The Hogshead

2003-08-06T18:18:00.000-07:00

ABC Funding

I notice that the ABC has decided to axe the popular children's news digest Behind the News. This is a crying shame. As one teacher pointed out on this morning's Radio National's Media Report, most children, and adults for that matter, read visual texts much more often than they read written texts. Therefore, teaching literacy means more about teaching kids how to unpack and understand visual texts than it is about doing the same for written texts. BTN taught kids, alongside digesting the news into a kid friendly form, how to read the news - and therefore formed an important part of teaching literacy in their image dominated world.

That they consider axing such an important show points to how the current funding of the ABC is just a nonsense. We need to find new (or old) ways of generating revenue such that the ABC doesn't have to cut into the important shows because the government of the day chooses not to increase funding. I say we go back to tv licences. Licences could be subject to means testing so that the poor aren't cross-subsidizing the rich. That way the auntie won't have to spend so much time counting beans and pleasing her political masters. She can then concentrate on the important outcomes of quality production values and informing the public.

Long live the ABC!

Peace.

2003-07-31T19:33:00.000-07:00

The Bunyip Doesn't Like Universities or the ABC

I have long been a lurker on Professor Bunyip's Blog and enjoy reading his clever wordsmithing. Often I don't agree with all he has to say, but as an advocate for populist lefty bashing and pseudo-anti-intellectualism (like his friend Andrew Bolt) he taps into a particular part of the Australian psyche that is alive and well.

Recently he was bashing universities and offered this:

And what do we have today? Too many -- ahem -- "universities" churning out far too many irrelevantly credentialled graduates who, all too often, have been taught by the first generation of human output from the academic-industrial complex, which came into being when Whitlam decided to unburden the individual of the cost of paying for his own betterment.

As one of the irrelevantly credentialled graduates he speaks of (my degree in literature and philosophy serve no useful purpose, I assure you) I was set to thinking about just what was the purpose of universities. The Liberal party offers us this:

The main purposes of Australian higher education are to:
• inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to the highest potential;
• enable individuals to learn throughout their lives (for personal growth and fulfilment, for effective participation in the workforce and for constructive contributions to society);
• advance knowledge and understanding;
• aid the application of knowledge and understanding to the benefit of the economy and society; enable individuals to adapt and learn, consistent with the needs of an adaptable knowledge-based economy at local, regional and national levels; and
• contribute to a democratic, civilised society and promote the tolerance and debate that underpins it.

Inspiring stuff, indeed, Mr Bunyip. Is there anything in that you can actualy disagree with? Do you believe that higher education does not aim for such outcomes, or that these outcomes are unworthy of pursuit? If you go through university and don't change as part of the process, then that process has not been successful. And if you have been through that process then you will undoubtedly understand the value of it.

As taxpayers we should be looking at the value universities have in creating a better world. They do this in precisely the ways mentioned in the Liberal manifesto above. Just as I agree that free universal healthcare is a goal we should be striving for, so I believe that free universal education should be aimed at. Maybe both are not entirely achieveable, but both should be aimed at anyway.

And as for the ABC. Mr Bunyip, for someone who purports to find the ABC so biased, why the heck do you seem to spend so much time watching it? I suspect it is because that despite the perceived bias there is also a factor called quality that cannot be found in anywhere near the same quantities as on the commercials. Surely, Sir Bunyip, you don't want the ABC to become like those others?

Peace.

2003-07-30T18:40:00.000-07:00

C'mon Joe, Did You Really Think We Could Go Into Bat For The Yanks And NOT Have Colateral Damage?

Tourism Minister

Mr Hockey says travellers should not be scared off by the latest United States warning that Australia could serve as a departure point for Al Qaeda operatives planning new terrorism attacks.

Is anyone else utterly sick and tired of the spin and obfuscation these politicians deliver to us via the press? On the one hand we have the US government issuing travel warnings for yanks travelling in Australia, and on the other hand we have this:

The Australian Attorney-General's office said yesterday that the memo was wrong and that a revised memo would be issued.

But in Washington, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Brian Roehrkasse, has told the ABC that it stands by the original memo and it is inaccurate to say a revised one will be put out.

Should we believe the world leaders or our own?

Dear Joe. Maybe we weren't as big a terrorist target when you guys came into office, but we sure as hell are a lot bigger target now that we're Bushies little lapdogs when it comes to getting rid of that axis of evil.

