Mediaboss Marketing

At its best, futurist thinking represents a flourishing of the human imagination. Emboldened by the invention of new technologies, artists at the turn of the twentieth century envisioned a world largely free of everyday toil, in which the work of machines would allow ordinary people to live fuller and happier lives without the grinding poverty and tedium associated with industrialization. This vision may have reflected a kind of misplaced techno-utopianism, but it was also a genuine expression of progressive thinking in a world of growing class consciousnesses and democratic militancy.

Today, what passes for futurist optimism is often more a sign of civilizational paralysis and economic stagnation the increasingly absurd billionaire space race offering us a counterfeit vision of utopian promise in the form of climate-destroying vanity flights and dystopian fanfiction about Martian colonies. Unlike earlier iterations of futurism, this plutocrat-manufactured version substitutes the transcendence of earthly inequalities for their extension into the solar system, imagining a century of space exploration planned and carried out by a tiny handful of the worlds wealthiest people. This makes sense insofar as it reflects both the prevailing logic of a top-heavy and decadent global economy and a political order incapable of accommodating real alternatives to the status quo. When a system looks exhausted but reforming it also seems impossible, the only option left is to scale up and hope it yields a better result.

Something like this is at least the implicit premise of a new report from the neoliberal Adam Smith Institute entitled Space Invaders: Property Rights on the Moon, which mounts a Lockean case for the ownership of land off-world. To researcher Rebecca Lowes credit, the argument is intellectually quite rigorous and represents a philosophically consistent application of classical liberal thinking. Noting that earlier, more universalist frameworks for the exploration of space feel less viable today than they did in the 1950s or 60s, Lowe proceeds to consider an approach that is neither nationally or globally based and would instead see individuals to attain morally-justified property rights in space.

Shes certainly correct that anything resembling the egalitarian vision of space once represented in the popular imagination by something like Star Trek looks decidedly more distant in a world of transnational competition and disempowered nation states. Shes also right to recognize that the codification of rules and regulations surrounding interstellar colonization are bound to be complex and also that debates about them will inevitably reflect unresolved disputes about the design of existing human societies.

In true libertarian fashion, the case for property rights is asserted as axiomatic and advanced as fundamentally egalitarian in spirit. Moral property rights, Lowe writes, are rights that simply reflect truths about morality, and which do not depend on positive law. While democratic nations, she argues, may be in a position to share fairly amongst their citizens the opportunities of the national appropriation of space, the existence of authoritarian societies means some will be unable to reap the off-world bounty:

Under such [national] approaches, for instance, if democratic Country A was newly allowed to appropriate a certain amount of space land, then separable parts of this amount could, for instance, be made up for grabs amongst competing citizens, on fair terms. But the same could not be expected from authoritarian regimes. There is an egalitarian argument, therefore, that the arbitrary oppression of opportunity that some individuals already face simply by being born in, or otherwise inhabiting, particular countries should not be further entrenched by a nation-focused approach to the governance of space opportunities.

Ethically speaking, its not a bad argument. Having basic egalitarian commitments, after all, implies not wanting people to be disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth or subject to what Lowe calls arbitrary oppression of opportunity or otherwise. The irony is that market societies have such oppression built-in by design, and that modern apologists for inequality regularly invoke property rights as the preeminent justification for not eliminating it. According to this line of thinking, properly functioning markets offer everyone the same opportunities to own and to compete.

The problem, of course, is that they do nothing of the kind. Market societies are, by definition, also class societies in which a comparatively small few own and a much larger group must earn subsistence through wage labor. The latter group produces, while the former extracts rents and skims the surplus value. In lieu of radical measures like the complete abolition of inherited wealth from one generation to the next, equality of opportunity is a total mirage and markets inevitably yield social relations defined by entrenched domination.

This obviously has profound implications on its own. But its also relevant if were considering hypothetical frameworks for the future use of space. What is presently called private space exploration, after all, is in practice the domain of a few exorbitantly wealthy billionaires, and theres no particular reason to think that would change with the extension of property rights onto the Moon.

Putting aside the question of whether lunar colonization will ever be viable or commercially profitable to begin with, the inherent asymmetries in global capitalism mean that any realistic version of it will simply project structural inequality into the heavens: a small few among those who are already rich will own and profit, while others will work and attempt to subsist. (One clue in this regard was offered by none other than Elon Musk when he was asked about the high costs of transport to Mars. His answer? That those unable to afford the price of a trip could take out loans and pay them off by toiling in Martian sweatshops upon arrival.) Equality of opportunity under a system of lunar property rights is thus every bit as mythical as its earthly equivalent.

