If there is one thing that Christmas and New Year have in common, it's big lights, both of which I generally find really annoyingly expensive and a waste of money and energy. Yeah, I'm the New Year and Christmas Grinch, rolled into one.
I saw an article on the news recently about this Australian house thta has about a million household lights and decorations outside it. The darn thing looks garish and it makes me sick. What I find repulsive about this is a) the expense and b) the wasted energy.
I'm not a rampant greenie by any stretch of the imagination, but heck, why do you want to blow out your bill like that? What's even more stupid is the way I bet you that Today Tonight will run one of those feel good stories abotu how much Christmas Cheer this guy has - it would be un-PC to suggest anything else - and then pretty soon afterwards run a story abouthow we can all energy save around the house. Tip No. 1 - turn off all those bloody lights!
Then the guy admitted that he spent $100,000 on Christmas decorations. What? He could have bought another house for that much and instead he opted for some tacky light-me-up talking reindeer?
But $100,000 on decorations is a drop in the ocean compared to NYE fireworks. Fireworks have to be the biggest waste yet. I can't see the point of them, the best place to watch them is on your TV screen and that being the case they ought to hire some graphic designers to do a cool display using CGI or something and save a whole heap of money.
No, instead we have to spend millions each year stringing stuff up on the bridge that gets blown up in a few seconds and goes up in pretty colours and then disappears. Its only use is to attract people in droves outdoors so they can piss and get pissed and leave broken glass and urine all over the place. Not to mention that fireworks are rather dangerous too.
Later on someone will complain about how we don't have enough money for this or that and you can go back to those pics you have of fireworks on NYE and watch how those millions of dollars got blown up. Wouldn't it be nice if the govt could say instead they were going to do something actually useful with the money, like we decided to buy books for schools or donate it to research or looking after a museum or something instead of blowing it up over a bridge?
And if they did announce that, it's very likely people would whinge about the Mayor not having the right New Year spirit.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Friday, 9 October 2009
Blackface comedy. I hope I am not offending anyone here. If so, apologies in advance.
Recently, on a Hey Hey it's Saturday sketch, a group calling themselves the Jackson Jive got verbally stoned by Harry Connick Jr for being racist because they used blackface comedy. The host Daryl Somers, apologised for any offence caused, and I too, would like to apologise for any offence I may cause in discussing this obviously sensitive issue.
This meant in the sketch, five of them turned up using black face paint (representing themselves as "Afro-Americans", also known by some people as "blacks", I hope that's not too racist. Another appeared wearing white makeup, satirising Michael Jackson who was an Afro-American who bleached his skin so it looked more of the pallour of those who are "Anglo-Saxon" or "Caucasian" or otherwise known as "white", hopefully that isn't offensive. Michael Jackson also recently "passed away", that is also otherwise known as "died". I hope that isn't too offensive either.
Now, I'm not "black" nor "white", not that it would matter if I was either. So I guess I don't really understand the fuss about blackface comedy, and whether it is the blackfacedness or the comedy bit that is really tasteless, or is it the combination?
Is it just plain offensive to make fun of blacks, or Afro-Americans, because it's racist? Because there goes the comedy material for about a third of those big budget Hollywood movies that are in production right this second.
Or is it smearing black face paint on that's just disgusting? Personally I don't like the look myself, I've usually thought the shoe grease should stay on the shoe though I haven't always been that successful. But what about all those disgusting, non-really-black actors who were trying to play Othello? Hung, drawn and quartered, ought they be?
A clue might lie in this where a guy says that blacks do not have pitch black skin, and that is why they are offended by that sketch. It is an interesting objection - one of the devices used by comedy is exaggeration - which is why clowns and mimes trying to hide behind a blank face use white makeup and exaggerated red lipstick which doesn't look anything like a real white human being. Hold the golliwogs!
To be perfectly accurate, most blacks aren't black, they're more browny, most whites aren't white either, they're kinda pinky-creamy-light-brown and I'll be damned if yellow skinned people look that yellow to me.
And anyway, why stop at racism? What I want to know is if black people can get on their high horses about blackface comedy, why should women stand for this crap either? Some idiots dress up INACCURATELY and EXAGGERATEDLY trying to imitate a DOWNTRODDEN group in the name of humour ...
I really don't know why we put up with Barry Humphries, Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, or John Travolta at all, who've all exploited women and dressed up in drag and put on caked up makeup in stupid looking outfits that look nothing like what I'd wear - I don't know anyone who acts or looks like Dame Edna Everage - just for satire. It's insulting, it's sexist, and I think I give them a zero. What's more, they degrade women's plight further by going on to earn a fortune out of their huge man-in-women's boobs act than many women who have real or at least only slightly modified by a very discreet surgeon's boobs, make because their own boobs have hit the glass ceiling!
I think all women should stand on their high heels, jump on top of their 'Tootsie' and 'Mrs Doubtfire' DVDs and make it clear that if Mr Harry Connick Jr can get the weight of America behind him, we should at least get a portion of it too!
Unfortunately, I feel that no matter how much I jump up and down, the race issue will always propel American s far more than the gender one. After all, they voted in Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.
This meant in the sketch, five of them turned up using black face paint (representing themselves as "Afro-Americans", also known by some people as "blacks", I hope that's not too racist. Another appeared wearing white makeup, satirising Michael Jackson who was an Afro-American who bleached his skin so it looked more of the pallour of those who are "Anglo-Saxon" or "Caucasian" or otherwise known as "white", hopefully that isn't offensive. Michael Jackson also recently "passed away", that is also otherwise known as "died". I hope that isn't too offensive either.
Now, I'm not "black" nor "white", not that it would matter if I was either. So I guess I don't really understand the fuss about blackface comedy, and whether it is the blackfacedness or the comedy bit that is really tasteless, or is it the combination?
Is it just plain offensive to make fun of blacks, or Afro-Americans, because it's racist? Because there goes the comedy material for about a third of those big budget Hollywood movies that are in production right this second.
Or is it smearing black face paint on that's just disgusting? Personally I don't like the look myself, I've usually thought the shoe grease should stay on the shoe though I haven't always been that successful. But what about all those disgusting, non-really-black actors who were trying to play Othello? Hung, drawn and quartered, ought they be?
A clue might lie in this where a guy says that blacks do not have pitch black skin, and that is why they are offended by that sketch. It is an interesting objection - one of the devices used by comedy is exaggeration - which is why clowns and mimes trying to hide behind a blank face use white makeup and exaggerated red lipstick which doesn't look anything like a real white human being. Hold the golliwogs!
To be perfectly accurate, most blacks aren't black, they're more browny, most whites aren't white either, they're kinda pinky-creamy-light-brown and I'll be damned if yellow skinned people look that yellow to me.
And anyway, why stop at racism? What I want to know is if black people can get on their high horses about blackface comedy, why should women stand for this crap either? Some idiots dress up INACCURATELY and EXAGGERATEDLY trying to imitate a DOWNTRODDEN group in the name of humour ...
I really don't know why we put up with Barry Humphries, Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, or John Travolta at all, who've all exploited women and dressed up in drag and put on caked up makeup in stupid looking outfits that look nothing like what I'd wear - I don't know anyone who acts or looks like Dame Edna Everage - just for satire. It's insulting, it's sexist, and I think I give them a zero. What's more, they degrade women's plight further by going on to earn a fortune out of their huge man-in-women's boobs act than many women who have real or at least only slightly modified by a very discreet surgeon's boobs, make because their own boobs have hit the glass ceiling!
I think all women should stand on their high heels, jump on top of their 'Tootsie' and 'Mrs Doubtfire' DVDs and make it clear that if Mr Harry Connick Jr can get the weight of America behind him, we should at least get a portion of it too!
Unfortunately, I feel that no matter how much I jump up and down, the race issue will always propel American s far more than the gender one. After all, they voted in Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Accidentally turning your Child into a Question Time Monster
Sue Dunlevy wrote this article in the Daily Tele about the difficult issue facing parents on the issue of teen drinking. And I'm not talking about my precious orange juice either, which seems not to be nearly as controversial as I thought it was.
Parents didn't always want to let their kids drink alcohol, preferring them to stay on the wholesome sugar-not-alcohol infused options as long as possible. At least it just kept you up all night watching cartoons and dancing rather than spewing in the toilet. You got fat rather than dizzy on overdoses of juice, Coca Cola, and really big home made chocolate milk shakes.
Anyhow, keeping them off the juice - I mean the alcohol, which for some reason is often nicknamed juice - for as long as possible, was desirable to many, but it also meant possibly getting put down by your kids.
Ms Dunlevy said that none wanted to experience the withering put down Frances Abbott gave her father, Tony Abbott:
“What would you know, you’re a lame, gay, churchie loser,” Frances Abbott told her Dad when he offered her some advice.
