from london to ivanhoe, readers of the mother load have been asking rg when, oh when, will the electoral commentary start? as far as the official campaign is concerned, we're a week down; five left to go. as far as rg's time management is concerned, it's obviously been somewhat lacking; rg will attempt to rectify this through negotiations with the resident tornado-disguised-as-small-person.
that said, loyal readers, consider rg's thumb officially retracted from the relevant private orifice. rg is on notice and appreciates readers of this blog being vigilant not only in their excellent choice of online reading material, but also in their arse-kicking.
October 21, 2007
October 12, 2007
the 7.56 report
rg likes nothing more than a bit of john clarke and bryan dawe on a thursday night.
last night's offering was incredible.
if that doesn't work for you, here's the transcript.
last night's offering was incredible.
if that doesn't work for you, here's the transcript.
howard's hallelujah moment
rg is bored shitless with political photo ops and election-date-announcement water-treading. if kevin rudd sets foot in another hospital, research facility or school, or if john howard guffaws in his characteristically nerdy manner while intently looking at a piece of technology that all and sundry know he has no idea about (like maybe a computer - sorry, that's helen coonan) rg may self-lobotomise. that's the bad news, at least for rg's grey matter.
the good news is, rg is bustin' out the compassion truck: it seems the pm has had a hallelujah moment and realised there's merit in this whole reconciliation thing, he's just been a product of his generation for the last 11 years, or maybe just a little bit of a duffer, and only realised it. rg suspects this will explain his personal and political vehemence over the past decade outlining why reconciliation was a crock, funding for indigenous communities needed to be cut, and sorry didn't matter. fantastically, he now understands that symbolism and unity is important; there's also some niggly thing about indigenous pride or some other new age concept that has dawned on him.
what an utterly transparent farce. rg's eyeballs are getting rsi from rolling skyward so often - that coupled with an esophagus under constant attack from rising bile, a lobotomy is starting to look rather attractive. what to say about this man? it's over.
the good news is, rg is bustin' out the compassion truck: it seems the pm has had a hallelujah moment and realised there's merit in this whole reconciliation thing, he's just been a product of his generation for the last 11 years, or maybe just a little bit of a duffer, and only realised it. rg suspects this will explain his personal and political vehemence over the past decade outlining why reconciliation was a crock, funding for indigenous communities needed to be cut, and sorry didn't matter. fantastically, he now understands that symbolism and unity is important; there's also some niggly thing about indigenous pride or some other new age concept that has dawned on him.
what an utterly transparent farce. rg's eyeballs are getting rsi from rolling skyward so often - that coupled with an esophagus under constant attack from rising bile, a lobotomy is starting to look rather attractive. what to say about this man? it's over.
September 14, 2007
jaw-dropping hubris
continuing the arrogance theme of the mother load's previous post, rg would like to share a brilliant quote from our great nation's pm, courtesy of the ever-diligent and finger-on-the-pulse team at the road to surfdom.
while howard government ministers have, in the last few days, been ardently trying to out-score each other in the who-can-say-'team'-the-most stakes, it seems their leader is more than a little confused about the general concept of what a team is.
in today's courier mail, howard mused:
the opinion polls do indicate that my level of personal popularity is quite high, given i've been prime minister for 11 and a half years, it really is. in fact, my level of personal support is significantly higher than that of the party's. if the party's level of support in the opinion polls was as high as mine is, well, we'd be a different story.
what drugs is this man taking, and where can rg get some?
nothing like checking the egos at the door and pulling together as a team, john.
while howard government ministers have, in the last few days, been ardently trying to out-score each other in the who-can-say-'team'-the-most stakes, it seems their leader is more than a little confused about the general concept of what a team is.
in today's courier mail, howard mused:
the opinion polls do indicate that my level of personal popularity is quite high, given i've been prime minister for 11 and a half years, it really is. in fact, my level of personal support is significantly higher than that of the party's. if the party's level of support in the opinion polls was as high as mine is, well, we'd be a different story.
what drugs is this man taking, and where can rg get some?
nothing like checking the egos at the door and pulling together as a team, john.
September 11, 2007
surely you jest...
rg just heard the most hilarious thing on the 7.30 report - transcript isn't available yet, so please forgive rg if it's not word perfect.
whata downer was having a good old natter with kerry, guffawing at ludicrous suggestions there's some angst in the liberal party room concerning top dog status. as an aside, if rg had a dollar for every time downer said the words "natural" or "unnatural", centrebet would be getting a tidy wager on the election outcome.
so what was the clanger? after being arrogant, patronising and dismissive, the minister said this:
the last thing anyone could possibly say about the liberal party is that it has been arrogant and dismissive of the australian people.
someone teach this man to spell irony.
update: rg sudders at the thought of putting foolish words in the mouths of ministers; that's something best left to themselves. so here it is, the official transcript version:
whata downer was having a good old natter with kerry, guffawing at ludicrous suggestions there's some angst in the liberal party room concerning top dog status. as an aside, if rg had a dollar for every time downer said the words "natural" or "unnatural", centrebet would be getting a tidy wager on the election outcome.
so what was the clanger? after being arrogant, patronising and dismissive, the minister said this:
the last thing anyone could possibly say about the liberal party is that it has been arrogant and dismissive of the australian people.
someone teach this man to spell irony.
update: rg sudders at the thought of putting foolish words in the mouths of ministers; that's something best left to themselves. so here it is, the official transcript version:
...by the way, i'm making it absolutely clear that the last thing we are is arrogant and dismissive of the australian public.
hear that, joe voter? it's being made absolutely clear - listen up! you may have been confused, but apparently it's all crystal now: the liberal government are not - repeat, NOT - condescending or arrogant, so please adjust your personal observations now.
August 20, 2007
a McEnroe moment
you cannot be serious!rudd got hammered and went to a dodgy venue on the public dollar. four years ago.
it's been suggested that rg may be tempted to mount the nearest lectern and start spewing hell-fire if these actions were the work of a liberal; this has indeed been food for thought. here's rg's conclusion: rg could not give a toss. it doesn't matter; it's not relevant. much like alexander downer in fishnets, or tony abbott and the threat of an illegitimate child.
of all the politicians that make rg cringe, downer and abbott are constantly jostling for rank with costello and howard. but what alexander did, or dressed as, in his youth, or what indiscretions tony had as a young university student don't interest rg. why? because like most adult australians, rg has had a life as well and made colossal errors of judgment, as well as garden-variety balls-ups. anyone who says they haven't is either a liar or someone who hasn't grown as a person.
bob brown put it best: "four years ago kevin rudd got drunk and took himself into a strip club. four years ago john howard, sober, took australia into the iraq war. i think the electorate can judge which one did the more harm." that's the voice of perspective.
so do people care about rudd's escapades? rg doubts it. rudd was a knob simply by walking into the venue; he's admitted he did it and that he was in fact a knob. what more can he do? if it had been howard or costello that did the same, you'd be scraping rg off the floor and waiting for the crazed laughter to end, but the same outcome would prevail - who cares? perhaps this indifference is caused by an absolute unwillingness to entertain the visual of rudd, howard or costello in a strip joint full-stop. shudder at the thought; wash rg's eyes out.
more enraging was kerry o'brien's treatment of rudd on the 730 report tonight:
KERRY O'BRIEN: But can you remember seeing lap dancers performing?