(Insert picture of Homer slapping his forehead with the palm of his hand whilst murmuring loudly, Der)

Peace.

2003-07-30T00:23:00.000-07:00

The Madmen Are Running The Show

The little-publicised Pentagon plan envisioned a potential futures trading market in which speculators would wager on the Internet on the likelihood of a future terrorist attack or assassination attempt on a particular leader. A website promoting the plan already is available.

The Pentagon set this up! Think about it. These are the people that are running the free world. Has everyone gone crazy? What sort of madness is this? What sort of moral vacuum are they living in? To promote betting about when the next terrorist attack will be! Aaagghhhh. And as for you people who voted John Winston in last time, are you going to do it again, are you going to give him the opportunity of sending more of our sons and daughters into strange countries to kill and be killed, at the behest of the same madmen that would seek to set up an internet site where people can bet on the next 9-11?

We have only one chance left. You must promise me that you'll never, ever intoduce a GST...whoops. Another blatent lie I can't let go of. You must promise me that you think your children are more important than anything and therefore you will not vote for any yankee arse licking, lying, SOB who will undoubtedly go in to bat for el prezo shrubbo every time he needs to solve his own country's oil problems.

WMDs my arse!

Peace.

2003-06-29T19:46:00.000-07:00

Why Does The Church Hate Gays?

THE Sydney Anglican diocese yesterday widened its list of banned clergy to include celibate homosexuals and those who had pre-marital sex and failed to repent, but would still accept polygamists.

The diocese justified the apparent contradiction by arguing the Bible's outright condemnation of homosexuality compared with its oblique disapproval of a man taking several wives.

Goodness gracious - why would anyone want to have more than one wife in the first place? But such outrageous statements by the powers that be of the church show quite plainly that it is the church itself out of touch with both Christ's teachings and public mores.

To the pointy nosed rednecks of the church who don't think homosexual love is acceptable I say this. Courtesy of Bob:

And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

I am no believer. In fact, thank god I'm an athiest! But when the church uses sexual identity as a reason to separate those that it will accept over those that it will not I have to shake my head in bewilderment. Surely christianity, if nothing else, is about universal love and therefore universal acceptance.

And besides, the dumb bozos who keep quoting the bible as reason for the exclusion of homosexuals HAVE GOT IT WRONG. They just haven't been reading the bible in the correct fashion. A wonderful account about the bible and its attitude to homosexual love can be read here

BTW, I have never met a homosexual (but I've slept with a guy who has) :-)

Peace
esp. to those Christian homosexuals who must really be feeling on the outer.

2003-06-26T18:22:00.000-07:00

Good On Yer Johnny

For the first time since he was elected, the man of steel is pursuing an issue I believe in and will back him to the hilt (if he'll allow me!).

Mr Howard's decision to call the six-month inquiry comes after months of intense lobbying by fathers' rights groups, including weekly pressure from his own backbench. Under the proposal put forward for consideration, known as "rebuttable joint custody", the Family Court would be asked to start with the presumption that a child would spend equal time with both parents. The onus would be on one parent to prove the other was unfit to share custody because of reasons such as violence, alcohol or drug use, inappropriate behaviour or other factors.

I was talking this over with my first lady last night and she is an even more bleeding heart liberal lefty than I am and she thinks it's long overdue. There are a lot of deeply hurt men out there that go to the family court knowing that their chances of having joint custody of the kids are next to nil because of the inherent bias of the system that seems to suggest that women are better equipped to raise the children simply because they are women. This just is not so anymore. Each parent will have different abilities and characteristics that when taken together create a bigger picture of child rearing for the kids than if eitther of them were to do it alone. The kids will be better off, by and large, in most cases (he reiterates so as not to be accused of gross generalisations) when they have equal time with both parents. This is the best starting point. Then the family court can decide upon the evidence what percentage of time each parent should have.

I might even vote for the libs next time! (LOL) (NFW!)

Peace.

2003-06-17T01:44:00.000-07:00

Police State Via Labor Cave-in

So it comes to this. Simon says "We better not allow the Libs to use this ASIO powers bill as a DD trigger otherwise they'll call it and then we'll be fighting an election with security at the centre and we'll be seen to be soft on it".