Rigorous and systematic as it is, Lowes proposal therefore suffers from a broader problem inflecting much of what passes for futurist thinking today: namely, that it remains bound up in the logics of the very status quo it promises to transcend. While virtually every era struggles to see beyond its own horizons, what the late Mark Fisher called capitalist realism arguably makes ours unique in this respect. From billionaire-led space exploration to cryptocurrency to the so-called Metaverse, the various technologies and schemes currently claiming the futurist mantle are so inexorably constrained by their allegiance to capital that they are ultimately strained of emancipatory potential.

Plutocracy is bad enough on earth. If humanity ever does expand into the heavens, lets hope its in a future that has left billionaires and class hierarchies far behind.

Read the rest here:
Keep Capitalists Off the Moon - Jacobin magazine

Oklahomans who want to change party affiliation, must submit their change no later than March 31, Pottawatomie County Election Board Secretary, Patricia Carter said. Voters may change their party affiliation online using the OK Voter Portal at oklahoma.gov/elections/ovp or by completing a new Voter Registration Application.

Carter reminds voters that no party changes are allowed between April 1 and August 31 during an even-numbered year.

If we receive your request after March 31, we are required by law to hold that request and process it in September, Carter said.

Oklahoma has three recognized parties: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian.

In Oklahoma, voters must be a registered member of a party in order to vote in that partys primary election. Independents are permitted to participate in a primary election, only if a party officially requests its elections be opened to Independent voters. Currently, only the Democratic Party allows Independents to vote in its primary elections.

All registered voters, regardless of political affiliation, can vote for any candidate during a General Election.

Voter Registration Applications can be downloaded from the State Election Board website at oklahoma.gov/elections. Applications are also available at the Pottawatomie County Election Board located at 330 North Broadway, Shawnee. Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Fridays.

For questions, contact the County Election Board at (405) 273-8376 or pottawatomiecounty@elections.ok.gov.

View original post here:
Deadline to change party affiliation for elections is March 31 - Shawnee News Star

The dark cloud sitting over Boris Johnsons leadership lifted a little this week, but his party is splintering as factions compete over where it goes next.

Attention may have switched to Ukraine, and speculation over the number of backbencher letters of no confidence has subsided, with MPs back in their constituencies for the parliamentary break.

But the brief respite from the Downing Street soap opera has allowed a longer-term problem for the Conservatives to come into focus the party is wracked by division and doesnt know where it is heading.

MPs are split along a growing number of overlapping lines: big state v small state, Red Wall v Blue Wall, One Nation v libertarian right, pro or anti net zero, and Johnson loyalists v those who think its time for the PM to go in the wake of the partygate scandal.

Their leaders current vulnerability is accentuating the division. What backbenchers think suddenly matters, and Mr Johnson is finding himself besieged with requests to change tack to win their support.

Discussing the many fault lines criss-crossing the partys backbenches, one senior Tory source puts it: Boriss foundation is very wide but its not very deep, so if one bit starts to wobble the whole thing wobbles.

Thats why it can look stable one minute and chaos the next.

But this could end up saving the PM, as unlike Theresa May he is not facing a co-ordinated campaign to oust him driven by a large group of ideological bedfellows like the so-called Brexit Spartans.

Because its all these little groups, those wanting to oust Boris have to knit together so many competing interests, which is difficult, the source said.

And there is conflict between the factions, with accusations flying about some MPs exploiting the situation to force their own agenda.

Whether or not a leadership challenge comes key parts of this weakened PMs agenda are coming under pressure from different sections of the party.

In recent weeks there has been a concerted push by MPs led by right-wingers Craig Mackinlay and Steve Baker and with the backing of Mr Johnsons former Brexit minister Lord Frost for the Government to row back on its ambitious goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

It culminated in a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, signed by 29 MPs, demanding the PM lift the ban on fracking in order to harvest shale gas and bring down energy bills.

Even serving ministers are sceptical about the net-zero agenda, with one telling i it is the only thing the Government is doing.

Theres a bit of health and a bit of education when we decide to teach kids something but everything else is net zero.

We are on a hiding to nothing with it. The last 10 per cent (to get to net zero) is astronomically expensive.

Will Tanner, director of the influential Onward think tank, says his research suggests net zero could absolutely become a divisive culture war issue if not handled correctly and the Government should be under no illusions about the possibility of this turning into quite a difficult issue as people are reluctant to stomach the costs.

The idea of spending 10,000 on a heat pump or 30,000 on an electric car is both beyond the means and the political imagination of most voters, they see that as a stretch too far.

But there is also an enormous opportunity for the Government and the Red Wall voters it now serves that Tory critics largely ignore, he adds.