"Clearly she is a young woman who has learnt her parental handling skills from watching Question Time." - wrote Ms Dunlevy
There, I think, Ms Dunlevy has a good point. What the heck are pollies thinking at Question Time - except maybe a bit of nostalgia from school years when they got to call others name and brawl a lot. "Mr Speaker" is just another name for "teacher"?
Politicians often have families and children. They're often mouthing off about family values and lamenting the lack of courtesy and respect in the community and in certain generations. Then they go and put on a great display in Question Time when they blast all that away.
OK, yes, sometimes it's funny, in the same way reality TV is funny, but basically it's also hypocritical, so if you really think about it, it's a matter of 'do as I say, not as I do' or mainly 'Yes, I lament the loss of certain things in our community and I believe that those values should be there in the community, but not for me, not at this time, because I'm privileged.'
That probably isn't an easy one to explain to some younger children and I would treat my Dad or Mum with quite a bit of contempt if I caught them at that contradiction. Maybe that's why Question Time is not on till quite late/early and isn't shown with kids' cartoons. Pollies' children cant' risk that their children might see it and ask 'awkward' questions.
Anyhow, honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Question Time being more civilised. I wonder what it would be like if people tried to conduct it in a more civilised manner. Would they have anything to say? I don't know that heckling adds that much to Question Time but is there much else to it and do they have much else? Maybe they would be stumped for words and end up walking out?
Most of the heckling seems to be name-calling, booing and yelling which seems quite inane to me, and childish, if there was some subtle mind and wordplay, clever humour and wit and interesting psychological manoeuvrings used, it would probably show some class. The fact that it seems to be "whose voice is louder" is a bit stupid. If they called it "REALITY TV: WHOSE VOICE IS LOUDER: WHO WILL LAST THE DISTANCE?" and played it with some judges' commentary over the top and a number to call for each politician, everyone would go on about how it was tacky and what a bunch of common no-talents they are. People probably still think that now, it's just the lack of a good phone no. and a catchy name and a "nasty judge" that keeps their mouths shut.
I wonder if they weren't heckling whether it's possible they would concentrate less on booing and trying to stave off booing, and more on trying to make intelligent, conscientious decisions about issues affecting the populace.
Or is that too much to ask?
Parents didn't always want to let their kids drink alcohol, preferring them to stay on the wholesome sugar-not-alcohol infused options as long as possible. At least it just kept you up all night watching cartoons and dancing rather than spewing in the toilet. You got fat rather than dizzy on overdoses of juice, Coca Cola, and really big home made chocolate milk shakes.
Anyhow, keeping them off the juice - I mean the alcohol, which for some reason is often nicknamed juice - for as long as possible, was desirable to many, but it also meant possibly getting put down by your kids.
Ms Dunlevy said that none wanted to experience the withering put down Frances Abbott gave her father, Tony Abbott:
“What would you know, you’re a lame, gay, churchie loser,” Frances Abbott told her Dad when he offered her some advice.
"Clearly she is a young woman who has learnt her parental handling skills from watching Question Time." - wrote Ms Dunlevy
There, I think, Ms Dunlevy has a good point. What the heck are pollies thinking at Question Time - except maybe a bit of nostalgia from school years when they got to call others name and brawl a lot. "Mr Speaker" is just another name for "teacher"?
Politicians often have families and children. They're often mouthing off about family values and lamenting the lack of courtesy and respect in the community and in certain generations. Then they go and put on a great display in Question Time when they blast all that away.
OK, yes, sometimes it's funny, in the same way reality TV is funny, but basically it's also hypocritical, so if you really think about it, it's a matter of 'do as I say, not as I do' or mainly 'Yes, I lament the loss of certain things in our community and I believe that those values should be there in the community, but not for me, not at this time, because I'm privileged.'
That probably isn't an easy one to explain to some younger children and I would treat my Dad or Mum with quite a bit of contempt if I caught them at that contradiction. Maybe that's why Question Time is not on till quite late/early and isn't shown with kids' cartoons. Pollies' children cant' risk that their children might see it and ask 'awkward' questions.
Anyhow, honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Question Time being more civilised. I wonder what it would be like if people tried to conduct it in a more civilised manner. Would they have anything to say? I don't know that heckling adds that much to Question Time but is there much else to it and do they have much else? Maybe they would be stumped for words and end up walking out?
Most of the heckling seems to be name-calling, booing and yelling which seems quite inane to me, and childish, if there was some subtle mind and wordplay, clever humour and wit and interesting psychological manoeuvrings used, it would probably show some class. The fact that it seems to be "whose voice is louder" is a bit stupid. If they called it "REALITY TV: WHOSE VOICE IS LOUDER: WHO WILL LAST THE DISTANCE?" and played it with some judges' commentary over the top and a number to call for each politician, everyone would go on about how it was tacky and what a bunch of common no-talents they are. People probably still think that now, it's just the lack of a good phone no. and a catchy name and a "nasty judge" that keeps their mouths shut.
I wonder if they weren't heckling whether it's possible they would concentrate less on booing and trying to stave off booing, and more on trying to make intelligent, conscientious decisions about issues affecting the populace.
Or is that too much to ask?
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Who's to blame?
Every so often you hear the government telling people to get out there and get more enthusiastic about finding a job, and maybe don't be so picky, we all have to do our bit, we can't be so picky in these times blah blah. Of course they want us to do any old job, unemployment is bad for stats which reflect upon them.
And (certain) employed people often tell unemployed people to get off their butts and get cracking and find a job, any job, you can't wait around to find a dream job. (It's more rare for an unemployed person to go on like this to other unemployed people.)
But while the onus mainly falls on unemployed people to change the state of unemployment in Australia (that is, make unemployment lower, not greater), let's have a look at who else could be helping out here. I think we can point our finger at many who are just not helping and they aren't us unemployed people:
1. The employed, in fact the OVER-employed
Working hard? Earning good money? You disgust us. While you pontificate about how unemployed people should be getting jobs, every time you work overtime or multitask, think about how you are taking a job away from an innocent unemployed bum who could be earning a slice of your salary. Are you writing an email while talking on the phone and does it cut into your designated lunch break? Do you think about how to manage that project while you are pressing the buttons on the photocopier?
Shame on you.
2. Animals
There's always a whinge about how immigrants take the jobs of hardworking Australians, but what about animals who take the jobs of potentially hardworking humans?
Every time you train a horse, or get a guide dog, or run a rat through a maze, that's something a human could do. Probably pretty well, though maybe a little slower at first, and not look as cute. But we have to make allowances.
3. Employers and their silly, self-indulgent ads
Really, how about writing ads that actually sound attractive for once and say something about the job? So we can apply? I am very sick of reading an ad that's a page long and goes on about this globally recognised company and then when you get to the bottom of the ad you realise it said nothing about the job position. Damn, am I going for CEO or sandwich trolley lady? I wouldn't have a clue. Do I write about how darn cool I look in a suit and what fantastic leadership skills I have and how great I am at wooing Japanese businessmen, or how great I am with slapping turkey and lettuce between slices of rye?
It's a mystery.
Every time someone puts out one of these ads it's seriously a waste of time for the whole economy because unemployed people waste their time reading it and trying to figure it out, possibly waste their time writing a misguided application for it which gets nowhere, when they could have been applying for ones in line with their skills and getting a job.
4. Recruitment Agencies who put out Sham Ads
Frustrating and again a waste of people's time and money. You know who I'm talking about, Gemteq Executive.
5. Recruitment Websites/Agencies who File Ads Improperly (or their filters don't work)
It seems some people have worked the filters so their ad appears everywhere, and filters don't filter it out. So their luscious ad for being a Manager for Whoop Whoop company needing a degree in Engineering and five years experience, based in Perth appears even if you put on the filter NSW - Sydney - West and want only Media - Performance jobs or something.
Yeah, sure, you want your job out there, but the reason people put these filters on is because when they say Sydney, they are not interested in Perth. At ALL. So you're wasting your time, annoying people and making everyone's search slower and more difficult. Pains in the Asses.
6. People who don't yank the ad and the position has been filled 3 months ago.
I can forgive a delay of a couple of days, things are busy and your newbie has been occupying your time. But it is very annoying and another waste of time to have an ad sitting on a website (or anywhere) saying you want someone, and then you go to all the trouble of applying and find out that the position was filled - over a month ago. Thanks a lot.
And (certain) employed people often tell unemployed people to get off their butts and get cracking and find a job, any job, you can't wait around to find a dream job. (It's more rare for an unemployed person to go on like this to other unemployed people.)