So Labor caves in and agrees to pass the legislation. Never mind that the changes made are purely peripheral. Never mind that the legislation still has very bad consequences for citizens. Says Bob Brown "It doesn't change the fundamental flaw with this legislation which is that it allows totally innocent people .... to be picked up off the street, detained for a week, questioned in blocks of up to eight hours by ASIO acting as a new police force without necessarily having their lawyer there. "It's a very serious erosion of fundamental rights in this country and we shouldn't be entertaining it"

When both major parties agree to legislation that impinges on our rights as free citizens and makes government bureaucracies even more powerful the time comes for all of us to stand up and tell them we are not going to take it any more.

Contact your federal MP right now and let them know this legislation is reprehensible.

Peace.

2003-06-06T01:32:00.000-07:00

I Love Kurt Vonnegut

Many thanks to mediadragon for this link to an article by Kurt Vonnegut, a writer I have always enjoyed. I reprint in part below some of what the old boy has to say - note how you could replace the US with Oz in the last paragraph without too much difference in meaning. Gotta laugh.

Work persons have been sent home from that site because American “conservatives,” as they call themselves, on Wall Street and at the head of so many of our corporations, have stolen a major fraction of our private savings, have ruined investors and employees by means of fraud and outright piracy.

Shock and awe.

And now, having installed themselves as our federal government, or taken control of it from outside, they have squandered our public treasury and then some. They have created a public debt of such appalling magnitude that our descendants, for whom we had such high hopes, will come into this world as poor as church mice.

Shock and awe.

What are the conservatives doing with all the money and power that used to belong to all of us? They are telling us to be absolutely terrified, and to run around in circles like chickens with their heads cut off. But they will save us. They are making us take off our shoes at airports. Can anybody here think of a more hilarious practical joke than that one?

Smile, America. You’re on Candid Camera.

2003-06-04T21:06:00.000-07:00

Butler Talks Sense, But What Is The Answer?

I enjoyed this piece by Richard Butler
We need to know exactly why Iraq was invaded and to what extent intelligence material was fabricated or distorted to justify the invasion. Perhaps more significantly, we need the world to get serious about WMDs generally and about defending people against serial human rights violators whenever and wherever they show up. We also need a Security Council that works.

He points out how flimsy the US line about ousting others with WMDs is when they are producers of such large quantities of WMDs themselves. Do as I say not as I do? Given the latest US backtrack on nuclear weapons, theirs is a thin ice of moral high ground indeed. And the governments that supported them are also guilty of moral hypocrisy.

Peace.

2003-06-04T02:39:00.000-07:00

Jesus Was Gay?

I loved this story about a chap who has just received a PhD and about to release a book on the subject of gay spirituality and Jesus' gayness. It is really going to throw the pink tights amongst the religious right who will no doubt be seeking to excommunicate him from just about any group they can. It's a pity he used some astrological mumbo-jumbo as part of his thesis. Although the use of such will indeed throw my aged P and sometimes reader of this blog into a bit of a state. He believes in astrology but thinks gay people should not be represented on the telly as two guys kissing upsets his sensibilities.

Just think. If Jesus was gay, how in hell are the religious right going to handle the no poofters rule?

Peace

2003-05-29T23:33:00.000-07:00

WMDs Not Really There

Most people I know were against Australia's involvement as one of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. The people for it were, by and large, concerned about WMDs.

Now this:

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

Howard and Hill are still spouting their true belief that they went in because of the WMDs.

The spin meisters do it again.

Peace.

2003-05-22T17:59:00.000-07:00

Miranda Show Reserve Ovens Valley Malbec 1997 ($30)

A fruit driven style with a big mid palate hit, but a bit short on front and back length. I liked the American oak influence. The nose was a bit cooked fruits. Quite expensive for what it was. 15 out of 20

2003-05-22T17:53:00.000-07:00

Wot, Me Wrong?

Looks like George Dubya and his faithful sidekick the man of steel might have got some bad intelligence:
Washington-AP -- The C-I-A and other intelligence agencies are doing a postwar review of their accuracy on Iraq.

A senior intelligence source says the self-evaluation will focus on what the agencies did, what they got right and what they got wrong.

The review will include the U-S government's unproven assertion of a large-scale Iraqi program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. None has yet been found, and there is a rising chorus of questions about the validity of the intelligence used to justify the invasion.

Gee whiz, maybe it really was about oil:

Oil: Prices fall as UN lifts sanctions on Iraq

23.05.2003 8.30 am

NEW YORK - World oil prices slipped on Thursday (New York time) after the UN Security Council voted to end 13-year sanctions against Iraq, paving the way for a resumption in the country's crude exports.