Mr Tanner says people in forgotten places such as Redcar, Teesside, are feeling for the first time in 30 years the benefits of highly skilled jobs associated with net zero through wind turbine manufacturing, carbon capture and other industries.

Those benefits particularly accrue to the types of areas levelling up is trying to support, he says.

Alexander Stafford, Tory MP for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire, sees the opportunity and is scathing about colleagues who want to return to fracking.

Its almost a lazy argument to say bring back fracking, he says. The more renewables we have, the more control we have over our own energy, the less control Russia and Saudi and other countries have, the less likely we are to be hit by global fluctuations in the gas price.

Mr Stafford says MPs are exploiting the leadership crisis to push against net zero, something he insists his voters care about.

There clearly is a concern that some elements of the party are using the current situation to try and force their own agenda, he says.

(The PM) actually cares about net zero, you cant fault his commitment to that and there is concern that if there is a leadership contest, others will not be as hot on it.

He implores colleagues: We cant be those Luddites smashing up spinning jennies, we want to be the country making the spinning jennies and selling them abroad.

The argument over net zero speaks to a wider battle for the soul of the party between Thatcherite libertarians who want tax cuts and a small state, and those who now see a role for big spending.

There has been a sustained campaign against plans to raise national insurance in April, which will raise the tax burden to its highest level in decades in order to increase funding for the NHS and social care.

Veteran Tory backbencher John Redwood complained of a tax attack, while Lord Frost once an apolitical diplomat but now a champion of Tory free-marketeers remarked this week that big government was not just wrong but in many ways comic.

The PMs allies have responded to this, with his new No 10 chief of staff Steve Barclay pledging to cut the size of government.

But among the newer cohort of Conservative backbenchers, however, most have been more keen to secure Government spending in their seats. And, with some influential voices suggesting that prosperous Southern seats could be sacrificed to preserve a Red Wall-based majority, might Mr Johnson have changed his party forever?

One MP says: Im not a libertarian, its more important to strengthen public services than cut taxes.

The shift in attitudes towards public spending is perhaps most clearly seen in the new Tory approach to welfare, with many MPs recently campaigning, unsuccessfully, to keep the pandemic-linked 20 universal credit uplift.

One MP says Covid-19 has helped drive a sea change from the austerity era, and spark a recognition that government has a role to play in helping people to help themselves.

They added: Obviously there is a strong libertarian free market element [in the Conservative Party] but I think theres a recognition that there is an umbilical cord between the British people and our health service, and there is a push from lots of colleagues for spending on education, individual seats, schools and new hospitals and roads, which would probably not have happened in the past.

It isnt just pork barrel, its a kind of belief we need a mixed economy. Its not about big government or small government, its about good government.

Mr Tanner says tension is inevitable when Mr Johnson is pursuing economy-changing agendas such as net zero and levelling up, but he stresses: We are not in the 1980s.

And Mr Baker, the maverick ex-minister known for his campaigning nous, has partially admitted defeat in his bid to drive the party back to its small-state instincts.

Addressing activists recently, he said: I am a free-market Conservative who must compromise every day. There is not a libertarian caucus in the party.

Others believe levelling up and a small state are achievable together but stress Mr Johnson should put the brakes on spending for now given the 400bn black hole in the public finances and high tax rates.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the powerful Tory backbench 1922 Committee, says: After spending 400bn on Covid, you cant run before you can walk, you can only spend what youve got.

Elsewhere, Mr Johnsons forays into right-wing populism such as his false claims about Sir Keir Starmer are going down badly among One Nation MPs, with at least two submitting letters of no confidence in him criticising the remarks.

One MP says there is a definitely a tension between those MPs facing Labour and those MPs facing the Lib Dems, and with generally different demographics.

They say: This comes back to the leadership you need someone who can unite both. At the last election Boris managed to straddle those two camps but the question is who is going to straddle the camps now?

They suggest the Tories may have to do some really clear thinking about which seats to target in future, as it may be impossible to keep all of the current voter coalition happy.

One minister suggests sacrificing well-off southern seats that face a Liberal Democrat challenge.

It would be better to just put the other guys [Labour] in and let them f*** it up and come back with more of an idea of what we want to do, they said.

We dont need a majority of 80, we need a majority of 40 you cant keep hold of Chipping Barnet and Blyth valley.

But the minister also has a bleak assessment of his partys position: We dont have any [ideological] mooring, we dont know what were doing.

Read more:
We dont know what were doing: Inside Boris Johnsons fractured Tory party - iNews

On TV & Video is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video.

Todays column is by Jeremy Fain, CEO and co-founder of Cognitiv.

For the past two years, the pandemic has significantly impacted almost every part of our daily lives.