KEVIN RUDD: Look, what I can recall in terms of the actual venue itself was that not much more than you would see in the last 20 years in a certain of the pubs in Australia, I've got to say.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But that's what I would like to clarify. Because you don't see lap dancing in most pubs in Australia. Can you recall seeing lap dancers performing while you were there?
again: who, other than kerry, cares, or is as obsessed about lap-dance antics? does o'brien really think the public want the gory details of what was shown, by whom and when? is this anything other than gutter journalism? rg is devastated more by kerry's treatment of the topic than the foolish act itself; nothing but shades of a current affair.
rg has recently banged on about respect, and the personal and political repercussions of it. rg suspects the australian public will have more acceptance for a person who admits their flaws than someone who tries to deny or hide them. respect. everybody loves a winner, but everybody loves a fallen and flawed winner who dusts themselves off even more. rg guesses we'll find out how much forgiveness and love there is for captain perfect come election time...
August 16, 2007
felt violated lately?
if not, just jump on facebook, that ought to take care of it. rg's rage for this latest trend-of-all-trends has reached critical mass for the following reasons:
1) unlike its sister networking tool myspace, facebook doesn't have a random search function; the 'user' or curious net wanderer needs to register. so if, like rg, emails have popped into your inbox with 'joe blogs added you as a friend on facebook' and, being the curious person you are you decide to see what all this means, you need to provide (a) your name, and (b) your email address. there is no option for checking out joe blogs' profile, or the site in general, without providing this information.
this is the part where rg gets livid.
2) by virtue of logging on, your profile is created and you will find in a short period of time friends requesting confirmation from you so you can join their hub, or whatever the tech-savvy term is. rg views this as nothing more than glorified spamming. not being an uber tech whiz, rg has been troubled by the how of all this: how do people know that i'm suddenly a member? then it dawns on me...
(and rg is completely open to anyone who is in fact an uber tech whiz to explain the process or set rg straight on any confusion apparent from this post)
3) in effect, it's a virus philosophy. how could it be anything else? a user's email address must be the key. if rg logs on, facebook checks other members and anyone with rg's email address in their contact list automatically 'invites' rg to be a friend in their network. how else could it work? this would explain how (real, human) friends of rg's registered with facebook have invited rg to be a contact, but didn't actually or consciously do the inviting; it occurred through some other mysterious, automatic means.
4) privacy, or utter lack thereof. facebook certainly has an option to limit/expand who can view your user profile, but the bitch of this is you can only do it once you've registered. surely this means that the email address you register with has already been bouncing here, there and everywhere 'inviting' people in your contacts to be your 'friend' before you limit access to your profile. rg's head is about to explode.
5) deleting your account. not possible, from what rg can gather. facebook enables you to deactivate, but not delete entirely. rg wonders if this results in remaining a 'registered' user, but a 'sleeper', if you will. is rg's account information still considered accessible by facebook?
truth be told, rg does feel violated, cheated, conned and exposed. i have the right to surrender my anonymity if i choose; i absolutely object to this right being denied by something as insidious as farcebook.
1) unlike its sister networking tool myspace, facebook doesn't have a random search function; the 'user' or curious net wanderer needs to register. so if, like rg, emails have popped into your inbox with 'joe blogs added you as a friend on facebook' and, being the curious person you are you decide to see what all this means, you need to provide (a) your name, and (b) your email address. there is no option for checking out joe blogs' profile, or the site in general, without providing this information.
this is the part where rg gets livid.
2) by virtue of logging on, your profile is created and you will find in a short period of time friends requesting confirmation from you so you can join their hub, or whatever the tech-savvy term is. rg views this as nothing more than glorified spamming. not being an uber tech whiz, rg has been troubled by the how of all this: how do people know that i'm suddenly a member? then it dawns on me...
(and rg is completely open to anyone who is in fact an uber tech whiz to explain the process or set rg straight on any confusion apparent from this post)
3) in effect, it's a virus philosophy. how could it be anything else? a user's email address must be the key. if rg logs on, facebook checks other members and anyone with rg's email address in their contact list automatically 'invites' rg to be a friend in their network. how else could it work? this would explain how (real, human) friends of rg's registered with facebook have invited rg to be a contact, but didn't actually or consciously do the inviting; it occurred through some other mysterious, automatic means.
4) privacy, or utter lack thereof. facebook certainly has an option to limit/expand who can view your user profile, but the bitch of this is you can only do it once you've registered. surely this means that the email address you register with has already been bouncing here, there and everywhere 'inviting' people in your contacts to be your 'friend' before you limit access to your profile. rg's head is about to explode.
5) deleting your account. not possible, from what rg can gather. facebook enables you to deactivate, but not delete entirely. rg wonders if this results in remaining a 'registered' user, but a 'sleeper', if you will. is rg's account information still considered accessible by facebook?
truth be told, rg does feel violated, cheated, conned and exposed. i have the right to surrender my anonymity if i choose; i absolutely object to this right being denied by something as insidious as farcebook.
August 15, 2007
loose lips sink ships
our nation's treasurer is emerging more and more as a man with the temperament of a toddler - semi-decent public manners, but privately lots of foot-stomping and 'not me' type denials. costello has shot himself in the aforementioned foot-stomping foot by denying comments published in a recent bulletin article highlighting his raw desire to turf howard from top dog position.here's the problem: it's not simply a case of he said/she said any more. it's easier to deny, deny, deny when you feel you've got credibility and integrity on your side (no accounting for personal perception), but when you're dealing with a 3:1 collaboration ratio against you, it's best to dust off your honesty hat and see if it still fits.
rg suspects the blogosphere will explode today and tips the words "he can't win; i can" will feature at the top of media monitors' most-uttered hit-list. but in rg's view, the fact that costello again has been outed as an impotent "not fair" whinger isn't the problem; it's how he's (mis)managing the fallout that is.
just own it, peter, you'll feel better. how about this: "i foolishly took advice from party spinners and denied mentioning to three of australia's senior political journalists that i had intended to stage a coup to bump john from his perch. i also foolishly took advice from the same spinners a short time ago and denied the weight behind comments made in john's biography alluding to the same intention. i have since realised that spinners don't live in the real world; voters do, and they see through empty words. truth be told, john has always said he'd stay as long as it's in the party's interest; bottom line is, it no longer is. so strongly do i feel that i'm the right man for the job and that john has had his fair run that i announce my challenge for leadership now. should i fail, so be it; at least all this shit-fighting and battle-of-conscience stuff will be over with and i can score a tidy corporate job somewhere."
respect is a complex thing; you've got to give it to get it, and you've got to have it in yourself to give it in the first place. last week costello quoted dickens in parliament; perhaps he should look at shakespeare - to thine own self be true.