US crude futures lost 18 cents to US$28.85 a barrel, within 80 cents of recent four-week highs. Benchmark London Brent crude oil fell 24 cents to US$25.97 per barrel

2003-05-22T01:00:00.000-07:00

How Easy to Fall for the Politics of Hate

In response to "d"s ultra-right positioning of the 'evil' followers of Islam I offer this from here:

The Meaning of the Concept of "Jihad"

Another concept that deserves clarification due to the content of this article is the concept of "jihad".

The exact meaning of "Jihad" is "effort". That is, in Islam, "to carry out jihad" is "to show efforts, to struggle". Prophet Muhammad explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". What is meant by "lower soul" here is the selfish desires and ambitions. A struggle given on intellectual grounds against anti-religious, atheist views is also a form of jihad in its complete sense.

Apart from these ideological and spiritual meanings, struggle in the physical sense is also considered as "jihad". However, as explained above, this has to be a struggle carried out solely for defensive purposes. The use of the concept of "jihad" for acts of aggression against innocent people, that is for terror, would be unjust and a great distortion.

"d's" version of Islam would struggle with this concept.

Peace

2003-05-21T18:22:00.000-07:00

Zarapheth Pinot Noir 2000 ($23) Porongorups, WA

Light and bright, this wine is no ball breaker, instead relying on subtlety. Although too subtle for my palate, it will suit die-hard rose drinkers who wish to try something with more body and depth. The oak treatment integrates well with the rest of the wine. More cherries than jam, and more crimson/pink than rich red, this wine is faultless, but sits on the fence when it comes to having to tell you what it believes in. 14.5 out of 20

2003-05-21T18:01:00.000-07:00

As a winemaker, my drug of choice is pretty obvious. Perhaps we need to focus more wine exports over to India!

Sting in scorpion's tail a new high for trendy Indians
May 1 2003
The trendy and the elite in India's wealthy western state of Gujarat, bored with mundane drugs, are turning to the sting of a scorpion to get their kicks, a press report said yesterday.
The Times of India said the affluent head in their cars to tribal areas near the coastal town of Bharuch, where scorpions abound, seeking their fixes.
Locals have put up stalls under trees and keep a number of the arachnids in tin cans with perforated lids.
After the customer pays a fee of 150 to 200 rupees (about $A5-7) the scorpion is produced and placed on the body of the thrill-seeker, who is then viciously stung.
Users say after the initial pain the venom produces an illusionary, floating feeling.

2003-05-20T23:41:00.000-07:00

Remember the Whales?

I remember how Japan used to (do they still?) swear that all their killing of whales was purely for scientific research. Rumsfeld thinks the same with his mini-nukes:

The House Armed Services Committee, writing its version of the defence authorisation bill last week, passed an amendment that paves the way for research on low-yield nuclear weapons but bans any work on engineering or production of them.

Now that the UK and Howard have joined with the US in shafting the UN, who does the world look to for help when it comes to putting the bloody yanks back in their warchest?

Peace.

2003-05-19T16:38:00.000-07:00

4 Corners Reveals Howard's Hypocrisy

I just watched the 4 Corners program on the Woomera detention centre. It is a must viewing for anyone who believes the Howard/Ruddock policy on people seeking refugee status is a fit and proper way of handling this so called problem. Basically the program showed an unorganised, cruel, sad, understaffed, horrible, and totally un-australian process of detaining these people seeking refugee status. It shows the hypocrisy of Howard, who invaded Iraq in order to, amongst other things, depose a dictator who cared little for human rights, whilst all the while implementing a cruel and anti-human rights process in his own country.

Surely one of the political parties can come up with a more humane system of dealing with this issue. It used to be that Labor had the ticker to show their humanity in dealing with people seeking refugee status, but that went by the wayside at the last election with Beazley's small target strategy. Who can those of us with heart turn to now?

The other point, a side issue but a bug bear of mine, is the lack of Govt accountability when non-govt companies are brought in on contract to carry out any work that in the end might prove damaging to the govt's reputation. So contract ACM to do the dirty work and when the shit hits the fan the govt can do a Pontius Pilate by claiming "We as a govt are not responsible for this".

2003-05-14T22:53:00.000-07:00

The SS Conservatism?

