Mr Hocking has exposed us. He's uncovered our plot. Now everyone knows that Australian people are writing letters to newspapers, criticising the government. Now everyone knows that there is a campaign against the Workchoices Legislation. Even worse, that campaign is being organised by UNIONS! Oh horror! Who would have guessed it? Unions are organising people to fight for their rights in the workplace. Stop the presses (literally?).
There's a lot that could be said about this man but it's all so obvious, why bother? Suffice to say, he's an idiot.
Sunday 28 October 2007
Friday 19 October 2007
Big bad wolf
What are we afraid of? Apparently, according to the Howard Government, we're more afraid of the Unions than we are of this Government. What on earth can this mean? Howard believes it means that he can win this election by running a scare campaign on how many of the Labor Party are previous union officials. This from a Government that introduced the most anti-worker legislation we've seen in my 59 years!
A Labor Government, led by a former leader of the ACTU - Bob Hawke - gave us compulsory superannuation, so that we'd be able to do things like pay off our mortgages and other debts on retirement, perhaps have a supplement to our pension or even not be dependent on the Government for a pension, afford to follow recreational pursuits, etc. This fantastic social policy has been a fundamental change in the lives of working people. Certainly Howard has liked it enough to try to put his own stamp on it by claiming to make the biggest changes in super ever (another of his 'sleight of tongue' exercises). He has, of course, brought in some positive changes (tax rules for over-60s) but he's also opened it up to commercial providers, who do not match the Industry funds' performances and left many, if they choose those providers, vulnerable to the sharks.
The Hawke/Keating Government also gave us privatisation - a personal bugbear of mine - selling off the Commonwealth Bank, for example. Howard has taken and run with this one. If it's not nailed down, he'll sell it, with no regard to the public good. Much of what used to be our national inheritance - Telstra being the highest profile sell-off - now belongs largely to SOME of us instead of ALL of us.
Hawke/Keating gave us Enterprise Bargaining - not a favourite of mine - where, instead of industry wide bargaining, we bargain in our individual workplaces, through the relevant unions if we have any concept of the real world at all. Howard gave us Workchoices, where we bargain alone against management in a modern gladiator sport for survival, where we have virtually no weapons and our opponent has them all PLUS is the favoured of Nero.
Can Howard sell the Unions as THE BIG BAD WOLF successfully, when they are actually 'the woodsman' come to save us? Is he that good, even when we can look back at a stream of his scare-tactic lies, for which we've fallen time and again? You're really good if you can sell people a bill of goods, even when they know you're a liar. Where even the language can be usurped and made to mean the opposite ("decent" comes to mind as an example - don't start me on that one - and "fair go" - nor on that one).
Ultimately, the decision belongs to the people. Howard and his crew can bribe with tax cuts and scare with lies but we know he's doing it and that he has more anti-worker plans in reserve for his next term (should he win one). If we fall for this again, it says more about us than it does about the Government. Those of us who aren't scared of shadows - we know who is really scary - will be stuck with the Australia the mindlessly fearful create for us.
A Labor Government, led by a former leader of the ACTU - Bob Hawke - gave us compulsory superannuation, so that we'd be able to do things like pay off our mortgages and other debts on retirement, perhaps have a supplement to our pension or even not be dependent on the Government for a pension, afford to follow recreational pursuits, etc. This fantastic social policy has been a fundamental change in the lives of working people. Certainly Howard has liked it enough to try to put his own stamp on it by claiming to make the biggest changes in super ever (another of his 'sleight of tongue' exercises). He has, of course, brought in some positive changes (tax rules for over-60s) but he's also opened it up to commercial providers, who do not match the Industry funds' performances and left many, if they choose those providers, vulnerable to the sharks.
The Hawke/Keating Government also gave us privatisation - a personal bugbear of mine - selling off the Commonwealth Bank, for example. Howard has taken and run with this one. If it's not nailed down, he'll sell it, with no regard to the public good. Much of what used to be our national inheritance - Telstra being the highest profile sell-off - now belongs largely to SOME of us instead of ALL of us.
Hawke/Keating gave us Enterprise Bargaining - not a favourite of mine - where, instead of industry wide bargaining, we bargain in our individual workplaces, through the relevant unions if we have any concept of the real world at all. Howard gave us Workchoices, where we bargain alone against management in a modern gladiator sport for survival, where we have virtually no weapons and our opponent has them all PLUS is the favoured of Nero.
Can Howard sell the Unions as THE BIG BAD WOLF successfully, when they are actually 'the woodsman' come to save us? Is he that good, even when we can look back at a stream of his scare-tactic lies, for which we've fallen time and again? You're really good if you can sell people a bill of goods, even when they know you're a liar. Where even the language can be usurped and made to mean the opposite ("decent" comes to mind as an example - don't start me on that one - and "fair go" - nor on that one).
Ultimately, the decision belongs to the people. Howard and his crew can bribe with tax cuts and scare with lies but we know he's doing it and that he has more anti-worker plans in reserve for his next term (should he win one). If we fall for this again, it says more about us than it does about the Government. Those of us who aren't scared of shadows - we know who is really scary - will be stuck with the Australia the mindlessly fearful create for us.
Tuesday 16 October 2007
New Toys
Well, I've got my new computer, a Dell laptop (Inspiron 1720). It's very pretty and contains heaps of things I don't understand, so it must be good, right? Among other things, I received a 'free' "BT Travel Mouse. I set aside my 'natural' aversion to wireless 'anything' (after all, it was free!) and decided to go with it.