August 13, 2007
triple r
once a year this melbourne institution calls for donations and subscriptions to keep the independent sounds of rrr on the airwaves.with programs ranging from the political, nutritious, extra-terrestrial, ambient, scientific, architectural, artistic and metal, there's something for everyone and it's all provided gratis thanks to the passion of the presenters and good will of subscribers.
so if you're not a subscriber already, hop to it, spread the love and help keep 102.7 independent and running for another 12 months. plus, you'll get to experience the amusing sense of solidarity with someone you've never met when you realise your cars share the same iconic rrr sticker as your motoring paths cross.
smokin' poll
it's a case of another nanosecond, another poll as pundits, punters and every other politically exhausted australian drag their feet towards official election time. whenever that might be. if a poll surfaces querying the public's attitude towards polls, rg will not be surprised.
what do we learn from todays age/neilson findings (oz politics' killer graphs here)? according to michelle grattan, labor's vote has dropped "significantly" yet they're still hogging a "commanding" lead. rg loves poll-speak and challenges any pollster to publish findings without using these two words. bottom line is, there doesn't appear to be too much news. it's pointless making a political mountain out of slight poll movement; polls, like life and people's interest levels, ebb, flow and adjust. headlines like this and this banging on about 'hope' for the pm are, in rg's view, just shy of sensationalist. if there is one thing someone knee-deep in the political game will always tell you in a soundbite, it's that there is always hope. to suggest it's all over before the election has even been called is ridiculous.
there is one substantial point rg takes from today's breakdown: generally, the public aren't overly concerned with howard's or rudd's age, the likelihood of the pm satisfying a full term if re-elected, or status of interest rates under either candidate. why is this heartening? rg suggests it indicates, if only on an embryonic level, that voters aren't getting blindsided by surface mud-slinging. perhaps they realise that the reserve bank has more control over interest rates than the pm, and there's more important issues to be concerned with than who has more crow's feet and is more inclined to stumble when minus zimmer frame.
rg feels the up-and-up of recent polls is over and we're now looking at a more realistic, considered public opinion. this is where the game gets interesting, and we get to see how people are actually thinking, not just reacting. hopefully extreme love him/hate him attitudes are mellowing so when actual policy detail gets trotted out it's received and considered rather than dismissed by virtue of the party presenting it. as a weary parental politico mumbled recently, "if there is one thing someone knee-deep in the political game will always tell you in a soundbite, it's that there is always hope." hear, hear.
what do we learn from todays age/neilson findings (oz politics' killer graphs here)? according to michelle grattan, labor's vote has dropped "significantly" yet they're still hogging a "commanding" lead. rg loves poll-speak and challenges any pollster to publish findings without using these two words. bottom line is, there doesn't appear to be too much news. it's pointless making a political mountain out of slight poll movement; polls, like life and people's interest levels, ebb, flow and adjust. headlines like this and this banging on about 'hope' for the pm are, in rg's view, just shy of sensationalist. if there is one thing someone knee-deep in the political game will always tell you in a soundbite, it's that there is always hope. to suggest it's all over before the election has even been called is ridiculous.
there is one substantial point rg takes from today's breakdown: generally, the public aren't overly concerned with howard's or rudd's age, the likelihood of the pm satisfying a full term if re-elected, or status of interest rates under either candidate. why is this heartening? rg suggests it indicates, if only on an embryonic level, that voters aren't getting blindsided by surface mud-slinging. perhaps they realise that the reserve bank has more control over interest rates than the pm, and there's more important issues to be concerned with than who has more crow's feet and is more inclined to stumble when minus zimmer frame.
rg feels the up-and-up of recent polls is over and we're now looking at a more realistic, considered public opinion. this is where the game gets interesting, and we get to see how people are actually thinking, not just reacting. hopefully extreme love him/hate him attitudes are mellowing so when actual policy detail gets trotted out it's received and considered rather than dismissed by virtue of the party presenting it. as a weary parental politico mumbled recently, "if there is one thing someone knee-deep in the political game will always tell you in a soundbite, it's that there is always hope." hear, hear.
July 24, 2007
those were the days, my friend...
from the depths of rg's picture files emerges this priceless costello moment. the shot was printed in the age last may - just before howard's handing over of the leadership was alleged to occur. it's dark and brooding, but unmistakably funny; costello is laughing at himself, bringing his own 'sound of music' flair to parliament house. no doubt better, happier times for peter, considering today's headline in the same paper: costello no vote winner: poll.
July 18, 2007
burnside qc
over the years rg has had the inspiring privilege of watching and listening to the shimmering brilliance that is julian burnside qc full flight in the federal court. in another life rg will dedicate a blog to burnside's stillness, composure, wit, sharpness, integrity and glasses, but for the time being will just share an article from today's age written by the straight talker himself.
a case of justice denied, burnside's precis of the mohamed haneef case to date, is marked with the thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and political savvy for which he is renowned. burnside's willingness, nay obligation, to pull no punches re the afp, immigration minister, attorney-general and pm is as educational as it is refreshing, and a move entirely befitting the president of liberty victoria. burnside concludes his opinion with:
the implications of the haneef case are very alarming. it is another indication of what the howard government is prepared to do, especially in an election year. the immigration minister is willing to lend himself to the police. the attorney-general is willing to take advantage of the minister's impropriety. haneef's ability to defend himself has been wilfully compromised.
the character of any government can be measured by the way it treats those who are powerless. this government will use every dirty trick to crush haneef, regardless of his guilt or innocence. in the war to save democracy we are at risk of throwing away its most important features.
not only that, but rg feels the government would likely fail their own character test were it applied; the thought of deporting howard et al is too thrilling a proposition to indulge.
in a social and political climate such as ours currently, rg has moments of total loss of faith in humanity and can only see the chronic ugliness that stems from that; then there's moments of promise, hope and burnside, and for a moment at least rg feels there is a vibrant, intelligent and voracious culture alive and well in australia. how did i ever doubt it...
a case of justice denied, burnside's precis of the mohamed haneef case to date, is marked with the thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and political savvy for which he is renowned. burnside's willingness, nay obligation, to pull no punches re the afp, immigration minister, attorney-general and pm is as educational as it is refreshing, and a move entirely befitting the president of liberty victoria. burnside concludes his opinion with:
the implications of the haneef case are very alarming. it is another indication of what the howard government is prepared to do, especially in an election year. the immigration minister is willing to lend himself to the police. the attorney-general is willing to take advantage of the minister's impropriety. haneef's ability to defend himself has been wilfully compromised.
the character of any government can be measured by the way it treats those who are powerless. this government will use every dirty trick to crush haneef, regardless of his guilt or innocence. in the war to save democracy we are at risk of throwing away its most important features.
not only that, but rg feels the government would likely fail their own character test were it applied; the thought of deporting howard et al is too thrilling a proposition to indulge.
in a social and political climate such as ours currently, rg has moments of total loss of faith in humanity and can only see the chronic ugliness that stems from that; then there's moments of promise, hope and burnside, and for a moment at least rg feels there is a vibrant, intelligent and voracious culture alive and well in australia. how did i ever doubt it...
July 17, 2007
separation of what?
rg has been experiencing confusion while following the saga of alleged terrorist dr mohamed haneef. this makes rg ponder, how much confusion or misunderstanding is the general community feeling trying to grasp the finer points of this case? no -scrap that: what about understanding the more global aspects, such as the role of the court and government?
on a high level, dr haneef has been charged with 'recklessly' supporting a terrorist organisation after he provided his sim card to someone allegedly plotting uk car bomb attacks. haneef was detained; investigations, searches and questioning ensued, and yesterday haneef was granted bail by a magistrate. this is where rg's understanding becomes muddied.
'separation of powers' is a phrase bandied around the political sphere, however it appears the actual concept and meaning of the term has been lost and, like that old chestnut 'presumption of innocence', has been downgraded to a non-core concern. it's not a complicated notion: state/government do their thing; judiciary does theirs, never the twain shall meet.
when a magistrate makes a determination in a case having considered evidence from the australian federal police's exhaustive investigations, one could be forgiven for thinking it ought apply. however if you're the immigration minister, apparently you have the luxury of overriding said legal determination.
which begs the question, what's the point of the separation of powers? is it something that only applies when convenient, or is it something that can be brushed aside when the government strongly believes the judiciary simply got it wrong? and how can that be, given both the government and the court have been privy to the same evidence?
rg has no doubt dr haneef did have associations with alleged bomb plotters in the uk - he was, after all, a relative. but what if this is a big mess of circumstance and coincidence? how on earth, given kevin andrews' cancellation of haneef's visa on character grounds, can this man be afforded a presumption of innocence (should he not be deported and be free to stand trial) when the australian government has made it utterly clear he is undesirable to this country? rg is waiting for john howard to rehash his eloquent 'we will decide who comes to this country' caterwauling. if the pm has swapped his praying for rain with a prayer for another national security platform to launch his election campaign, a cynic could be forgiven for thinking his prayers have been answered by the patron saint of dumb luck.
on a high level, dr haneef has been charged with 'recklessly' supporting a terrorist organisation after he provided his sim card to someone allegedly plotting uk car bomb attacks. haneef was detained; investigations, searches and questioning ensued, and yesterday haneef was granted bail by a magistrate. this is where rg's understanding becomes muddied.