But while the onus mainly falls on unemployed people to change the state of unemployment in Australia (that is, make unemployment lower, not greater), let's have a look at who else could be helping out here. I think we can point our finger at many who are just not helping and they aren't us unemployed people:
1. The employed, in fact the OVER-employed
Working hard? Earning good money? You disgust us. While you pontificate about how unemployed people should be getting jobs, every time you work overtime or multitask, think about how you are taking a job away from an innocent unemployed bum who could be earning a slice of your salary. Are you writing an email while talking on the phone and does it cut into your designated lunch break? Do you think about how to manage that project while you are pressing the buttons on the photocopier?
Shame on you.
2. Animals
There's always a whinge about how immigrants take the jobs of hardworking Australians, but what about animals who take the jobs of potentially hardworking humans?
Every time you train a horse, or get a guide dog, or run a rat through a maze, that's something a human could do. Probably pretty well, though maybe a little slower at first, and not look as cute. But we have to make allowances.
3. Employers and their silly, self-indulgent ads
Really, how about writing ads that actually sound attractive for once and say something about the job? So we can apply? I am very sick of reading an ad that's a page long and goes on about this globally recognised company and then when you get to the bottom of the ad you realise it said nothing about the job position. Damn, am I going for CEO or sandwich trolley lady? I wouldn't have a clue. Do I write about how darn cool I look in a suit and what fantastic leadership skills I have and how great I am at wooing Japanese businessmen, or how great I am with slapping turkey and lettuce between slices of rye?
It's a mystery.
Every time someone puts out one of these ads it's seriously a waste of time for the whole economy because unemployed people waste their time reading it and trying to figure it out, possibly waste their time writing a misguided application for it which gets nowhere, when they could have been applying for ones in line with their skills and getting a job.
4. Recruitment Agencies who put out Sham Ads
Frustrating and again a waste of people's time and money. You know who I'm talking about, Gemteq Executive.
5. Recruitment Websites/Agencies who File Ads Improperly (or their filters don't work)
It seems some people have worked the filters so their ad appears everywhere, and filters don't filter it out. So their luscious ad for being a Manager for Whoop Whoop company needing a degree in Engineering and five years experience, based in Perth appears even if you put on the filter NSW - Sydney - West and want only Media - Performance jobs or something.
Yeah, sure, you want your job out there, but the reason people put these filters on is because when they say Sydney, they are not interested in Perth. At ALL. So you're wasting your time, annoying people and making everyone's search slower and more difficult. Pains in the Asses.
6. People who don't yank the ad and the position has been filled 3 months ago.
I can forgive a delay of a couple of days, things are busy and your newbie has been occupying your time. But it is very annoying and another waste of time to have an ad sitting on a website (or anywhere) saying you want someone, and then you go to all the trouble of applying and find out that the position was filled - over a month ago. Thanks a lot.
Monday, 10 August 2009
These Ageist OLDIES are Really Getting Up My Nose!
Recently Kyle and Jackie O, 2Day FM Presenters, were hauled over the coals and then suspended from their show following a controversial incident involving questioning a 14-year-old girl on air about her sex life.
I'm not going to analyse that one. Plenty of others have already. It's enough to say that Kyle Sandilands especially has a pretty bad rep already so this incident didn't exactly do him any favours.
I read a whole lot of letters to the Editor in newspapers, mainly from people older than the teen and young twenties audience that 2Day FM targets, and the letters mainly condemned Kyle and Jackie O, calling them names like Vile and Tacky O (interestingly, the same handles that were used in the article several weeks ago by The Tele itself - who's impressionable?) and saying that they were disgusting, the world was better without them, but also saying things like Kyle got what he deserved and he only appealed to the "impressionable teen" audience, which really needed better guidance.
It's derogatory comments like this, written from the superior platform of older people to younger people, increasingly, that really annoy me. Sure, Kyle, appealed to younger people in general, but why because you don't like him suddenly lump all teens as "impressionable"?
There have been tacky, sensationalist and questionable presenters who have appealed to older markets. Mike Munro is well known for his style of trying to coerce tears from his interviewees (I met him and he thinks it's funny that some people think it's tacky, for him it's part of the job to get people going) to boost ratings. Alan Jones and John Laws were hauled over the coals for their dubious Cash for Comment involvement where the whole idea was to comment on products and impress their comments on their audience's mind (and the premise that this would work).
Yet no person from these generations, when these scandals came out and said, as I recall, "The presenters did it because they know as an age group that we are an impressionable lot" or something to that effect.
They are quite happy to tar teens with that brush, however.
Then I went to look up jobs and I found a job ad ... it said at the bottom:
No Agencies
No Gen Y Losers
Despite the fact that some might see this as a joke, and hopefully it comes out that way ... it again goes back to the age thing. Gen Y losers. What's the assumption here? That if you are from Gen Y you are a loser? That we would take an older person who is a loser, but if you are from Gen Y and a loser, sorry, goodbye?
Basically, there seems to be a perception that if you are of a certain age group you are more likely to generate certain loser-ish traits that you have to work harder to overcome, whereas the foibles of Gen X or Baby Boomers are acceptable. And let's face it, we've all got foibles.
And since Gen Y is directly linked to age, then this means that you could argue that if you are of a certain age and someone has these prejudices, you go into a job ion the back foot already. Someone is already thinking you are loser potential, and it colours what you say and do and how you learn and how you are treated, in a way they wouldn't think or treat you if you were 10 years older. Ba boom.
Anyhow, here's an article that I read today in Heckler. I don't quite get the author's argument. Firstly the author says we shouldn't give 16 year olds the vote. But then he goes on to say "Age isn't the best criterion by which to measure merit, maturity or voter eligibility."
OK, but certainly if you don't want to give 16 year olds the vote, you are endorsing age as some criterion, aren't you?
The author says that teenagers lack perspective, perspicacity and proficiency. That's an absolute statement he makes, rather than looking to the individual. Then he puts out a dubious test which filters who should vote (one which I assume would allow him to vote!) and also says that the state of his friend's 16 year old's bedroom leads him to believe that 16 year old's lack the organisational skills to choose a leader.
That's a great sample selection, by the way, mate.
The point here is not whether 16 year olds should vote or not or even whether voting rights should be conferred by something like age or a test like whether you know enough about the government.
The point here is the derogatory and stereotypical way in which teenagers are treated i the article. Assumptions are made - yes, the author does say he doesn't want to see idiots or non-knowledgeable vote, but then also jumps straight into saying that all teenagers as a necessity fall into that basket.
If one teenager's room is messy, then he casts all teenagers as being disorganised. I've seen junkyards of houses kept by thirty, forty, fifty year olds, and I'm sure many people in this age group would dislike the idea of saying "I've seen a my friend's forty-year-old daughter's place and it's a junkyard, I don't think forty year olds should get the vote." Not only would they think it's an insult but they'd say it didn't make any sense. People are different.
However when it comes to teenagers, many adults seem to have some idea that "you've seen one, you've seen them all".
It's like they don't have individuality or a soul.
But of course they do.
I'm not going to analyse that one. Plenty of others have already. It's enough to say that Kyle Sandilands especially has a pretty bad rep already so this incident didn't exactly do him any favours.
I read a whole lot of letters to the Editor in newspapers, mainly from people older than the teen and young twenties audience that 2Day FM targets, and the letters mainly condemned Kyle and Jackie O, calling them names like Vile and Tacky O (interestingly, the same handles that were used in the article several weeks ago by The Tele itself - who's impressionable?) and saying that they were disgusting, the world was better without them, but also saying things like Kyle got what he deserved and he only appealed to the "impressionable teen" audience, which really needed better guidance.
It's derogatory comments like this, written from the superior platform of older people to younger people, increasingly, that really annoy me. Sure, Kyle, appealed to younger people in general, but why because you don't like him suddenly lump all teens as "impressionable"?
There have been tacky, sensationalist and questionable presenters who have appealed to older markets. Mike Munro is well known for his style of trying to coerce tears from his interviewees (I met him and he thinks it's funny that some people think it's tacky, for him it's part of the job to get people going) to boost ratings. Alan Jones and John Laws were hauled over the coals for their dubious Cash for Comment involvement where the whole idea was to comment on products and impress their comments on their audience's mind (and the premise that this would work).
Yet no person from these generations, when these scandals came out and said, as I recall, "The presenters did it because they know as an age group that we are an impressionable lot" or something to that effect.
They are quite happy to tar teens with that brush, however.
Then I went to look up jobs and I found a job ad ... it said at the bottom:
No Agencies
No Gen Y Losers
Despite the fact that some might see this as a joke, and hopefully it comes out that way ... it again goes back to the age thing. Gen Y losers. What's the assumption here? That if you are from Gen Y you are a loser? That we would take an older person who is a loser, but if you are from Gen Y and a loser, sorry, goodbye?
Basically, there seems to be a perception that if you are of a certain age group you are more likely to generate certain loser-ish traits that you have to work harder to overcome, whereas the foibles of Gen X or Baby Boomers are acceptable. And let's face it, we've all got foibles.