In the advertising industry, weve seen events, including Cannes and CES, move to virtual or hybrid content. Weve experienced the great agency resignation. Weve watched the evolution of remote work unfold.

Yet, despite upheaval, ad tech continues to thrive. That is, in part, because connected digital content has been essential for getting consumers through lockdowns.

Escaping into mobile games, OTT video content or platforms that host online communities hasnt just been a trivial distraction. Rather, those environments have provided meaningful refuge in a profoundly challenging time. In that context, programmatic has continued to surge and reshape the digital landscape that trend will only continue.

Programmatic is a multifaceted entity with broad application and potential. Heres what we can expect as it matures.

Accelerated growth will push CTV out of the Wild West

There has been no shortage of coverage on the growth of CTV as linear TV dollars shift into the channel. However, its still a channel that is hard to measure centrally.

Marketers have thrown their money into CTV knowing its the correct channel to reach their target audiences, but theyre doing this with the hope of reaching people and no real accountability of where their money is going. Thats the antithesis of what modern ad tech should be.

Currently, the biggest problem for CTV is that marketers are still buying loads of impressions, not knowing where their ads turn up or how those ads track back to new business. This is the year marketers are going to demand more measurement and attribution.

Direct-to-consumer marketing dollars will flee social

Social media has had a massive impact on advertising over the past few years, but its influence may be waning. Facebooks blackout last year, along with Apples iOS update, demonstrated a major weakness in the companys platforms. Not only did businesses lose millions of dollars, but customer acquisition costs have also jumped.

Meanwhile, the wave of VC funding that supported DTCs social focus has slowed rapidly. This has led to a renewed focus on the need for a profitable customer acquisition model. It has also pushed DTC brands to diversify to find lower CAC partners.

Still, DTC isnt going away. Rather, its adapting to increasingly holistic and mature marketing strategies. That holistic approach also applies to data, where there is increasing recognition that your own data in isolation does not paint a complete picture. Embracing a wider range of both advertising platforms and data sources will go hand in hand.

In short, the era of having your marketing dollars in one basket is coming to an end.

Marketers will invest more in AI and custom algorithms

For some marketers, AI still seems like a far-removed and bewildering concept. But just as you dont have to know how to build a car to be able to drive one, AI technologies bring advertisers and marketers remarkable gains without demanding the knowledge of an experienced AI engineer.

Thats evident in AIs current presence in our everyday lives. AI and deep learning are everywhere from self-driving cars to voice activation on our smartphones. Most of us cant get by in our daily lives without some form of AI, even if were blissfully unaware of the technologys inner workings.

One-to-one marketing has long been a talking point, and once upon a time it felt futuristic. But were getting to the point where deep learning is an accessible and effective tool in a marketers toolkit.

Whats next: accountability drives acceleration

Over the next few months, the evolution of programmatic will bring increased maturity, accountability and a coming together of technology and standards that offer realistic, everyday gains.

Already, theres a great deal of untapped potential to better connect brands with audiences.

Follow Cognitiv (@TeamCognitiv) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Read more:
Programmatic Is Maturing, And Here's What That Means For CTV, Social And AI - AdExchanger

The University of New England Center for Excellence in Public Health (CEPH) had a strong presence at the national annual meeting of the Association of SNAP Nutrition EducationAdministrators (ASNNA), held virtually from Feb. 8 to 10.

The conference theme was Transforming Tomorrow Together: Building on 30 Years of SNAP-Ed. The history of SNAP-Ed funding was highlighted along with emerging innovative approaches to alleviate hunger through equitable programming.

CEPH staff presented on work related to program evaluation, social marketing and media, and COVID-19s impact on program delivery. Panel presentations highlighted work completed this past year through research and practice collaborations with academic peers from more than a dozen partnering universities.

CEPHs Senior Research Associates Pamela Bruno, M.P.H., and Kira Rodriguez, M.H.S., contributed to presentations, as did Hannah Ruhl, M.P.H., the programs obesity prevention coordinator. CEPHs Tasha Gerken-Nelson, M.S., RD, senior nutrition program coordinator, co-chaired the conference planning committee.

The following presentations were shared at the 2022 ASNNA Virtual Annual Conference:

Maine SNAP-Ed, implemented by UNE through a contract with Maines Office for Family Independence, addresses food security and wellness in low-resource settings across the state. The funding comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) and is granted to over 160 agencies throughout the nation. Implementing agencies include universities, nonprofits, state health and agriculture departments, and tribal-serving organizations. ASNNA brings member implementing agencies together annually to advance best practices.

View original post here:
Maine SNAP-Ed well represented at national meeting of implementing agencies - University of New England