'separation of powers' is a phrase bandied around the political sphere, however it appears the actual concept and meaning of the term has been lost and, like that old chestnut 'presumption of innocence', has been downgraded to a non-core concern. it's not a complicated notion: state/government do their thing; judiciary does theirs, never the twain shall meet.
when a magistrate makes a determination in a case having considered evidence from the australian federal police's exhaustive investigations, one could be forgiven for thinking it ought apply. however if you're the immigration minister, apparently you have the luxury of overriding said legal determination.
which begs the question, what's the point of the separation of powers? is it something that only applies when convenient, or is it something that can be brushed aside when the government strongly believes the judiciary simply got it wrong? and how can that be, given both the government and the court have been privy to the same evidence?
rg has no doubt dr haneef did have associations with alleged bomb plotters in the uk - he was, after all, a relative. but what if this is a big mess of circumstance and coincidence? how on earth, given kevin andrews' cancellation of haneef's visa on character grounds, can this man be afforded a presumption of innocence (should he not be deported and be free to stand trial) when the australian government has made it utterly clear he is undesirable to this country? rg is waiting for john howard to rehash his eloquent 'we will decide who comes to this country' caterwauling. if the pm has swapped his praying for rain with a prayer for another national security platform to launch his election campaign, a cynic could be forgiven for thinking his prayers have been answered by the patron saint of dumb luck.
so now haneef and his lawyers have a decision to make: if he's bailed, it's off to villawood detention centre; if he's not, he stays within the queensland remand system. what a non-choice. as succinctly put in the sydney morning herald, 'the visa cancellation is a mechanism that [will] ensure that Haneef, whether guilty or not guilty of the terrorism charges, never tastes freedom again in Australia.' what a terribly australian way to treat someone so obviously unaustralian.
July 2, 2007
footy and chicks
rg has been perplexed by recent coverage of alan didak's poor judgment in sinking a few with accused killer christopher hudson.
didak may have been drinking with a wanted criminal, but realistically, how is he supposed to know that at the time - sure, the firing of gunshots from a moving car may have been a giveaway, but not when you're sitting at a bar talking shit. rg has certainly drained bottles of red with people that perception afforded by sobriety would have rendered thoroughly unappealing (and it flows that others may have felt this way about rg). what to do? not much, really; what's done is done. shake your head and chalk it up to not listening to or learning from experience.
however what surprises rg most about this kerfuffle is the absence of any concern about the venue within which the two met and got chummy - a table-top dancing club. mere months have passed since the almighty furore focusing on vilification of women in football occurred thanks to some on-field biffo between des hedland, adam selwood and a tattoo. at the time didak's coach mick malthouse commented, "at every club we have lectures every year on drugs, racial vilification and, more recently, positive attitudes to women, which inform the players of what the afl finds acceptable." obviously the afl have found strip-clubs present positive images of women.
in the light of the didak incident, collingwood have banned players from attending strip- and table-top dancing establishments. rg queries why this is even necessary - surely attendance of such clubs offends the afl's policy on respect and responsibility, not to mention women.
collingwood's new ceo stated that didak did not break any club rules and therefore should not be reprimanded for his boorish and stupid behaviour (rg's words). but since when do team rules supersede afl rules and policy? rg guesses probably when it's convenient and you've got a talented player you want on field for a big match. as caroline wilson writes, "there is no rule at the magpies that states that you cannot drink heavily at strip clubs during the season, pick up with a hell's angel for several hours, witness at close hand two shooting incidents — one with police in the vicinity — and then fail to report either to the police, your football club or even your lawyer."
rg guesses that's good news for didak and collingwood. and nothing but more bad news for women.
didak may have been drinking with a wanted criminal, but realistically, how is he supposed to know that at the time - sure, the firing of gunshots from a moving car may have been a giveaway, but not when you're sitting at a bar talking shit. rg has certainly drained bottles of red with people that perception afforded by sobriety would have rendered thoroughly unappealing (and it flows that others may have felt this way about rg). what to do? not much, really; what's done is done. shake your head and chalk it up to not listening to or learning from experience.
however what surprises rg most about this kerfuffle is the absence of any concern about the venue within which the two met and got chummy - a table-top dancing club. mere months have passed since the almighty furore focusing on vilification of women in football occurred thanks to some on-field biffo between des hedland, adam selwood and a tattoo. at the time didak's coach mick malthouse commented, "at every club we have lectures every year on drugs, racial vilification and, more recently, positive attitudes to women, which inform the players of what the afl finds acceptable." obviously the afl have found strip-clubs present positive images of women.
in the light of the didak incident, collingwood have banned players from attending strip- and table-top dancing establishments. rg queries why this is even necessary - surely attendance of such clubs offends the afl's policy on respect and responsibility, not to mention women.
collingwood's new ceo stated that didak did not break any club rules and therefore should not be reprimanded for his boorish and stupid behaviour (rg's words). but since when do team rules supersede afl rules and policy? rg guesses probably when it's convenient and you've got a talented player you want on field for a big match. as caroline wilson writes, "there is no rule at the magpies that states that you cannot drink heavily at strip clubs during the season, pick up with a hell's angel for several hours, witness at close hand two shooting incidents — one with police in the vicinity — and then fail to report either to the police, your football club or even your lawyer."
rg guesses that's good news for didak and collingwood. and nothing but more bad news for women.
June 26, 2007
a national emergency
rg believes the true national emergency is this policy put forth by john howard and the sanctimonious attitude he's currently spewing forth.
rg has many views on howard's platform to save aborigines and their children from themselves, and has become virtually bogged down with a weight of words struggling to make their way from brain to fingers and onto the keyboard. wading through the quagmire of reports, interviews and opinions by the commentariat, mental paralysis has nearly ensnared this blogger, such is the destructive depth of howard's vision and action. it has taken some time, but let's kick off what will no doubt be a significant stream of blogs with a succinct outline on rg's position:
this emergency response disempowers the already disempowered. abuse and addiction stem from anger, resentment and pain that needs to be acknowledged; the abscess needs lanced for healing to start. recognition of indigenous trauma is fundamental. consultation is a sign of respect; this was abandoned on a national, state/territory and community level. howard's policy is paternalistic, bigoted and lacking short- and long-term logistical vision.
howard is a hypocrite. this policy is a big, ugly race card drawn from the bottom of howard's election deck. it is a bid to look powerful by exerting power, not only over this nation's indigenous people but over states, territories and voters. howard is trying to appear human and caring; his obnoxious history belies this facade.
the federal alp are dangerously close to wedging themselves with their quick-flowing support for fatally flawed policy. to question this attack does not equal racism; to go blindly and cheer while people are acted upon without their consultation or input is. the idea of children living in such abject poverty and being abused on such a level is devastating, stomach-churning and something no-one with a pulse would wish for - but regrettably this is old news that has not been addressed by howard and his government for 10 years, despite copious commissioned and independent reports and pleadings from indigenous leaders and individual communities. this 'national emergency' has been festering and growing continuously, aggravated by the abandonment of federal attention, aid, funding and education.