And since Gen Y is directly linked to age, then this means that you could argue that if you are of a certain age and someone has these prejudices, you go into a job ion the back foot already. Someone is already thinking you are loser potential, and it colours what you say and do and how you learn and how you are treated, in a way they wouldn't think or treat you if you were 10 years older. Ba boom.
Anyhow, here's an article that I read today in Heckler. I don't quite get the author's argument. Firstly the author says we shouldn't give 16 year olds the vote. But then he goes on to say "Age isn't the best criterion by which to measure merit, maturity or voter eligibility."
OK, but certainly if you don't want to give 16 year olds the vote, you are endorsing age as some criterion, aren't you?
The author says that teenagers lack perspective, perspicacity and proficiency. That's an absolute statement he makes, rather than looking to the individual. Then he puts out a dubious test which filters who should vote (one which I assume would allow him to vote!) and also says that the state of his friend's 16 year old's bedroom leads him to believe that 16 year old's lack the organisational skills to choose a leader.
That's a great sample selection, by the way, mate.
The point here is not whether 16 year olds should vote or not or even whether voting rights should be conferred by something like age or a test like whether you know enough about the government.
The point here is the derogatory and stereotypical way in which teenagers are treated i the article. Assumptions are made - yes, the author does say he doesn't want to see idiots or non-knowledgeable vote, but then also jumps straight into saying that all teenagers as a necessity fall into that basket.
If one teenager's room is messy, then he casts all teenagers as being disorganised. I've seen junkyards of houses kept by thirty, forty, fifty year olds, and I'm sure many people in this age group would dislike the idea of saying "I've seen a my friend's forty-year-old daughter's place and it's a junkyard, I don't think forty year olds should get the vote." Not only would they think it's an insult but they'd say it didn't make any sense. People are different.
However when it comes to teenagers, many adults seem to have some idea that "you've seen one, you've seen them all".
It's like they don't have individuality or a soul.
But of course they do.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Breastfeeding in the Boardroom
On another blog, I read some people having a brief and petty discussion about breastfeeding in public.
It seemed to be that the favourite opinion was along the lines of - "I believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, but there are some places that they just shouldn't do it, they should know it's inappropriate, for instance in work meetings, like I was in a meeting recently and this woman whipped out her boob and breastfed and I just couldn't concentrate, so that is wrong. But otherwise I support breastfeeding in public."
Now this stance comes with a few problems, as I see it, but I think it's a popular one, mainly because many people like to think of themselves as very tolerant and liberal folk, but at the same time they don't want to see themselves as too liberal and they certainly don't want to be seen as too revolutionary and don't want to see boobies all over the place. This is a nice crowd-pleasing response.
I discussed this at length with Mr Coffee, including whether women ought to have rights or restrictions re: breastfeeding.
However, a conundrum comes to me from the so-called crowd-pleasing stance.
It is all very well to say "Breastfeed in public, dears, but in your place, and not in my sight" but then - it raises certain issues and questions:
Where is appropriate?
In whose sight, then? And if in no one's sight, then it's not exactly public, is it?
The "in the boardroom is inappropriate" argument is interesting because women have often be critiqued for:
a) women don't breastfeed enough, they give too much bottled milk
b) women work too much and don't take on a mothering role, they aren't truly feminine (which has a stigma in itself)
c) if a woman has lesser earning capacity than a man it's her own fault, because she took time off having children, and you can't expect a company to pay a person who has given less time and value to the workplace.
So you have several positions:
a) if the woman sits in the boardroom childless, there's a stigma: she's childless, what happened to her?
b) if the woman sits in the boardroom having shafted her kids to a nanny: what kind of mother does that? Not really mothering, is it?
c) if she brings them in and bottlefeeds them: there's the group that will sigh that bottle milk is not nearly as good as natural breast milk, is that a good way to raise children?
d) if she brings them in and breastfeeds them: that's inappropriate
e) if she stays at home and looks after the kids: she loses in the boardroom game and that's her own fault
It seems to be a rather silly game, and of course there are the sneers everywhere, and risks and stigmas attached to whatever choice you make, so what about someone just saying, what the heck, do what I want to do? And maybe some people recognising, especially other women, that their queasiness about breastfeeding could be stopping women from doing well in business.
It seemed to be that the favourite opinion was along the lines of - "I believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, but there are some places that they just shouldn't do it, they should know it's inappropriate, for instance in work meetings, like I was in a meeting recently and this woman whipped out her boob and breastfed and I just couldn't concentrate, so that is wrong. But otherwise I support breastfeeding in public."
Now this stance comes with a few problems, as I see it, but I think it's a popular one, mainly because many people like to think of themselves as very tolerant and liberal folk, but at the same time they don't want to see themselves as too liberal and they certainly don't want to be seen as too revolutionary and don't want to see boobies all over the place. This is a nice crowd-pleasing response.
I discussed this at length with Mr Coffee, including whether women ought to have rights or restrictions re: breastfeeding.
However, a conundrum comes to me from the so-called crowd-pleasing stance.
It is all very well to say "Breastfeed in public, dears, but in your place, and not in my sight" but then - it raises certain issues and questions:
Where is appropriate?
In whose sight, then? And if in no one's sight, then it's not exactly public, is it?
The "in the boardroom is inappropriate" argument is interesting because women have often be critiqued for:
a) women don't breastfeed enough, they give too much bottled milk
b) women work too much and don't take on a mothering role, they aren't truly feminine (which has a stigma in itself)
c) if a woman has lesser earning capacity than a man it's her own fault, because she took time off having children, and you can't expect a company to pay a person who has given less time and value to the workplace.
So you have several positions:
a) if the woman sits in the boardroom childless, there's a stigma: she's childless, what happened to her?
b) if the woman sits in the boardroom having shafted her kids to a nanny: what kind of mother does that? Not really mothering, is it?
c) if she brings them in and bottlefeeds them: there's the group that will sigh that bottle milk is not nearly as good as natural breast milk, is that a good way to raise children?
d) if she brings them in and breastfeeds them: that's inappropriate
e) if she stays at home and looks after the kids: she loses in the boardroom game and that's her own fault
It seems to be a rather silly game, and of course there are the sneers everywhere, and risks and stigmas attached to whatever choice you make, so what about someone just saying, what the heck, do what I want to do? And maybe some people recognising, especially other women, that their queasiness about breastfeeding could be stopping women from doing well in business.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Bomb the Moon!
Yesterday I read this article about how NASA as found, in the so called global economic recession, half a billion dollars to bomb the moon.
I'm sure lots of Americans are really glad to know how their tax money is being spent. While they don't have welfare nearly so good as many other countries to prop them up should they lose their job, which is happening is droves at the moment, they can sleep well knowing that their is a nice dent in the moon's surface.
The reasons, according to this article, for bombing the moon, are a) to find water which may or may not be on the moon and b) if there is water, the water vapour which will be sent up in the air by the bomb will form a cloud which will allow us to draw a very detailed map of the moon. Of course this could disturb the water supply and the map of the moon will be different from the moon as we currently know it because it will have a huge dent in the side of it from a bomb, but to hell with that.
So basically, we are spending half a billion dollars to find water in outer space that mightn't even exist but if it does exist, it will be a long way from us so I'm thinking, what exactly will a water supply out there do for us, wouldn't it be smarter to build a really cool dam or water catchment on Earth? What's next, a big pipeline from Earth to the moon or little modules that go out to the moon every so often with astronauts whose sole job is to fill up little plastic bottles, load them on to the ship and then bring 'em back and sell them to restaurants at exorbitant prices?
What's more, if we interfere with the moon to much, by bombing the hell out of it with target practice or draining it of large amounts of water, who knows what it may do to affect our own environment, as the moon has a direct effect on Earth - including its own water movements (oh, and some say our mental health).
The next thing is, we're trying to get a map of the moon.
I'm not sure why, I don't know how many people holiday there, we are slack enough about getting maps on Earth. My bus route map is inaccurate. Start at home.
Wat are they hoping to do with a map of the moon, start a Google Moon project?
I can just see it, Google will announce a Google Moon service, and everyone will want to see their favourite part of the moon.
Whoopee!
Then you'll download the service and it will tell you "Please type in an EXACT STREET ADDRESS" or it won't show you the pic of the moon bit you want which will be absolutely fantastic. I want my Google Moon money back.
There is probably a reason why intelligent life from outer space doesn't contact us and that's possibly because we don't rate as intelligent to them. They're ringing all their more intelligent buddies and writing human beings off in the "dumbass" sector, not worth bothering with or contacting.
I'm sure lots of Americans are really glad to know how their tax money is being spent. While they don't have welfare nearly so good as many other countries to prop them up should they lose their job, which is happening is droves at the moment, they can sleep well knowing that their is a nice dent in the moon's surface.