The instructions are so minute that I had to get the generous eyes of Anna to come and read them and install the thing, then, of course, it didn't work, so she had to 'troubleshoot' to get it going, which the little genius accomplished. Unfortunately, it only worked for that session and about 10 minutes after I booted up this morning. Despite my following their 'self-help' torture trail (after doing the obvious button pushing) it wouldn't work. Angel Anna came down and attempted to solve the problem but no luck. I've taken the mouse (USB) off my other computer where all the things I want to access are (rendering it virtually useless unless I want to keep switching the mouse back and forth until I get them all set up on the new one - and how am I going to do that?).
I've asked Dell for help through their online contact option and have received the traditional automatic response. You know the one where they give you options for solving a completely different problem from the one you're experiencing and suggesting that you contact them with all the same details/information again if this 'piece of shit' answer doesn't solve your problem.
I have to ask: has anyone EVER had one of these auto responses address their problem, let alone solve it? Remind me again: why do we love computer technology so much?
The instructions are so minute that I had to get the generous eyes of Anna to come and read them and install the thing, then, of course, it didn't work, so she had to 'troubleshoot' to get it going, which the little genius accomplished. Unfortunately, it only worked for that session and about 10 minutes after I booted up this morning. Despite my following their 'self-help' torture trail (after doing the obvious button pushing) it wouldn't work. Angel Anna came down and attempted to solve the problem but no luck. I've taken the mouse (USB) off my other computer where all the things I want to access are (rendering it virtually useless unless I want to keep switching the mouse back and forth until I get them all set up on the new one - and how am I going to do that?).
I've asked Dell for help through their online contact option and have received the traditional automatic response. You know the one where they give you options for solving a completely different problem from the one you're experiencing and suggesting that you contact them with all the same details/information again if this 'piece of shit' answer doesn't solve your problem.
I have to ask: has anyone EVER had one of these auto responses address their problem, let alone solve it? Remind me again: why do we love computer technology so much?
Sunday 14 October 2007
Happy little Vegemites.. as bright as bright can be...
I'm no expert on prisons but it is fascinating to think that prisoners, who have no 'right to privacy', are able to refine Vegemite (and numerous other foodstuffs) into alcohol. Such a problem apparently, that they are now to be deprived of this spread. I personally object to the fact that those who DON'T sacrifice their toast and Vegemite for a swig, are now going to suffer with those who'd prefer to get legless (why would you want to drink in prison, I wonder?).
I've got an idea (picture lightbulb)! Why not consider supervising prisoners to prevent this 'secret' activity? The authorities might just be able to use this same revolutionary idea to monitor other behaviors, such as bashings, rapes and other harms to these incarcerated people, for whose safety we have a responsibility. After all, we put them in prisons (acknowledging that the crimes committed were their actions - if the guilty verdicts were correct - and leaving aside the societal ills that may have led them to these crimes) where they are unable to leave, or control their environment, so shouldn't we make sure they're not punished beyond the letter of the law for their crimes? Incarceration is the penalty under the law. Perhaps those running the prisons should take a quick peek at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - just in case they give a damn.
I've got an idea (picture lightbulb)! Why not consider supervising prisoners to prevent this 'secret' activity? The authorities might just be able to use this same revolutionary idea to monitor other behaviors, such as bashings, rapes and other harms to these incarcerated people, for whose safety we have a responsibility. After all, we put them in prisons (acknowledging that the crimes committed were their actions - if the guilty verdicts were correct - and leaving aside the societal ills that may have led them to these crimes) where they are unable to leave, or control their environment, so shouldn't we make sure they're not punished beyond the letter of the law for their crimes? Incarceration is the penalty under the law. Perhaps those running the prisons should take a quick peek at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - just in case they give a damn.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Friday 12 October 2007
Howard style reconciliation (Claytons?)
"I sense in the community a rare and unexpected convergence of opinion on this issue between the more conservative approach which I clearly identify with and those who traditionally have favoured more of a group rights approach." (John Howard)
What can we say? On the one hand, Johnny vilifies Africans who must be among the most inoffensive of Australian residents, to pander to the underlying and shameful racism that lurks in the hearts of the fearful, while on the other hand, he talks of a fundamental change of heart about our much maligned and mistreated aboriginal population.
Apart from the obvious inadequacies of his 'change of heart' (miserly recognition after 11 years of racist rhetoric and policy) an interesting part of his statement is that it indicates there must be signs that the community see his attitude towards the aboriginal people as a negative. He would change for no other reason because he just doesn't make progressive change unless there's an election benefit for him (and from the rarity of these 'events', we're not very demanding of moral policies - East Timor belated intervention comes to mind; strugglling to remember others).
It seems his research indicates that, while we are concerned enough for our own 'black' people to at least want the appearance of caring, we are uncaring about those from other places and we find racist statements and policies on them acceptable.
I refer back to my question at the top of this blog: If so many people must be easily led, must they be led by idiots and villains?
What can we say? On the one hand, Johnny vilifies Africans who must be among the most inoffensive of Australian residents, to pander to the underlying and shameful racism that lurks in the hearts of the fearful, while on the other hand, he talks of a fundamental change of heart about our much maligned and mistreated aboriginal population.
Apart from the obvious inadequacies of his 'change of heart' (miserly recognition after 11 years of racist rhetoric and policy) an interesting part of his statement is that it indicates there must be signs that the community see his attitude towards the aboriginal people as a negative. He would change for no other reason because he just doesn't make progressive change unless there's an election benefit for him (and from the rarity of these 'events', we're not very demanding of moral policies - East Timor belated intervention comes to mind; strugglling to remember others).
It seems his research indicates that, while we are concerned enough for our own 'black' people to at least want the appearance of caring, we are uncaring about those from other places and we find racist statements and policies on them acceptable.
I refer back to my question at the top of this blog: If so many people must be easily led, must they be led by idiots and villains?
Thursday 11 October 2007
Developing points of view...
If so many people must be easily led, must they be led by idiots and villains?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)