when your nation's pm starts making comments such as, 'i'll be slammed for taking people's rights away, but frankly i don't care about that', alarm bells should start sounding. LOUDLY.
rg is suddenly very, very alert, and terribly, terribly alarmed. what about you?
rg has many views on howard's platform to save aborigines and their children from themselves, and has become virtually bogged down with a weight of words struggling to make their way from brain to fingers and onto the keyboard. wading through the quagmire of reports, interviews and opinions by the commentariat, mental paralysis has nearly ensnared this blogger, such is the destructive depth of howard's vision and action. it has taken some time, but let's kick off what will no doubt be a significant stream of blogs with a succinct outline on rg's position:
this emergency response disempowers the already disempowered. abuse and addiction stem from anger, resentment and pain that needs to be acknowledged; the abscess needs lanced for healing to start. recognition of indigenous trauma is fundamental. consultation is a sign of respect; this was abandoned on a national, state/territory and community level. howard's policy is paternalistic, bigoted and lacking short- and long-term logistical vision.
howard is a hypocrite. this policy is a big, ugly race card drawn from the bottom of howard's election deck. it is a bid to look powerful by exerting power, not only over this nation's indigenous people but over states, territories and voters. howard is trying to appear human and caring; his obnoxious history belies this facade.
the federal alp are dangerously close to wedging themselves with their quick-flowing support for fatally flawed policy. to question this attack does not equal racism; to go blindly and cheer while people are acted upon without their consultation or input is. the idea of children living in such abject poverty and being abused on such a level is devastating, stomach-churning and something no-one with a pulse would wish for - but regrettably this is old news that has not been addressed by howard and his government for 10 years, despite copious commissioned and independent reports and pleadings from indigenous leaders and individual communities. this 'national emergency' has been festering and growing continuously, aggravated by the abandonment of federal attention, aid, funding and education.
when your nation's pm starts making comments such as, 'i'll be slammed for taking people's rights away, but frankly i don't care about that', alarm bells should start sounding. LOUDLY.
rg is suddenly very, very alert, and terribly, terribly alarmed. what about you?
June 25, 2007
20 days
that's how long it's been since rg has bashed the keyboard.
initially an onslaught of protracted illness - virus, chickenpox, virus - sapped my ability to do anything other than function and sleep; as a result the mother load took one for the team and enjoyed some down-time. however watching all things political unfold over the last few weeks, i realised there was more to this self-imposed blogless state: (a) fear, and (b) denial.
(a) fear - of or over what? simply, the alp choke factor. rg has a self-destructive habit of getting all 'it's time!' excited when a new leader steps up to the plate and performs well - or just performs; the potential for victory and a new direction for this nation is heady stuff. then kevin rudd starts making questionable decisions (joe mcdonald) and being careless (productivity brief). in addition, julia gillard bags out paul keating in the politest of terms; a true sign that the alp have not, and have no real intention of, learning from or embracing the past. the final terrifying nail in the coffin has been rudd's support of howard's plan to 'save' aborigines from themselves; far too many shades of 2001, beazley and tampa. rg is anxious and for the first time in months feels the possibility of another howard term; it is mere vapour, but a presence nonetheless.
(b) denial - small children have a habit of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tight and screaming 'i can't hear you! i can't hear you! la la la!'; adults, in their maturity, are slightly more discrete and adopt a shaking of the head combined with mutterings of 'this isn't happening, this is not happening'. 'truth' is hardest when it stares at you from the coldness of a typeface, and there have been too many articles recently that have been an affront to this true believer. regardless, rg is now out from under the doona with personal issues surrounding alp foolishness resolved, however momentarily.
rg is back on track and notionally healthy, so on with the show.
initially an onslaught of protracted illness - virus, chickenpox, virus - sapped my ability to do anything other than function and sleep; as a result the mother load took one for the team and enjoyed some down-time. however watching all things political unfold over the last few weeks, i realised there was more to this self-imposed blogless state: (a) fear, and (b) denial.
(a) fear - of or over what? simply, the alp choke factor. rg has a self-destructive habit of getting all 'it's time!' excited when a new leader steps up to the plate and performs well - or just performs; the potential for victory and a new direction for this nation is heady stuff. then kevin rudd starts making questionable decisions (joe mcdonald) and being careless (productivity brief). in addition, julia gillard bags out paul keating in the politest of terms; a true sign that the alp have not, and have no real intention of, learning from or embracing the past. the final terrifying nail in the coffin has been rudd's support of howard's plan to 'save' aborigines from themselves; far too many shades of 2001, beazley and tampa. rg is anxious and for the first time in months feels the possibility of another howard term; it is mere vapour, but a presence nonetheless.
(b) denial - small children have a habit of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tight and screaming 'i can't hear you! i can't hear you! la la la!'; adults, in their maturity, are slightly more discrete and adopt a shaking of the head combined with mutterings of 'this isn't happening, this is not happening'. 'truth' is hardest when it stares at you from the coldness of a typeface, and there have been too many articles recently that have been an affront to this true believer. regardless, rg is now out from under the doona with personal issues surrounding alp foolishness resolved, however momentarily.
rg is back on track and notionally healthy, so on with the show.
June 5, 2007
thinly veiled discrimination
back in the dark ages when rg was at high school, there were various fads, crazes, "in" things and "out" things that aided personal identification, belonging, or conversely highlighted difference or rebellion; ironic belonging in itself. nothing has changed, nor will it - nor should it. school, whether it be primary or secondary, is a time of learning, socialisation and personal development, a time of understanding what acceptable behaviour is and what tolerance is. in theory at least.
rg has a catholic and public education history. neither doctrine of education or values was immune from students pushing the boundaries with hair length, skirt length, sock choice, shoe style, the colossal shirt in/out battle, accumulation of badges with slogans pinned with pride to blazers, jumpers and hats, colourful expression of dress during sports days, nail polish, hair dye, make-up in all its forms, jewellery....the list is endless, as is the journey of personal identification and discovery. somehow all the above was simply chalked up to "youth" and was largely seen as harmless, which it is, and necessary.
contrast that with this article in today's age outlining how a young muslim schoolgirl had her headscarf airbrushed from a school photo. the reasoning? so it wouldn't stand out. not surprisingly, "the islamic council of victoria is urging the [parliamentary] inquiry [into dress codes and school uniforms] to support a 'fundamental right' to freedom of religious observance as it applies to dress." rg went to a state school with people who wore crucifixes around their necks as a display of faith; honestly, how is this different? moreover, how can people honestly think it is different?
the islamic council of victoria committee member sherene hassan has said, "it was reasonable for a school to demand headscarves match the uniform, and there was nothing to stop muslim girls from participating in sport, if schools allowed them to wear tracksuit pants under skirts." fair and reasonable, no? if a student had been enduring chemotherapy and lost their hair, would a scarf or hat they chose to wear be airbrushed from a group photo because it sets them apart? if a student had an accident or leg prosthesis of some kind that caused them concern, or was the source of mockery, would a school argue a case that they couldn't wear trackies because the majority of students don't? doubtful.
how can a community expect tolerance if generations are being shown that discrimination is acceptable, most notably because of religious expression or belief? rg sees this behaviour as a contemporary version of the "she asked for it, did you see what she was wearing?" justification for rape; if you don't want to get picked on or discriminated against, don't wear hijab. rg's mind boggles at this anti-logic.