The reasons, according to this article, for bombing the moon, are a) to find water which may or may not be on the moon and b) if there is water, the water vapour which will be sent up in the air by the bomb will form a cloud which will allow us to draw a very detailed map of the moon. Of course this could disturb the water supply and the map of the moon will be different from the moon as we currently know it because it will have a huge dent in the side of it from a bomb, but to hell with that.
So basically, we are spending half a billion dollars to find water in outer space that mightn't even exist but if it does exist, it will be a long way from us so I'm thinking, what exactly will a water supply out there do for us, wouldn't it be smarter to build a really cool dam or water catchment on Earth? What's next, a big pipeline from Earth to the moon or little modules that go out to the moon every so often with astronauts whose sole job is to fill up little plastic bottles, load them on to the ship and then bring 'em back and sell them to restaurants at exorbitant prices?
What's more, if we interfere with the moon to much, by bombing the hell out of it with target practice or draining it of large amounts of water, who knows what it may do to affect our own environment, as the moon has a direct effect on Earth - including its own water movements (oh, and some say our mental health).
The next thing is, we're trying to get a map of the moon.
I'm not sure why, I don't know how many people holiday there, we are slack enough about getting maps on Earth. My bus route map is inaccurate. Start at home.
Wat are they hoping to do with a map of the moon, start a Google Moon project?
I can just see it, Google will announce a Google Moon service, and everyone will want to see their favourite part of the moon.
Whoopee!
Then you'll download the service and it will tell you "Please type in an EXACT STREET ADDRESS" or it won't show you the pic of the moon bit you want which will be absolutely fantastic. I want my Google Moon money back.
There is probably a reason why intelligent life from outer space doesn't contact us and that's possibly because we don't rate as intelligent to them. They're ringing all their more intelligent buddies and writing human beings off in the "dumbass" sector, not worth bothering with or contacting.
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
The Asian Wants a Xenophobe
I read in the celebrity section of the Daily Tele that Pauline Hanson might be interested on getting on a dating reality TV show - and she likes the idea of The Farmer Wants A Wife.
That's a show where rural males are tried out with city ladies, and the city ladies are put through the hoops to see if they could manage a country life - things like sticking their hands up cow's bums and stuff. Maybe a man will look at a girl with her hand up a cow's bum and just say "That's the girl for me." I don't know, maybe lot's of country romances start out that way.
But I just don't think we're exploring Pauline's potential to the fullest. My concept for a show would be The Asian Wants A Xenophobe (or The Asian Wants Pauline).
Watch a host of Asian males with Pauline Hanson as the dubious prize. Watch Pauline vy for their attention - or at least their votes, and the males put her through various tests.
Pauline Hanson attempts to put her hand in a martial arts slice through 6 breadboards!
(if she psyches herself up to think they are Asian immigrants' faces, she may well get through this one!)
Pauline Hanson doing the lion dance!
Pauline Hanson having to order in a Vietnamese restaurant without once asking a waiter to "Please Explain" the menu.
I think this one's got legs. Bring it on!
That's a show where rural males are tried out with city ladies, and the city ladies are put through the hoops to see if they could manage a country life - things like sticking their hands up cow's bums and stuff. Maybe a man will look at a girl with her hand up a cow's bum and just say "That's the girl for me." I don't know, maybe lot's of country romances start out that way.
But I just don't think we're exploring Pauline's potential to the fullest. My concept for a show would be The Asian Wants A Xenophobe (or The Asian Wants Pauline).
Watch a host of Asian males with Pauline Hanson as the dubious prize. Watch Pauline vy for their attention - or at least their votes, and the males put her through various tests.
Pauline Hanson attempts to put her hand in a martial arts slice through 6 breadboards!
(if she psyches herself up to think they are Asian immigrants' faces, she may well get through this one!)
Pauline Hanson doing the lion dance!
Pauline Hanson having to order in a Vietnamese restaurant without once asking a waiter to "Please Explain" the menu.
I think this one's got legs. Bring it on!
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Brendan Nelson doesn't even rate!
I just got a message on my phone. There was a phone poll you could do where the first question was "Who is your preferred Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd or John Howard?"
Um, as far as I know, John Howard isn't the immediate possibility the alternate major party's putting up, Brendan Nelson is.
It's lovely to know how great a profile Dr Nelson has. Really must boost his ego.
Um, as far as I know, John Howard isn't the immediate possibility the alternate major party's putting up, Brendan Nelson is.
It's lovely to know how great a profile Dr Nelson has. Really must boost his ego.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Does it matter if he's Black or White?
Barack Obama has made history - (well I think technically we all do, each second we live, but that's how the news article put it) he's become the first African-American to run for President of the United States of America.
OK, so he has apparently got enough delegates to put one over Hillary Clinton.
Anyway I was coming back from work today and I heard some lady called Vicky ring up the radio station to talk about the Obama vote and she wanted to know "how black is he?"
I wasn't sure what answer to expect. Maybe the DJ was an interior designer and he was going to say, "Well, darleeeng, the colour we call it is not exactly midnight or jet, but a kind of chocolate mixed with charcoal which gives the overall effect of darkness but has a lovely light overtone for a th casual sunny outlook days and goes beautifully with cream and turquoise shades."
Anyhow the DJ answered that Obama's father was African American but to his knowledge his mother wasn't.
"So he's half black, half white?"
I thought this might lead to a witty comment about greyness. Or maybe stripes, like a zebra.
No.
The DJ went on about how the significant thing was that Obama identified as black and Americans saw him as black "when they look at him they see a black man", and he'd made it to candidate. That was what made it historically significant.
"But he's part white," the woman whinged.
"So what do you see him as?" asked the DJ.
"If he's got any white in him ... he's white!" said Vicky.
I think this is pretty dumb.
I'm all for accuracy, like pointing out that someone might not be completely Asian but "Eurasian" or "half black" or "one-eighth French" or something.
However trying to (it seems) make insignificant that of Obama's candidacy by claiming him "all white" just because he's half white seems pretty daft - especially since the same woman seemed to get so hyped against him being called "black" when he was also half-black!
D'oh!
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Mums worth $124,000
A calculation based on all the different job titles Mum takes on figured that if Mum were paid in cold hard cash she'd earn $124,000 a year.
Typical duties included:
housekeeper, daycare centre teacher, van driver, psychologist and chief executive officer
and the fact she works more than 40 hours a week.
I actually find this amusing because I asked someone what CEO means and it means you get to make all the executive decisions.
In fact I do that all the time, anyone can make them if they choose, just wish I could get paid in cold hard cash what duties I perform.
I am
CEO - I make decisions on everything for myself and often for other people too.
Legal secretary/paralegal (OK I'm getting paid for this)
Typist (what the heck am I doing now?)
Housekeeper (my bedroom is quite spick and span thank you. Lots better than some housewives I know)
Computer technologist
Courier
Psychologist
Mediator
Events Organiser
Boardgames Player
Orange Juice taster
DVD watcher
Phone answerer
Professional Procastinator and Sleeper
Blogger
to name just a few ... Oh and I do this full time.
Darn, I should be getting paid a fortune. Unfortunately I'm not. It's a disgrace I tell you!
Typical duties included:
housekeeper, daycare centre teacher, van driver, psychologist and chief executive officer
and the fact she works more than 40 hours a week.
I actually find this amusing because I asked someone what CEO means and it means you get to make all the executive decisions.
In fact I do that all the time, anyone can make them if they choose, just wish I could get paid in cold hard cash what duties I perform.
I am
CEO - I make decisions on everything for myself and often for other people too.
Legal secretary/paralegal (OK I'm getting paid for this)
Typist (what the heck am I doing now?)
Housekeeper (my bedroom is quite spick and span thank you. Lots better than some housewives I know)
Computer technologist
Courier
Psychologist
Mediator
Events Organiser
Boardgames Player
Orange Juice taster
DVD watcher
Phone answerer
Professional Procastinator and Sleeper
Blogger
to name just a few ... Oh and I do this full time.
Darn, I should be getting paid a fortune. Unfortunately I'm not. It's a disgrace I tell you!
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
How would we dispose of the Queen?
I've just been reading a book called The Queen and I. I've done everything a bit topsy turvy because late last year I read Queen Camilla by the same author, Sue Townsend, and I've just realised you're supposed to read them in the other order. Still, I understood Queen Camilla at the time. However, I recommend reading them the other way round. And if you're into Royal Irreverence, I recommend them fullstop.
Anyhow, I'm not a monarchist, but the book did make me feel sorry for Queen Elizabeth when she got ousted. The start of the novel is when the Queen gets kicked out of her Queenship and Britain starts as a Republic.
The Royal Family is exiled into a slummy area, and they exist on payouts and stuff. Phillip goes nutters, the Princes talk in street slang, Anne starts flirting with commoners, and Charles gets thrown in gaol for assault. And Princess Di is bugger all use at assisting him from the outside.