I was reading Stephen Barton's article on conservatism and came across this part, which I quote at length:

The conservative knows there is no Utopia or temporal heaven, and wishing for it won't make it so. The only solution for a quiet life is to rely on the tried and tested, to promote evolution not revolution. This is not to say conservatives can't be radical or reforming; when the safety of the ship is at risk conservatives can and do implement drastic changes and reforms. Above all, keeping the ship afloat involves sober reflection and a continued rearguard action against some of the crew's more crazy ideas, which left unchecked would sink the ship in shark-infested waters.

Some problems I have with it (not the least of which is a feeling of quiet despair that young people like himself believe that the given is the best there can be) is the statement that conservatives "know" there is no Utopia and that those who believe there is are 'crew' with 'crazy ideas'. The paternalism is obvious. People who wish to change the given, perhaps to make it more equitable, are to be guarded against lest the ship sinks. I suppose the ship is a dandy place for the powerful and empowered - but there are many who don't have portholes, who have no access to fresh air and sunshine (to labour the analogy). Ought not the status quo be changed for them?

Wishing for anything won't make it so, but I wonder whether Barton thinks that one shouldn't therefore strive towards it anyway. I think you are a conservative when you're happy with what you have been given, and can't think why anybody else would want to change things. Questions about empathising with those less fortunate emerge here. Or rather, recognition that there are those less fortunate. Not one person who works with the underprivileged in this society would not be able to think of some way, big or small, to make things better. I suspect that even staunch conservatives would agree to such a motherhood statement. Perhaps Barton's "drastic changes" (though I haven't seen any from the conservative side of politics for a long while) would be invoked here.

When I was younger I knew our society, though nothing great, was pretty good. But I also noticed that some policies had heart and tried to improve the lot of the less well off while other policies tried to improve the lot of the better off in the hopes that the bigger crumbs would placate the impoverished. That's why conservative policies have never impressed me. That's why I'm a leftie. And it saddens me that young people with such intelligence connect to the heartless, soul-less side of politics. Like seagulls squabbling for the left over chips, they don't have time for seeing the world as something other than what it might be. Go Jonathon Livingstone Seagull!

2003-05-14T22:48:00.000-07:00

Awake The Sleeping Giant

I just watched Dateline's interview with Richard Butler where he pointed out that the present US Govt push to have such things as mini-nukes on the battleground is moving very close to reality. As reported in The Oz for example:

The White House won a huge victory on the weekend when the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee voted – with the key support of two Democrats – to repeal the 10-year ban on so-called "mini-nukes". Critics say repealing the ban – which will draw acrimonious debate on Capitol Hill – is the first step towards paving the way for the US to resume full-scale nuclear weapons testing.

The Pentagon reportedly is pushing the administration to withdraw from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, allowing the US to back out of the 1992 moratorium on nuclear tests.

Butler is very worried about this. We all should be. What is the problem with such a policy? For one thing, says Butler:

I can't overstate the seriousness of it. It is absolutely shocking. If this becomes the policy of the United States Government, if it passes through the Congress and the Bush Administration, which wants it to be the policy, if it implements it, it will involve the United States walking away from, tearing up, solemn obligations that it's made for 30 years now under international law, and on which the world relies - an obligation to progressively reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world so that they don't spread to other countries. Instead of honouring that obligation, this would involve tearing it up, walking away from it and, in fact, making new nuclear weapons, going in exactly the opposite direction.

For all you who thought going into Iraq without a UN mandate was "a good thing", here is the reason it wasn't. Without the UN the world has no power to keep "rogue states" at bay, except the good ol' USA. But what if the US behaves like a rogue state? Which it is doing if it walks away from an international agreement that is just plain common sense. How will the US be able to tell Israel, North Korea, India, Iran, China etc that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons? The reason we should have waited for a UN decision to invade Iraq was not because the situation in Iraq did not warrant action. It did. But we should have used the UN, not undermined it. Now it will be harder than ever to control crazy US ideas like mini-nukes.

I grew up with the threat of a nuclear war a constant possibility. It seems, if the US has its way, such a threat will soon be a possibility for my children.

2003-05-13T21:18:00.000-07:00

Test

2003-05-13T20:43:00.000-07:00

First Reactions to the Budget

Costello’s smirk could not have been any bigger for fear of his head being cut in half and falling on the floor as he greeted Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report last night. He should be very happy with himself, as media reports this morning paint a glowing picture of what will hopefully be Costello’s last budget.