rg has a catholic and public education history. neither doctrine of education or values was immune from students pushing the boundaries with hair length, skirt length, sock choice, shoe style, the colossal shirt in/out battle, accumulation of badges with slogans pinned with pride to blazers, jumpers and hats, colourful expression of dress during sports days, nail polish, hair dye, make-up in all its forms, jewellery....the list is endless, as is the journey of personal identification and discovery. somehow all the above was simply chalked up to "youth" and was largely seen as harmless, which it is, and necessary.
contrast that with this article in today's age outlining how a young muslim schoolgirl had her headscarf airbrushed from a school photo. the reasoning? so it wouldn't stand out. not surprisingly, "the islamic council of victoria is urging the [parliamentary] inquiry [into dress codes and school uniforms] to support a 'fundamental right' to freedom of religious observance as it applies to dress." rg went to a state school with people who wore crucifixes around their necks as a display of faith; honestly, how is this different? moreover, how can people honestly think it is different?
the islamic council of victoria committee member sherene hassan has said, "it was reasonable for a school to demand headscarves match the uniform, and there was nothing to stop muslim girls from participating in sport, if schools allowed them to wear tracksuit pants under skirts." fair and reasonable, no? if a student had been enduring chemotherapy and lost their hair, would a scarf or hat they chose to wear be airbrushed from a group photo because it sets them apart? if a student had an accident or leg prosthesis of some kind that caused them concern, or was the source of mockery, would a school argue a case that they couldn't wear trackies because the majority of students don't? doubtful.
how can a community expect tolerance if generations are being shown that discrimination is acceptable, most notably because of religious expression or belief? rg sees this behaviour as a contemporary version of the "she asked for it, did you see what she was wearing?" justification for rape; if you don't want to get picked on or discriminated against, don't wear hijab. rg's mind boggles at this anti-logic.
May 30, 2007
run a mighell, comrade
change is slow and often painful; some evolve during the process, others cling to the nearest rock screaming a resistant "noooo!!!!" there are elements of the union movement in each category; dean mighell has again shown himself to be the poster boy for the latter.
mighell had his alp membership resignation requested today, following the publication of "thuggish", "unacceptable" and "obscene" comments made and taped at a conference last november at which mighell described as a "bullshit stunt" the accumulation of millions of dollars of members' entitlements from stupid employers. today dean had the following to say:
i guess the disappointing thing is if julia gillard or kevin rudd had have rung and said, 'look dean . . . the howard government's running this tape out. what are your thoughts on it? why did you say the things, what context do they sit in?' i'd have a fair bit more respect for their position. you shouldn't call a union official dumb for getting the best deal they can for their members.
dean, i think you miss the point entirely. no-one is calling you dumb, let alone dumb for trying to get the best agreement for your members - but as the song goes, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. and as for having "a fair bit more respect for [rudd and gillard's] position", what about your respect for the current position of the alp? the relationship between unions and the alp has always been coalition scaremongering fodder; why feed the machine? public comments about the stupidity of employers agreeing to conditions for workers and how you're personally rorting the system achieves nothing for anyone, apart from feeding your ego as, what, a man to be reckoned with? where's your media-skilling?
mighell accused the government of "leaking" his comments "as part of a political campaign against the unions". duh. who wouldn't? rg reiterates: why feed the machine? in an etu media statement today, mighell states, "make no mistake, the only reason my comments are in the news is because howard is in trouble. this is nothing but an attempt to stop people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people." wrong. the only reason your comments are in the news is because the bully-boy in you can't not be heard; you put them out there, comrade. and as for the stopping people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people - don't you see you arrogantly suggested that your members are better off because of your duping of employers? what exactly is the impact of workchoices for your members that you're referring to? get on message or shut the fuck up; rg hates people who say they're fighters and team players and then hog the ball and cry foul.
sigh. leopards and their spots? what do you think?
for the record, rg is a firm believer in the necessity for unions and has proudly been a member of several and a workplace representative for a couple.
mighell had his alp membership resignation requested today, following the publication of "thuggish", "unacceptable" and "obscene" comments made and taped at a conference last november at which mighell described as a "bullshit stunt" the accumulation of millions of dollars of members' entitlements from stupid employers. today dean had the following to say:
i guess the disappointing thing is if julia gillard or kevin rudd had have rung and said, 'look dean . . . the howard government's running this tape out. what are your thoughts on it? why did you say the things, what context do they sit in?' i'd have a fair bit more respect for their position. you shouldn't call a union official dumb for getting the best deal they can for their members.
dean, i think you miss the point entirely. no-one is calling you dumb, let alone dumb for trying to get the best agreement for your members - but as the song goes, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. and as for having "a fair bit more respect for [rudd and gillard's] position", what about your respect for the current position of the alp? the relationship between unions and the alp has always been coalition scaremongering fodder; why feed the machine? public comments about the stupidity of employers agreeing to conditions for workers and how you're personally rorting the system achieves nothing for anyone, apart from feeding your ego as, what, a man to be reckoned with? where's your media-skilling?
mighell accused the government of "leaking" his comments "as part of a political campaign against the unions". duh. who wouldn't? rg reiterates: why feed the machine? in an etu media statement today, mighell states, "make no mistake, the only reason my comments are in the news is because howard is in trouble. this is nothing but an attempt to stop people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people." wrong. the only reason your comments are in the news is because the bully-boy in you can't not be heard; you put them out there, comrade. and as for the stopping people thinking about the harm workchoices has done to working people - don't you see you arrogantly suggested that your members are better off because of your duping of employers? what exactly is the impact of workchoices for your members that you're referring to? get on message or shut the fuck up; rg hates people who say they're fighters and team players and then hog the ball and cry foul.
sigh. leopards and their spots? what do you think?
for the record, rg is a firm believer in the necessity for unions and has proudly been a member of several and a workplace representative for a couple.
priceless
rg never thought there'd be a headline with "howard" and "crazy" in it at the same time, but today the age came good with this pearler: "flustered howard sounds a little crazy."
parliament served some hot and spicy morsels to whet rg's appetite yesterday; the pm's spittle flying across the lectern was most likely the steam between his ears precipitating. rg has never seen howard turn red with rage or frustration before. huzzah for there being a first time for everything.
kevin rudd is the smoothest, most articulate speaker on the block - and refreshingly so without the chest beating of beazley or the arsehole-ishness of keating, though gold in itself. his tone and delivery is note perfect. he has a gift for simple questions, keeping on topic and, most beautifully of all, chastising with conviction. after obscene obfuscation regarding an advertising campaign for climate change, the pm challenged rudd to move a censure if he had the courage - which rudd did.
after four terms in government, it seemed to rg that it had slipped the press' and opposition's minds that they could take the government to task. yesterday seemed to be a wake-up call. no wonder the sun shone so brightly today.
parliament served some hot and spicy morsels to whet rg's appetite yesterday; the pm's spittle flying across the lectern was most likely the steam between his ears precipitating. rg has never seen howard turn red with rage or frustration before. huzzah for there being a first time for everything.
kevin rudd is the smoothest, most articulate speaker on the block - and refreshingly so without the chest beating of beazley or the arsehole-ishness of keating, though gold in itself. his tone and delivery is note perfect. he has a gift for simple questions, keeping on topic and, most beautifully of all, chastising with conviction. after obscene obfuscation regarding an advertising campaign for climate change, the pm challenged rudd to move a censure if he had the courage - which rudd did.
after four terms in government, it seemed to rg that it had slipped the press' and opposition's minds that they could take the government to task. yesterday seemed to be a wake-up call. no wonder the sun shone so brightly today.
selling the farm
rg has given a lot of thought to the should she/shouldn't she debate surrounding therese rein's decision to sell the australian arm of her successful job placement business. there are several points of irritation surrounding the whole affair i'd like to briefly explore.