You've got to feel sorry for the Queen and all, trying to feed her dog, make a broth, deliver a neighbour's baby and get poor useless Phillip out of bed, while still trying to visit the Queen Mother who is in a time warp. Oh, and trying to cope with the fact that her son's in gaol.
It did make me think a bit about how we keep going on about how we should just get rid of the monarchy, but get rid of them .... HOW? We never really talk about that. WHat should we do, chuck them in the river and drown them?
When we get rid of a politician, we give them a hefty pension, in thanks for services rendered. Lots of politicians take time to get another job after politics. Some don't get one at all.
But what about the Royal Family?
After all, while we may think it's a bt annoying they've been living off us for years, it's probably cruel to throw them into the streets when they've grown up with skills like polo and curtseying, and this isn't entirely their fault. In fact, it's a lot our fault - our fault as a society, not individuals, so it's our duty to set them up so we don't have little Prince Phillip hobos with cardboard signs round their necks saying "donate 5c for a bit of high tea and scones and jams and cream, please"
We could possibly pension The Queen off completely by selling some of those nice jewels in her Crown, and maybe give her a complimentary life membership to a bowls club and let her keep her dogs. A nanny flat out the back of Charlie's place and she'd be all set.
Charles has all his gardening skills at his fingertips; what he doesn't have is the practical skills to make a go of it. Perhaps a gardener's apprenticeship, or a course in setting up his own small business, charged to the state.
We could also think about complimentary surgery for his ears.
Camilla could just do with a new wardrobe, and she and Princess Anne could probably get together and put their love of horses to some profitable use. I think both are past the jockey stage - Camilla especially - but surely grooming, training and breeding aren't out of the question. Or maybe they could just dress up as horses and amuse kids at birthday parties. The possibilities are endless.
And as for the Princes, Prince Harry probably just needs someone to keep him from becoming another Corey Worthington and throwing an Internet drug fuelled party. That would be enough for now.
Anyhow, I'm not a monarchist, but the book did make me feel sorry for Queen Elizabeth when she got ousted. The start of the novel is when the Queen gets kicked out of her Queenship and Britain starts as a Republic.
The Royal Family is exiled into a slummy area, and they exist on payouts and stuff. Phillip goes nutters, the Princes talk in street slang, Anne starts flirting with commoners, and Charles gets thrown in gaol for assault. And Princess Di is bugger all use at assisting him from the outside.
You've got to feel sorry for the Queen and all, trying to feed her dog, make a broth, deliver a neighbour's baby and get poor useless Phillip out of bed, while still trying to visit the Queen Mother who is in a time warp. Oh, and trying to cope with the fact that her son's in gaol.
It did make me think a bit about how we keep going on about how we should just get rid of the monarchy, but get rid of them .... HOW? We never really talk about that. WHat should we do, chuck them in the river and drown them?
When we get rid of a politician, we give them a hefty pension, in thanks for services rendered. Lots of politicians take time to get another job after politics. Some don't get one at all.
But what about the Royal Family?
After all, while we may think it's a bt annoying they've been living off us for years, it's probably cruel to throw them into the streets when they've grown up with skills like polo and curtseying, and this isn't entirely their fault. In fact, it's a lot our fault - our fault as a society, not individuals, so it's our duty to set them up so we don't have little Prince Phillip hobos with cardboard signs round their necks saying "donate 5c for a bit of high tea and scones and jams and cream, please"
We could possibly pension The Queen off completely by selling some of those nice jewels in her Crown, and maybe give her a complimentary life membership to a bowls club and let her keep her dogs. A nanny flat out the back of Charlie's place and she'd be all set.
Charles has all his gardening skills at his fingertips; what he doesn't have is the practical skills to make a go of it. Perhaps a gardener's apprenticeship, or a course in setting up his own small business, charged to the state.
We could also think about complimentary surgery for his ears.
Camilla could just do with a new wardrobe, and she and Princess Anne could probably get together and put their love of horses to some profitable use. I think both are past the jockey stage - Camilla especially - but surely grooming, training and breeding aren't out of the question. Or maybe they could just dress up as horses and amuse kids at birthday parties. The possibilities are endless.
And as for the Princes, Prince Harry probably just needs someone to keep him from becoming another Corey Worthington and throwing an Internet drug fuelled party. That would be enough for now.
0.3% difference of PC
According to Piers Akerman's article, the 0.3% of extra women at the 2020 Rudd summit, or "gabfest" should make each woman their question her own merit as a speaker.
Bernald Salt, a KPMG summiteer, noted that women make up only 50.3% of the population, but the summit had 50.6% female delegates. He ranted then that the summit was preoccupied with political correctness, and that the percentage was carefully engineered.
"If I was a woman at the summit, I would now wonder whether I was selected on merit or whether I was selected on gender."
Now, certainly the figures look very engineered, but come on - out by 0.3%!
Let's look at some other places where people are suppose to represent the public - say Parliament. I think we've overdosed on the testosterone there, and there's a good more than 49.7% reps in Parliament. But do male MPs walk around questioning whether they were voted ini on political correctness or merit. Not bloody likely. In fact, I don't think we've heard a peep about it in the papers, that male MPs should question their validity as Parliamentarians because there are too any males and they were just put in there because of political correctness but someone overdid the numbers.
How about board meetings, with a stronghold of men, or the High Court - still with more males than females?
It says more about the sexism boundaries in this country that Bernald Salt would bring into question a woman's merit merely over the fact there are a few more delegates at a summit than males when we do not question the merit of men (and I wonder if Mr Salt does) when there are more men than women in decision making or representative groups.
Note: I found this interesting piece on KPMG (Bernald Salt's company). The US branch announced the partners it admitted very proudly on its website, and seemed to put an emphasis on how it welcomed women and ethnic minorities:
"The new partners come from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds, with more than one third of the new class comprised of women and ethnic minorities."
Gee, 1/3 which are from women and ethnic minorities. Which means, I assume, 2/3 are male and in the ethnic majority. But should we question the merit of that 2/3 ... after all ...
Bernald Salt, a KPMG summiteer, noted that women make up only 50.3% of the population, but the summit had 50.6% female delegates. He ranted then that the summit was preoccupied with political correctness, and that the percentage was carefully engineered.
"If I was a woman at the summit, I would now wonder whether I was selected on merit or whether I was selected on gender."
Now, certainly the figures look very engineered, but come on - out by 0.3%!
Let's look at some other places where people are suppose to represent the public - say Parliament. I think we've overdosed on the testosterone there, and there's a good more than 49.7% reps in Parliament. But do male MPs walk around questioning whether they were voted ini on political correctness or merit. Not bloody likely. In fact, I don't think we've heard a peep about it in the papers, that male MPs should question their validity as Parliamentarians because there are too any males and they were just put in there because of political correctness but someone overdid the numbers.
How about board meetings, with a stronghold of men, or the High Court - still with more males than females?
It says more about the sexism boundaries in this country that Bernald Salt would bring into question a woman's merit merely over the fact there are a few more delegates at a summit than males when we do not question the merit of men (and I wonder if Mr Salt does) when there are more men than women in decision making or representative groups.
Note: I found this interesting piece on KPMG (Bernald Salt's company). The US branch announced the partners it admitted very proudly on its website, and seemed to put an emphasis on how it welcomed women and ethnic minorities:
"The new partners come from diverse cultural and professional backgrounds, with more than one third of the new class comprised of women and ethnic minorities."
Gee, 1/3 which are from women and ethnic minorities. Which means, I assume, 2/3 are male and in the ethnic majority. But should we question the merit of that 2/3 ... after all ...
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Kids - Who Needs 'Em?
Just about ... well ten letters to the Editor I read this morning were about how we desperately needed more babies in Australia because we have this huge aging population.
To me, the argument that we should rapidly give birth because people are living longer and we have this bulk of old people we can't support is a bit like Pauline Hanson's intellectual response to the economic problem "print more money".
Why the desperation? Everywhere I go, I see kids. It's not like we are in some country where kids are all dying off or we've become infertile, suddenly. It's just that we've got a lot of oldies too, sitting on our cash. But unfortunately kids, a lot of them, become oldies too one day, and this mass of babies we produce is going to become a whole mass of oldies some next generation can't figure out what to do with, and then the next generation will probably start hysterically procreating all over again - and putting a strain on diminishing natural resources. Yeah, we're really solving a problem.
Several obvious solutions pop into mind:
1. Mandatory Euthanasia for oldies, once they reach a certain age, to keep strain on population down
2. We put our energy not into babies but into adult clones or robots that can actually work right away, not into little babies who sit around bawling for food and toys for the first 5 years of their life.