Amidst the mildly good stuff are some very serious decisions that mainstream Australians should be cautious of:

Changes to Medicare
Anyone who believes the changes are innocuous need to put on their bullshit detectors, wipe the goggles, and realise that except for the self-funded retirees and healthcare cardholders, we WILL be paying more for visits to the GP. Which doctor would not be putting up the cost of their services over the next couple of years, if not straight away?

Changes to Higher Education
Along the same lines as a more aggressive user pays system with Medicare, Costello’s proposal to allow Universities to charge what they like will see a massive blow-out in fees. This will of course not cause too much concern for the affluent, but the less well off who have the brains to use the education system as a means of climbing the ladder will struggle to pay. The reality is that education goes back to becoming more and more like a club for the rich.

Tax Reductions
No one is going to complain about reduced tax. But why do people on higher incomes get more back than people on lower incomes? Surely someone on a lower salary can better use $4 per week than someone on $100K+ who will find upwards of $10 a week in his or her pocket. So the rich continue to get richer and the poor stay that way.

Where To From Here?
The Senate will block the Medicare and Higher Education changes, giving the government another two double dissolution triggers. Howard said, in an effort to escape a question about early elections, that the electorate sees such early calls as opportunistic (wot, me opportunistic!) and therefore it was unlikely he would call one. Yeah, and he’d never ever introduce a GST either.

2003-05-13T19:40:00.000-07:00

Another tester

2003-05-12T19:53:00.000-07:00

Test Post

2003-05-12T19:13:00.000-07:00

When the Spin Stops

It's only when the spin stops do we get a chance to focus on other versions of the truth. Here are some taken from The Independent.

The allies' broken promises
10 May 2003

Oil
Tony Blair: 'We don't touch it, and the US doesn't touch it' MTV, 7 March
The reality: Yesterday's draft UN resolution gives total control of Iraq's oil revenues to the US and UK until an Iraqi government is established

The UN
George Bush: 'The UN will have a vital role to play' Belfast, 8 April
The reality: The UN is reduced to an advisory function on the ground in Iraq. All operational decisions will be taken by UK and US officials

Weapons
Jack Straw: 'Should the UN have a vital role to play in respect of weapons inspections? The answer to that is yes.' Interview, 25 April
The reality: No role for the UN inspectors 'for the foreseeable future'

Aid
Tony Blair: 'The UN should have a key role in administering the delivery of humanitarian aid' House of Commons, 18 March
The reality: US and UK to oversee aid effort with UN reduced to co-ordinating role

Government
Tony Blair: 'Military action is to uphold the authority of the UN and to make sure Saddam is disarmed' MTV, 7 March
The reality: A US and UK 'occupying power' will rule Iraq

And what about WMDs? It appears more and more likely there aren't any.

BAGHDAD -- The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms, according to participants.

I believe the world will pay a heavy price for allowing Bush, Howard and Blair to undermine the UN.

2003-05-11T19:18:00.000-07:00

Big Brother! Why Bother?

I am a bit of a TV addict, particularly when it comes to current affairs and politics. There’s a lot of crap around, particularly if you don’t watch ABC or SBS. But the biggest crap has got to be reality TV programs. The latest offering of Big Brother has reached new heights of horribleness. The people in it are boring. The gimmicks are simply sad, and the concept, I am afraid, has jumped the shark. Yet it is still rating very well – which disturbs me because it means the networks can continue to produce such rubbish with the justification that lots of people are watching it therefore the advertising dollars will keep coming in, and so on in an ever decreasing spiral of inanity and stupidity.

And what of the people who enter these things? What are they thinking? That it is an easy road to fame and stardom? That they will become household names? Luke Benedictus, writing in The Age, asks us to spare a thought for the trampled egos that are the natural by-product of an eviction. He quotes the Swedish contestant of Expedition Robinson who, it is claimed, threw himself in front of a train due to the depression of having been evicted. His article also quotes some Oz TV reality show contestants who admit to not enjoying the post-partum experience too much. They get bitched to from strangers about their on-screen actions, or flamed in emails from whinging viewers. His article invites a sympathetic reading of these people.

No way Luke! These contestants only have trampled egos because their egos are too big in the first place. It doesn’t take too much reading of the media to recognise that this fame game is a two edged sword. Many people get rich by it, but the cost is a loss of anonymity. Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas become incensed when prying cameras get unauthorized shots of their wedding. Talk about precious! You can’t go seeking the spotlight and then complain afterwards that the lights were too warm. We have all watched moths burning in the same fiery globes that they are attracted to in the first place.