1) 'clever' headlines, such as "too early to rein on parade", "sacrifice by wife keeps grip firm on rudder", "rudd's wife tries to rein in damage" and a slew of others rg can't be bothered mentioning. note to editors: get over it...please.
2) rein's "kevin comes first" comment. pardon? if rg had an international business worth $170 mil that had been built over 18 years, RG would be coming first, the business second and anyone else could take a deli number, spouse included. a lot of insightful, even-handed and graceful comments have been made by rein over the last week; "kevin comes first" is not one of them.
3) why is this even an issue? rein and rudd have been open about the business, its government involvement insofar as contracts are concerned and the proposition of selling or stepping down should rudd take the mantle of pm. when a problem or an error presents itself, as it has recently in the form of employee contracts, the most successful approach is no doubt to be candid, honest and speedy in rectifying it, as has been evidenced by both rudd and rein - nip it in the bud. rg thinks there's been an extreme overreaction to an 'embarrassing' stuff-up.
4) rg is in a quandary over seeing the actions of therese rein as borderline heroic, and therefore elevating her status as a role model for women, or as detrimental to women and their status in personal and professional roles. the absolute grace with which she has carried and conducted herself - and yes, rg firmly believes this is the best description - is inspiring. but bottom line is, she's given up something precious, valuable and hard-won because of her spouse and what other people might think of her, and him. perhaps rg has a skewed view of australian voters, but my money is on there being a lot of people - especially that 50>% of the population - that would have great respect had she fought to retain on principal.
all that aside, it's early in the campaign and voters have more important things to think about than rein's business affairs. climate change, workchoices, superannuation, health, education...find rg one person who thinks rein's company's auditor's stuff-ups are more important than these and you may have a lollipop.
1) 'clever' headlines, such as "too early to rein on parade", "sacrifice by wife keeps grip firm on rudder", "rudd's wife tries to rein in damage" and a slew of others rg can't be bothered mentioning. note to editors: get over it...please.
2) rein's "kevin comes first" comment. pardon? if rg had an international business worth $170 mil that had been built over 18 years, RG would be coming first, the business second and anyone else could take a deli number, spouse included. a lot of insightful, even-handed and graceful comments have been made by rein over the last week; "kevin comes first" is not one of them.
3) why is this even an issue? rein and rudd have been open about the business, its government involvement insofar as contracts are concerned and the proposition of selling or stepping down should rudd take the mantle of pm. when a problem or an error presents itself, as it has recently in the form of employee contracts, the most successful approach is no doubt to be candid, honest and speedy in rectifying it, as has been evidenced by both rudd and rein - nip it in the bud. rg thinks there's been an extreme overreaction to an 'embarrassing' stuff-up.
4) rg is in a quandary over seeing the actions of therese rein as borderline heroic, and therefore elevating her status as a role model for women, or as detrimental to women and their status in personal and professional roles. the absolute grace with which she has carried and conducted herself - and yes, rg firmly believes this is the best description - is inspiring. but bottom line is, she's given up something precious, valuable and hard-won because of her spouse and what other people might think of her, and him. perhaps rg has a skewed view of australian voters, but my money is on there being a lot of people - especially that 50>% of the population - that would have great respect had she fought to retain on principal.
all that aside, it's early in the campaign and voters have more important things to think about than rein's business affairs. climate change, workchoices, superannuation, health, education...find rg one person who thinks rein's company's auditor's stuff-ups are more important than these and you may have a lollipop.
May 26, 2007
with rg away, pollies will play
rg stepped away from the computer for a week, during which time several interesting things happened on the australian political front, such as:
1) feverish checking of diaries by the pm and opposition leader as to whether they were free to meet the dalai lama during upon his visit. rg was particularly infuriated with kevin rudd's response of "me-too-ism", stating no meeting would take place only to renege upon hearing howard would consult his diary. rudd of all people should have taken a more diplomatic approach to set him self apart, not copy; he is a man of great diplomatic experience, and as such should clearly see the importance of extending respect to dignitaries of all walks, rather than fearing alienation from one particular country, in this case china. moreover, rg has no doubt china has been on the receiving end of such politically fragile diplomatic meetings (with rudd no doubt) and would ultimately survive this perceived insult. rg doesn't think the public really cared too much over the brian bourke shenanigans a few months ago, but the dalai lama is someone the public connect with more and not handling this correctly is, in rg's opinion, the first significant stumble for labour.
2) the citizenship test. need i say more? with a government constantly dribbling about mateship, a fair go and what's un-australian, rg struggles to understand how the irony of testing for these 'values' goes unnoticed. the test is a spoof, but rg looks forward to the government's book upon which the test is purportedly based - "the australian way of life", apparently being drafted by the immigration department. rg urges readers to bear in mind this is gospel (is that judaeo-christian?) according to the herald sun; reader discretion advised.
3) style over substance - another swipe taken at julia gillard. first it was everyone's favourite parliamentarian, bill heffernan, trumpeting the deputy opposition leader was unfit to lead the nation due to her "deliberately barren" lifestyle; now joe hockey is using general appearance as a reason the public are more receptive to labor's ir agenda than the government's. rg can't determine if hockey's comments are more moronic or offensive. the caveman cometh in the form of the current workplace minister, flashing liberal party archaic thinking. you don't see peter costello and wayne swan bagging the other's haircut or choice of suit as reason - reason! - for their success/loss in polls; their debate focuses on policy, performance and a bit of mud-slinging. yet somehow the fact that there's a woman - an experienced, impressive one at that - on the scene with her eye fixed on deputy leader opens the door for schoolyard sledging - "well, julia gillard is ... in women's weekly and all those things, and i'm not as pretty as julia gillard, obviously." obviously. that could be the only reason your party is choking and back-flipping on workchoices, joe; you're not as pretty. imagine the power of julia gillard's hair! it should have its own political party, such is the influence it wields. if the government want to win, it needs to keep its eye on the prize and do some aggressive policy debate and challenge labor on their proposals. but it's not. it's making surface attacks that are enraging to women, laughable at their best, and utterly desperate at their worst.
4) a clayton's leadership challenge; the challenge you have when you're not having a challenge. howard's use of language such as "annihilation" laid the underdog status on thick for the public to lap up - but interestingly they didn't. polls still show labor ahead full-stop. that aside, rg is intrigued to watch john howard speak - he is a master of semantics (who remembers core and non-core election promises?) and this punter is confident this testing of the leadership waters within the party room is nothing more than a play-within-a-play for the public - a quick way to get an interested audience is to stage a bit of biffo and a power struggle. this is better than 24...
5) therese rein, kevin rudd, awa's and the whole scrambled lot. a separate post will be added by rg promptly.
what a week!
1) feverish checking of diaries by the pm and opposition leader as to whether they were free to meet the dalai lama during upon his visit. rg was particularly infuriated with kevin rudd's response of "me-too-ism", stating no meeting would take place only to renege upon hearing howard would consult his diary. rudd of all people should have taken a more diplomatic approach to set him self apart, not copy; he is a man of great diplomatic experience, and as such should clearly see the importance of extending respect to dignitaries of all walks, rather than fearing alienation from one particular country, in this case china. moreover, rg has no doubt china has been on the receiving end of such politically fragile diplomatic meetings (with rudd no doubt) and would ultimately survive this perceived insult. rg doesn't think the public really cared too much over the brian bourke shenanigans a few months ago, but the dalai lama is someone the public connect with more and not handling this correctly is, in rg's opinion, the first significant stumble for labour.