3. We have fewer babies, and do it tough for the next several decades, while the aging population dies off naturally. People will have to go without luxuries or a few generations, but then the population will have got down to a number that's easier to handle for the natural environment. Then we start trying to concentrate on maximising brain power and multitasking, and using tools, rather than think about each human = certain amount of work, so if I want more produce, I need another baby.
Certainly, the robots idea appeals to me. Why do we think of producing babies of all things, as the solution to the oldies problem?
We have an economic burden, and people's first reaction is to want to create more of the same kind of creature - beings that wet the bed, need help getting dressed, can't go to work, have trouble reading, often are lacking in the hair and tooth department and are mainly good for getting posed next to during an election campaign if you are a politician? The only thing that babies do that oldies don't is shut up about the war.
We need a serious rethink over our Baby Bonus policy.
To me, the argument that we should rapidly give birth because people are living longer and we have this bulk of old people we can't support is a bit like Pauline Hanson's intellectual response to the economic problem "print more money".
Why the desperation? Everywhere I go, I see kids. It's not like we are in some country where kids are all dying off or we've become infertile, suddenly. It's just that we've got a lot of oldies too, sitting on our cash. But unfortunately kids, a lot of them, become oldies too one day, and this mass of babies we produce is going to become a whole mass of oldies some next generation can't figure out what to do with, and then the next generation will probably start hysterically procreating all over again - and putting a strain on diminishing natural resources. Yeah, we're really solving a problem.
Several obvious solutions pop into mind:
1. Mandatory Euthanasia for oldies, once they reach a certain age, to keep strain on population down
2. We put our energy not into babies but into adult clones or robots that can actually work right away, not into little babies who sit around bawling for food and toys for the first 5 years of their life.
3. We have fewer babies, and do it tough for the next several decades, while the aging population dies off naturally. People will have to go without luxuries or a few generations, but then the population will have got down to a number that's easier to handle for the natural environment. Then we start trying to concentrate on maximising brain power and multitasking, and using tools, rather than think about each human = certain amount of work, so if I want more produce, I need another baby.
Certainly, the robots idea appeals to me. Why do we think of producing babies of all things, as the solution to the oldies problem?
We have an economic burden, and people's first reaction is to want to create more of the same kind of creature - beings that wet the bed, need help getting dressed, can't go to work, have trouble reading, often are lacking in the hair and tooth department and are mainly good for getting posed next to during an election campaign if you are a politician? The only thing that babies do that oldies don't is shut up about the war.
We need a serious rethink over our Baby Bonus policy.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Give Blood, Drive Longer
A letter writer to the Daily Tele, John Cody of East Epping, came up with this novel idea to solve the blood shortage at the Red Cross:
An incentive where each time you gave blood, your driver's license could be recredited a demerit point for a donation.
His reasoning was that you didn't have to be a complete ratbag to lose demerit points, with all the signs there were around on the streets etc, so it was a win-win set up, with driver's getting back there demerit points and the Red Cross getting their blood.
Now, I'm just thinking, that sounds good - to begin with.
Of course, the first thing - or probably the first thing - that pops into your mind - is "Why do I want some idiot hoon who can't drive being able to stay longer on the road simply because someone stuck a needle into his vein?" But of course you are reassured that it's not because the driver is an idiot hoon, it's because of all those signs and school zones and stuff. I'll bet you John Cody's lost a few demerit points in his time.
But then there's some other points to consider - pardon the pun.
If you HADN'T lost any demerit points that year, and you gave blood, would you get any credit? Could you get credit points on your license? And if this campaign - the demerit-points/blood-giving thing was heavily marketed, and no credit points could be had ...
Then would it mean people would stop giving until they had lost a demerit point and then just give in order to win them back. You could end up losing donors instead of winning them.
What's more, people who don't drive cars at all, or do so infrequently, might think that they have nothing much to gain from the whole process, and that the Red Cross doesn't value them as donors as they are pitching the whole campaign in favour of drivers instead of treating each donor as a valuable person and treating their gift equally. They may lose those donors too.
We might even get people being that little bit more careless on the roads because they think they can afford to - they 're going to be donating blood soon.
In general, I don't mind campaigns or causes which give favours to people if I feel those people deserve or are in need of extra help - people which give student concessions, assistance to the elderly or disabled, single mother help or daycare - that's cool. It's singling people out for special treatment because they've broken road rules that I feel somewhat repulsive. Surely there must be some way to get more people energetic about donating blood - though I can't think what.
There seem to be so many things governing whether you can or cannot donate blood.
I know some people who pass all the rules for donating blood but are still basically told not to - one is borderline on the weight category, and another, even though she is around about the right weight, still faints each time she gives blood (for some reason) so has stopped donating for her own health and safety reasons.
An incentive where each time you gave blood, your driver's license could be recredited a demerit point for a donation.
His reasoning was that you didn't have to be a complete ratbag to lose demerit points, with all the signs there were around on the streets etc, so it was a win-win set up, with driver's getting back there demerit points and the Red Cross getting their blood.
Now, I'm just thinking, that sounds good - to begin with.
Of course, the first thing - or probably the first thing - that pops into your mind - is "Why do I want some idiot hoon who can't drive being able to stay longer on the road simply because someone stuck a needle into his vein?" But of course you are reassured that it's not because the driver is an idiot hoon, it's because of all those signs and school zones and stuff. I'll bet you John Cody's lost a few demerit points in his time.
But then there's some other points to consider - pardon the pun.
If you HADN'T lost any demerit points that year, and you gave blood, would you get any credit? Could you get credit points on your license? And if this campaign - the demerit-points/blood-giving thing was heavily marketed, and no credit points could be had ...
Then would it mean people would stop giving until they had lost a demerit point and then just give in order to win them back. You could end up losing donors instead of winning them.
What's more, people who don't drive cars at all, or do so infrequently, might think that they have nothing much to gain from the whole process, and that the Red Cross doesn't value them as donors as they are pitching the whole campaign in favour of drivers instead of treating each donor as a valuable person and treating their gift equally. They may lose those donors too.
We might even get people being that little bit more careless on the roads because they think they can afford to - they 're going to be donating blood soon.
In general, I don't mind campaigns or causes which give favours to people if I feel those people deserve or are in need of extra help - people which give student concessions, assistance to the elderly or disabled, single mother help or daycare - that's cool. It's singling people out for special treatment because they've broken road rules that I feel somewhat repulsive. Surely there must be some way to get more people energetic about donating blood - though I can't think what.
There seem to be so many things governing whether you can or cannot donate blood.
I know some people who pass all the rules for donating blood but are still basically told not to - one is borderline on the weight category, and another, even though she is around about the right weight, still faints each time she gives blood (for some reason) so has stopped donating for her own health and safety reasons.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Greenpeace is indirectly using Sea Shepherd tactics to lower Global Warming, recent studies have shown.
Those who have been watching the Greenpeace anti-whaling vessel's tactics recently may have been confused by the Sea Shepherd's tactics.
Greenpeace has been known for bad haircuts, sloppy T-shirts, and taking a ship out and ramming the side of Japanese whaling vessels in the hope of saving the lives of whales. Either that or getting their faces and wild haircuts on the front of magazines.
However recently they took a different turn, and two Greenpeace anti-whaling protesters have been held on a Japanese ship "hostage" says Greenpeace, "detained" say the Japanese, although they probably say that in Japanese. After trying to deliver a letter, say Greenpeace, after trying to throw acid and destroy property say the Japanese. Maybe "deliver a letter" sounds a lot like "throw acid" in Japanese.
Anyhow, the Australians started calling the Japanese "terrorists" and the Japanese started calling the Aussies "pirates". And many people have been calling the actions stupid.
However, my research has found that according to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the number of pirates there are in the world affects global warming . If we increase the number of pirates in the world, the average global temperature will go down!
It's all there.
While somoe people have been calling the Greenpeace actions stupid, well-intentioned perhaps, but ill-thought-out, lacking credibility, and idiotic, they are obviously part of the bigger environmental picture. Kill two birds with one stone - errh - perhaps not the best metaphor - attack the whaling and the global warming together. Create more piracy!
Hop to it and get to those illegal downloads, people, you have work to do for the environment!
Greenpeace has been known for bad haircuts, sloppy T-shirts, and taking a ship out and ramming the side of Japanese whaling vessels in the hope of saving the lives of whales. Either that or getting their faces and wild haircuts on the front of magazines.
However recently they took a different turn, and two Greenpeace anti-whaling protesters have been held on a Japanese ship "hostage" says Greenpeace, "detained" say the Japanese, although they probably say that in Japanese. After trying to deliver a letter, say Greenpeace, after trying to throw acid and destroy property say the Japanese. Maybe "deliver a letter" sounds a lot like "throw acid" in Japanese.
Anyhow, the Australians started calling the Japanese "terrorists" and the Japanese started calling the Aussies "pirates". And many people have been calling the actions stupid.
