had an openly gay Eurovision candidate in Paul Oscar from Iceland. His performance certainly grabbed attention, as he sang his song Minn Hinsti Danns (My Final Dance) on a couch with four backup dancers all dressed in latex, complete with dance moves that involved grabbing his crotch. The following year, Dana International of Israel became the contest’s first openly trans performer, and won with her song Diva, in what was a huge step for trans visibility in the late 90s. More recent queer trailblazers at the contest have included bearded drag queen Conchita Wurst, who won for Austria in 2014 with her song Rise Like A Phoenix.

These individuals paved the way for a new generation of queer performance, and while diversity is generally celebrated at Eurovision, this has not been without controversy. Particularly notable is criticism of the contest in years it has been held in countries with poor standards for LGBTQI+ rights, such as Russia in 2009 or Azerbaijan in 2012.

Eurovision has a history of being a focal point for messy and controversial political disputes, and of being utilised astutely as a political tool by entrants. At the same time, it is gloriously fun, silly and is one of the few events that gives me the uncomfortable sensation that represents national pride. Bring on May and the long-awaited performance of literal light of my life Montaigne!

Australia Today, Tomorrow the World: How to Vaccinate Against a Global Disease

By ashlyn WooDs

Since the outbreak of the virus over a year ago, the race has been on to develop and distribute an effective COVID-19 vaccine. While some nations, such as the member states of the EU, have agreed to share their treatments, other countries have competed against each other, throwing money and resources at their best pharmacologists in this rat race to be the first nation to produce a successful solution to this world-wide pandemic. We are beginning to see a glimmer of hope as the first vaccines are rolled out. Given how unprecedented the pace of this process has been, it is important to stress the details of this great COVID vaccine race, including the process of vaccine production, the difference between the current COVID-19 vaccines available in Australia and how they are being distributed to our nation. First of all, we must cover the basics: what are vaccines and how do they work?

Vaccines are drugs that protect our bodies against certain diseases. They contain a dead, weakened component of a bacteria or virus which our bodies develop a natural immune response to when the vaccine is administered, most often via injection. After vaccination, if the live virus or bacteria was to enter the body, the immune system remembers it and automatically initiates the response to fight it, quicker and more effectively, protecting the body from infection. A common misconception about vaccines is that they are dangerous because they contain a virus or bacteria, but in reality, vaccines only contain dead, weakened or small components (like a protein) of viruses and bacteria. This is enough for our bodies to identify the component as foreign to initiate an immune response, but not enough to make us sick. However, just as COVID-19 has differed from

other diseases in its spread and its societal effects, so too is its treatment unique. Both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines, detailed below, use a specific noncontagious protein found on the surface of coronavirus cells called the ‘spike’ protein, which is responsible for binding to a target cell so the virus can enter and infect the cell.

Vaccines are produced in a lab and undergo multiple clinical trials before they are formally assessed and approved. These clinical trials aim to produce a safe dose and determine if it will function effectively and if it is safe to use on humans and has no or minimal adverse effects. Even though the multi-phase process of vaccine production takes multiple years to complete from start to finish due to the high complexity and cost of manufacturing, we have seen record-breaking results, with the first COVID-19 vaccines being released in just under a year since the initial outbreak. However, this provokes the question of how has this process, which is normally so lengthy to ensure that the vaccine is safe and effective, been fast-tracked? The answer is that there are multiple countries contributing financially to the development of this vaccine. Secondly, we are dealing with a virus that is so globally widespread that it is not hard to find enough willing participants with COVID-19 to conduct thorough clinical trials.

Australia has spent over $3 billion on purchasing vaccines to roll out to the nation’s public. The first vaccine to meet the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) high standards of quality, safety and efficacy and to be granted approval for use in Australia is the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine. The Pfizer/BioNTech is an mRNA vaccine, meaning that it contains a string of genetic code (RNA) for this spike protein. When administered into the body, the body’s cells use this genetic code to make the spike protein. The body then identifies this spike protein to be foreign and initiates an immune response to get rid of it. It is important to note that the mRNA from the vaccine doesn’t interact with or change human DNA.

The second vaccine to be TGA approved and available in Australia is the AstraZeneca vaccine. The AstraZeneca vaccine differs from the Pfizer treatment in being a protein

vaccine, meaning this spike protein, which can be created in a lab, is administered into the body, allowing it to be identified as foreign by the body, which initiates an immune response against it.

It is important to note that while COVID-19 is a global problem, it has not been met with a uniform global response. Distribution of vaccines has typically proceeded in accordance with established political alliances and structures, with countries such as Russia and China producing vaccines independent of the aforementioned treatments commissioned by Western nations, and poorer countries beholden to the whims of richer countries to secure their own batches of COVID-19 treatment. It remains to be seen whether this failure to coordinate a united response will hinder global post-COVID recovery, or if this is a problem that can indeed be solved along national lines.