The reality of reality TV is best summed up by Big Brother evictee John “Johnny Rotten” Cass. “Nothing really happens in the house” he says, thinking about the tough job the editors have in trying to create interest in hours of mundane footage. “They have to make a story out of something that is not really there. The audience wants to see fights, drama , conflict.”

We shouldn’t feel sad about the Big Brother participants. We should feel sad for the millions of people whose lives are so pathetically boring that they would rather watch other people’s pathetically boring lives than do something to change their own.

2003-05-10T00:40:00.000-07:00

Public V Private Schools

The debate about which type of education is "better" will be around for as long as there is a two or three tiered system. My experience is that people who went to a private school generally support private schools and people who went to a public school generally support public schools. But it is the pro-privateers that seem to be convinced that private is so much better (however that can be defined) whereas public schoolites tend to hold their cards closer to their chests. Consider the following from here:

Are you aware that private schools tend to produce better outcomes (even adjusted for the socio-economic position of their students) than public schools and most parents prefer them to public schools for quality of education and social life.

Some questions that need to be asked of this are obvious:
1. define better outcomes?
2. how are they measured?
3. "most" parents? who? how were they asked? what data supports this assertion?
4. what does "quality of education" mean?
5. social life? please explain.

I love this bit:

At the same time, private schools actually cost the same as public schools

Puhlease! I have heard of drawing a long bow, but this is simply pro-privateer propaganda. Some evidence to the contrary can be found here

For example, from the abovementioned is this:

Therefore, there is an increasing tendency, as a result of government policy, for public schools to be operating at basic resource levels, whereas the majority of private schools now operate at superior resource levels. Coupled with the right of private schools to select whom they teach, there is a danger that public schools will become residualised, which itself encourages parents to seek to afford private education.

Private schools have there place, but they are a drain on the public purse. Like the government's propping up of the health insurance companies, its spending on private schools means that the dollars spent on the public system are reduced. Why should families that can't afford to pay for their children to go to private schools help subsidise the costs of private schools for families who can afford to send them?

2003-05-08T19:39:00.000-07:00

Why We Really Had a War

The "Freedom for Iraqiites" have reduced the flow of their victory chants as scenes of chaos, looting, starvation, lack of water and electricity invade their reality. More and more facts emerge about the real reasons for the war. Here's one:

The oil giant Halliburton, once run by the United States Vice-President, Dick Cheney, will now be involved in the operation and distribution of oil products in Iraq, the US Army said, indicating a more direct role in Iraq's energy business than originally believed
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/08/1052280379811.html

2003-05-07T16:13:00.000-07:00

Here is a reposting of the first which should allow comments.

Cheers

This blog is about all things to do with Oz politics, sociology, media and wine.

Howard's Moral Vacuum

My first post will be on the moral vacuum represented by Howard politics. Specifically, why we should not vote for this man:

1. He lied abour the GST (never ever)
2. He refused to apologise to the indigineous population.
3. He props up Health insurance companies and tries to dismantle Medicare.
4. He believes the Monarchy is better than a republic.
5. He misled the Oz public about Tampa
6. He frames refugees as criminals
7. He thinks the flag of another nation should also be part of ours.
8. He paints people on social security as the perpetrators of their situation.
9. He supports the big end of town.
10. He undermines the UN by using it only when it suits him.

He lost the popular vote last time. The majority of Oz voted for someone other than him. We should not let him continue to make Australia look like a state of the US.

What say you?

2003-05-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

This blog is about all things to do with Oz politics, sociology, media and wine.

Howard's Moral Vacuum

My first post will be on the moral vacuum represented by Howard politics. Specifically, why we should not vote for this man:

1. He lied abour the GST (never ever)
2. He refused to apologise to the indigineous population.
3. He props up Health insurance companies and tries to dismantle Medicare.
4. He believes the Monarchy is better than a republic.
5. He misled the Oz public about Tampa
6. He frames refugees as criminals
7. He thinks the flag of another nation should also be part of ours.
8. He paints people on social security as the perpetrators of their situation.
9. He supports the big end of town.
10. He undermines the UN by using it only when it suits him.

He lost the popular vote last time. The majority of Oz voted for someone other than him. We should not let him continue to make Australia look like a state of the US.

What say you?