However, my research has found that according to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the number of pirates there are in the world affects global warming . If we increase the number of pirates in the world, the average global temperature will go down!
It's all there.
While somoe people have been calling the Greenpeace actions stupid, well-intentioned perhaps, but ill-thought-out, lacking credibility, and idiotic, they are obviously part of the bigger environmental picture. Kill two birds with one stone - errh - perhaps not the best metaphor - attack the whaling and the global warming together. Create more piracy!
Hop to it and get to those illegal downloads, people, you have work to do for the environment!
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Immigrant Idol!
I just hit on a fantastic idea, after reading a whole lot of stuff about how people are racist, when they really mean religionist.
Funny, that, when you read an article about Muslims in Australia there always seems to be some debate about racism when in fact we're talking about religionism. This article started off about whether or not there should be a Muslim school in Camden, and went on about whether there should be any Muslims in Australia at all and some talk about whether Muslims were an insidious group which was planning a hostile takeover of Australia.
One person who commented on this article suggested "Let's vote once and for all who we want in this country!"
And I thought - fantastic idea!
Should we do it on TV, or by internet? Internet could be faster, but TV would be flashier, and probably would be more attractive to the adman.
The Internet Concept
First of all, you'd pick a web host, like MyAussieImmigrationApplicationSpace. Immigrants could log in, and post their photo, and application, and a profile. Maybe a few youtube videos. Internet voting for applicants would be assessed - you would have to get a minimum number of votes in your favour from Aussie citizens, and more than a [certain percentage] than those in your disfavour.
I s'pose there's always the problem, just like on RSVP, of someone like Osama Bin Laden sticking up a hot 22 year old blonde's pic, but there are always risks with new concepts.
The TV Concept
The TV Concept is a far more drawn out concept, but would just make the process more selective. I'm sure all the mobile phone companies would love it. Immigrants would be lining the streets to get into the final twelve, and go through weeks of agony, performing tasks, songs, dancing to prove their worth as Aussies, and face the whiplash remarks of the judges. "You throw a prawn on a barbie like a girl!" "Oh sorry - you are a girl - I can never figure it out with those Afro haircuts" "Your Neighbours trivia SUX!"
The government would be forced to back the people's Immigrant Idol - but only for the length of his/her visa. After which the choice could be made to drop the Idol or renew the contract, depending on whether they'd made good their contribution and were a viable asset.
I like it already!
Funny, that, when you read an article about Muslims in Australia there always seems to be some debate about racism when in fact we're talking about religionism. This article started off about whether or not there should be a Muslim school in Camden, and went on about whether there should be any Muslims in Australia at all and some talk about whether Muslims were an insidious group which was planning a hostile takeover of Australia.
One person who commented on this article suggested "Let's vote once and for all who we want in this country!"
And I thought - fantastic idea!
Should we do it on TV, or by internet? Internet could be faster, but TV would be flashier, and probably would be more attractive to the adman.
The Internet Concept
First of all, you'd pick a web host, like MyAussieImmigrationApplicationSpace. Immigrants could log in, and post their photo, and application, and a profile. Maybe a few youtube videos. Internet voting for applicants would be assessed - you would have to get a minimum number of votes in your favour from Aussie citizens, and more than a [certain percentage] than those in your disfavour.
I s'pose there's always the problem, just like on RSVP, of someone like Osama Bin Laden sticking up a hot 22 year old blonde's pic, but there are always risks with new concepts.
The TV Concept
The TV Concept is a far more drawn out concept, but would just make the process more selective. I'm sure all the mobile phone companies would love it. Immigrants would be lining the streets to get into the final twelve, and go through weeks of agony, performing tasks, songs, dancing to prove their worth as Aussies, and face the whiplash remarks of the judges. "You throw a prawn on a barbie like a girl!" "Oh sorry - you are a girl - I can never figure it out with those Afro haircuts" "Your Neighbours trivia SUX!"
The government would be forced to back the people's Immigrant Idol - but only for the length of his/her visa. After which the choice could be made to drop the Idol or renew the contract, depending on whether they'd made good their contribution and were a viable asset.
I like it already!
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Osama Got Run Over By a Reindeer
Inspired by TimT's post on Christmas Carols I thought I'd add a carol I'd heard on radio recently.
Usually I'm not big on carols that are Aussified versions of the original carol. Mostly they aren't that well sung, and not very witty.
On the other hand, this was a modern American version of a carol, and while it doesn't bring the "Joy to the World" that "Silent Night" or "Jingle Bells" does, the lyrics are worth a peek, I think.
(chorus)
Osama got run over by a reindeer
Walking out of his cave Christmas eve
You can say there's no such thing as Santa
But as for we in America, we believe
He'd been blowing up too many buildings
So we said he had to go
But he hid in his cave in Afghanistan
Defiant as he was, he said, "Hell, no!"
When we found him Christmas morning
It was clear he'd been attacked
There was a note stuck to his forehead
It said, "Either give up now or we'll go bomb Iraq!"
(repeat chorus)
Now we're all so proud of George Bush
He's been taking this so well
See him in the Oval Office
Knowing that Osama's really going to Hell
It's not Christmas with bin Laden
Nor for Saddam in Iraq
And we just can't help but wonder
Should we go bomb Baghdad in a sneak attack?
(Bomb Iraq!)
(repeat chorus)
Now the cards are on the table
See George W. dance a jig (Ah!)
And the red, white, and blue candles
(Gore thought that the election had been rigged!)
I warned all you stinkin' terrorists
Better watch out for yourselves!
They should not make hijacking weapons
Out of stuff that you would find upon the shelves!
(repeat chorus)
Sing it, George W.!
(repeat chorus)
Usually I'm not big on carols that are Aussified versions of the original carol. Mostly they aren't that well sung, and not very witty.
On the other hand, this was a modern American version of a carol, and while it doesn't bring the "Joy to the World" that "Silent Night" or "Jingle Bells" does, the lyrics are worth a peek, I think.
(chorus)
Osama got run over by a reindeer
Walking out of his cave Christmas eve
You can say there's no such thing as Santa
But as for we in America, we believe
He'd been blowing up too many buildings
So we said he had to go
But he hid in his cave in Afghanistan
Defiant as he was, he said, "Hell, no!"
When we found him Christmas morning
It was clear he'd been attacked
There was a note stuck to his forehead
It said, "Either give up now or we'll go bomb Iraq!"
(repeat chorus)
Now we're all so proud of George Bush
He's been taking this so well
See him in the Oval Office
Knowing that Osama's really going to Hell
It's not Christmas with bin Laden
Nor for Saddam in Iraq
And we just can't help but wonder
Should we go bomb Baghdad in a sneak attack?
(Bomb Iraq!)
(repeat chorus)
Now the cards are on the table
See George W. dance a jig (Ah!)
And the red, white, and blue candles
(Gore thought that the election had been rigged!)
I warned all you stinkin' terrorists
Better watch out for yourselves!
They should not make hijacking weapons
Out of stuff that you would find upon the shelves!
(repeat chorus)
Sing it, George W.!
(repeat chorus)
Friday, 30 November 2007
FOUND: A sense of humour in Akerman
I have never credited Piers Akerman with any sense of humour whatsoever. A guy who spends all of the time before, during and after elections (is there any other time?) curling himself into a little ball of petulancy, hate, right wing flag-waving and self-righteousness usually doesn't have much time to laugh - at least not that I've noticed from his journalistic attempts.
But I was wrong.
I now award the honour of "Funniest Quote from an Article on the Australian Federal Election 2007" to Mr Piers Akerman.
Funnily enough, the quote was about an American Presidential candidate, but it was in an article about Kevin Rudd, so let's not get too fussy.
The quote: "... a new Western administration was Hilary Clinton when she became Fist Lady ..."
I'm waiting for other gems from Mr Akerman, like an article on Earwaxgate calling Mr Rudd "Picksy" and some jokes about Howard being the "Man of Steal". A YouTube of any of George W. Bush's speeches, with the caption "The Most Powerful Man in a Whirl".
And a signing off of his own articles as "Piss Akerman"
But I was wrong.
I now award the honour of "Funniest Quote from an Article on the Australian Federal Election 2007" to Mr Piers Akerman.
Funnily enough, the quote was about an American Presidential candidate, but it was in an article about Kevin Rudd, so let's not get too fussy.
The quote: "... a new Western administration was Hilary Clinton when she became Fist Lady ..."
I'm waiting for other gems from Mr Akerman, like an article on Earwaxgate calling Mr Rudd "Picksy" and some jokes about Howard being the "Man of Steal". A YouTube of any of George W. Bush's speeches, with the caption "The Most Powerful Man in a Whirl".
And a signing off of his own articles as "Piss Akerman"
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Burdens
Oh yes, you only have to see him as Opposition Leader.
I have to put up with him as my local member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