Australia has recently commenced the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccines are voluntary and free for Australian residents. As of the 23rd of March, almost 300 000 people have already been vaccinated, with the first doses going to those who work in quarantine facilities and national borders or in health care, as well as to aged care staff and residents. Australia’s COVID-19 Vaccine National Rollout Strategy outlines the three-phase plan to distribute vaccines to the Australian population. The first phase aims to vaccinate all those who are most at risk of contracting COVID-19, and those who will be most affected if they contracted COVID-19. The second phase aims to vaccinate all middle-aged Australians and then younger Australians over the age of eighteen, and to catch up any previous vaccinations from phase one. Finally, the third phase is to vaccinate those under the age of eighteen, only if recommended. The overall aim of this strategy is to vaccinate almost all Australians to ensure herd immunity from COVID-19, protecting those who can’t be vaccinated and ultimately freeing our country from the looming threat of this pandemic.

Thanks for Participating

aiDeen GallaGheR

This is not my medal, it was a spare left over from the winning team.

I have always loved sport, despite being exceptionally substandard.

As a child coming from a highly competitive, sporty family, I have been lucky enough to be graced with an overly hopeful mother determined to ensure the next hobby she found for me would unearth my secret talent for coordination.

The variety of sports my mother would hustle me along to is hilariously long. In retrospect, I am incredibly grateful for the number of times I was forced to turn up to training, much to the dismay of everyone else in my team, and continue to give it a crack.

Finally, as a ‘twenty-something’, I can no longer feel embarrassment. When regular folks cower away from an opportunity to try something new in the fear they may look like an idiot – I am wholly desensitised. One of my proudest moments was when, at the end of my year 12 graduating assembly, I was awarded the overall best ‘school participator’ - I had literally participated in every sport the school offered. You’ll be relieved to hear it was an actual trophy, and not just the ‘I ran a race’ ribbon, which I was all too familiar with from primary school. What I have learned to embrace is the spirit of sport, less the contest.

I have decided this incredible journey from ‘clumsy’ to ‘fearlessly clumsy’ deserves documentation. I would love to share with you my review of a handful of sports which I have attempted, and how I would rate them for anyone who, like me, just likes to meet new people and have fun.

HOCKEY

I consider hockey very near and dear to my heart. In the early days of Juniors, I would gleefully finish off the oranges from the sideline and cheer on my teammates. Hockey has provided me friendships which I will cherish for life.

In 2017, I went on exchange to the Netherlands. I was eager to make new Dutch friends, so I decided to sign up for the university hockey team. Fortunately, they were particularly short on girls that year and allowed me to play.

Unfortunately, however, they spoke exclusively Dutch on the field. This was a problem for someone who was only a subpar player when playing in English. Everyone spoke fairly good English, but rarely were they bothered to translate their Dutch hockey lingo. In the intensity of a match I was typically disoriented and scared.

I persisted, however, often tagging along to the after-game drinks in the club room to celebrate our victory. Lekker! It was, understandably, a lot easier for my teammates to speak Dutch – particularly after a few drinks. So, I would just sit there, in silence, appreciating the atmosphere and wishing I had gone somewhere in the UK instead.

I would rate hockey: 8/10

(But only 3/10 if played in the Netherlands when you don’t speak Dutch).

FRISBEE

Move over canines, this is now the sport of university students globally!

Like many other UWA students before me, I was once asked to fill in for a social Frisbee team. At this stage, I had only ever watched from the windows of Reid library, gawking at the athleticism of lanky students who rarely emerged from the bowels of the lab rooms. Finally, it was my turn.

In summary, throwing a disk is difficult. It could go left, right, or straight into the ground. When a gust of wind comes along, the whole concept falls into disarray.

One positive aspect of this sport is the ‘spirit points’. As the dud of most sports, I tend to over commit to the tackle, or accidently smack an opponent in the face, so I’m used to a bit of opposition backlash. Here, players are so pleasant and wholesome. No other sport takes ‘good sportsmanship’ quite so seriously.

Most of my teammates were brand new to the sport, too. Nobody was judging my (lack of) ability - everyone celebrated the fact I gave a new contest a try. I would highly recommend the sport for anyone who wants to learn a new skill.

Frisbee: 7/10

YOGA

In early 2020, I was searching for a rebrand. I decided to travel to Lombok solo and stay at a Yoga retreat. A catered, all-classes-inclusive yoga ‘getaway’. I met some really interesting people from all around the world who, like me, were just looking for a place to ‘get away from it all’. But who, unlike me, had all tried yoga before committing to a fairly intensive boot-camp.

My package deal included a private lesson with an instructor. While waiting for my lesson to begin, I sat cross-legged on the mat, taking in the calming scents and sounds of the tropical surrounds which enclosed the outdoor yoga alfresco. Then, in walked my instructor.

He sat directly in front of me, also crosslegged, smiling. When he opened his mouth, he had a smooth-as-honey Californian accent and frosty white smile. He proceeded to help me into a headstand. I could have fallen on my neck and died a happy woman.

Yoga may seem relaxing but is far more strenuous than anticipated. However, after a beautiful week away in the forests of Indonesia, I felt quite revitalised and recuperated. The only contest I was in was with myself, and this was a refreshing challenge.

Yoga: 9/10

I hope this guide is helpful for anyone else who, like myself, is the mediocre participant in every sport they attempt. Be proud, be bold. Don’t let poor catching ability hold you back from trying new things. Life is less about the continuous contest and more about the value of experience. Like my mother always said, life begins where your comfort zone ends! So, get out there, go embarrass yourself, and make some memories - just make sure to brush up on your Dutch first.