2) the citizenship test. need i say more? with a government constantly dribbling about mateship, a fair go and what's un-australian, rg struggles to understand how the irony of testing for these 'values' goes unnoticed. the test is a spoof, but rg looks forward to the government's book upon which the test is purportedly based - "the australian way of life", apparently being drafted by the immigration department. rg urges readers to bear in mind this is gospel (is that judaeo-christian?) according to the herald sun; reader discretion advised.
3) style over substance - another swipe taken at julia gillard. first it was everyone's favourite parliamentarian, bill heffernan, trumpeting the deputy opposition leader was unfit to lead the nation due to her "deliberately barren" lifestyle; now joe hockey is using general appearance as a reason the public are more receptive to labor's ir agenda than the government's. rg can't determine if hockey's comments are more moronic or offensive. the caveman cometh in the form of the current workplace minister, flashing liberal party archaic thinking. you don't see peter costello and wayne swan bagging the other's haircut or choice of suit as reason - reason! - for their success/loss in polls; their debate focuses on policy, performance and a bit of mud-slinging. yet somehow the fact that there's a woman - an experienced, impressive one at that - on the scene with her eye fixed on deputy leader opens the door for schoolyard sledging - "well, julia gillard is ... in women's weekly and all those things, and i'm not as pretty as julia gillard, obviously." obviously. that could be the only reason your party is choking and back-flipping on workchoices, joe; you're not as pretty. imagine the power of julia gillard's hair! it should have its own political party, such is the influence it wields. if the government want to win, it needs to keep its eye on the prize and do some aggressive policy debate and challenge labor on their proposals. but it's not. it's making surface attacks that are enraging to women, laughable at their best, and utterly desperate at their worst.
4) a clayton's leadership challenge; the challenge you have when you're not having a challenge. howard's use of language such as "annihilation" laid the underdog status on thick for the public to lap up - but interestingly they didn't. polls still show labor ahead full-stop. that aside, rg is intrigued to watch john howard speak - he is a master of semantics (who remembers core and non-core election promises?) and this punter is confident this testing of the leadership waters within the party room is nothing more than a play-within-a-play for the public - a quick way to get an interested audience is to stage a bit of biffo and a power struggle. this is better than 24...
5) therese rein, kevin rudd, awa's and the whole scrambled lot. a separate post will be added by rg promptly.
what a week!
May 15, 2007
women, work, babies and other big stuff
legal eagle and miss v have astutely brought to fore the current coverage of howard government rhetoric towards 'stay-at-home mums', and the apparent 'punishment' of women who choose to become parents.
the government's self-promotion as family-friendly leaves a lot to be desired. when looking at paid childcare - including costs, availability, quality, standardisation of learning etc - it's hard to see where the government actually assists in real terms; that can also be said of assistance to the stay-at-home mums howard refers to in this article. rg thinks the government believes women have partners with delicious incomes to take care of them like in the golden days of yore.
the human rights and equal opportunity commission chief john von doussa has said women are 'punished' in the workforce for creating the next generation. i prefer the term marginalised. women are financially marginalised in three key aspects: loss of income and job security; no standard for paid maternity leave, and significantly lessened superannuation contributions. as a general rule, women lose income for a substantial period of time, often re-entering the workforce at the end of their 12 months unpaid leave on a part-time basis. less money earned = less super = less financial independence. this is a colossal challenge as a feminist: embracing the maternal role, caring for your child, watching your career drift onto a different level and losing retirement security in the process. the world is geared toward double incomes; this loss of financial security effectively sentences women to partner-up in order to financially survive past their child-bearing years.
in lieu of paid maternity leave, the government has offered the baby bonus. the good news is, if you have private health cover the $4000 baby bonus might cover your obstetrics bill. true it is when you have a child all incoming money (note, not income) is to be cherished, but $4000 shows lack of reality. a lump sum also shows lack of commitment to women and mothers (it's noted not all carers are mothers); it's something that appears politically generous but isn't; there's no long-term thinking being applied to the situation. i view it more as hush money - here's your cash, now bugger off!
years ago the world health organisation stipulated paid maternity leave for 16 weeks should be compulsory for all women. 16 weeks is what the organisation believes is the minimum time a woman needs to physically recover from birth. this doesn't take into account how long it can take to psychologically recover from birth. for government to live up to its family-friendly rhetoric, legislation in line with the WHO recommendations, coupled with appropriate assistance for psychological recovery (seeing a psychologist is great, but when you're still out of pocket $80 after the medicare rebate, it can it financially prohibitive) would be a start.
generally, women earn less than men, have less superannuation, hold fewer executive positions, have less job security and have their careers paused with query for recovery and advancement. in addition, losing paid time at work for doctor's appointments, morning sickness, pregnancy complications not only mucks with money, but also with workplace relations. i have known women who have resigned months before their intended departure date simply because a healthy work environment had become completely untenable; sometimes it's easier to go and cut your losses. should the time to return to PAID work rear its head, that's when the real balancing comes in. taking into account daycare, transport costs, additional food expenses, stress and inflexibility as far as working hours due to childcare time commitments, the real cost of returning to paid work can be a break-even exercise, if not a financial loss. yet another way women are marginalised - the money/independence/career or the baby? what a crippling choice.
such are the ways women are marginalised, punished, isolated, challenged and disenfranchised due to their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. let me say that again - their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. RESPECT. it's a sad reflection of a society that doesn't see the value and power of that role, the strength that women discover and demonstrate when submerged in it. what a gift to our community.
why is it men telling women they are family-friendly? women are not a burden that need to be 'managed' or discreted away when they have children. women don't stop being women when they have babies; mothers are not creatures with no sense of self, dreams, wants and needs. most would argue children come first, but the balancing is constant. sometimes the mum needs to come first, and it's this point the government misses every single time.
the government's self-promotion as family-friendly leaves a lot to be desired. when looking at paid childcare - including costs, availability, quality, standardisation of learning etc - it's hard to see where the government actually assists in real terms; that can also be said of assistance to the stay-at-home mums howard refers to in this article. rg thinks the government believes women have partners with delicious incomes to take care of them like in the golden days of yore.
the human rights and equal opportunity commission chief john von doussa has said women are 'punished' in the workforce for creating the next generation. i prefer the term marginalised. women are financially marginalised in three key aspects: loss of income and job security; no standard for paid maternity leave, and significantly lessened superannuation contributions. as a general rule, women lose income for a substantial period of time, often re-entering the workforce at the end of their 12 months unpaid leave on a part-time basis. less money earned = less super = less financial independence. this is a colossal challenge as a feminist: embracing the maternal role, caring for your child, watching your career drift onto a different level and losing retirement security in the process. the world is geared toward double incomes; this loss of financial security effectively sentences women to partner-up in order to financially survive past their child-bearing years.
in lieu of paid maternity leave, the government has offered the baby bonus. the good news is, if you have private health cover the $4000 baby bonus might cover your obstetrics bill. true it is when you have a child all incoming money (note, not income) is to be cherished, but $4000 shows lack of reality. a lump sum also shows lack of commitment to women and mothers (it's noted not all carers are mothers); it's something that appears politically generous but isn't; there's no long-term thinking being applied to the situation. i view it more as hush money - here's your cash, now bugger off!
years ago the world health organisation stipulated paid maternity leave for 16 weeks should be compulsory for all women. 16 weeks is what the organisation believes is the minimum time a woman needs to physically recover from birth. this doesn't take into account how long it can take to psychologically recover from birth. for government to live up to its family-friendly rhetoric, legislation in line with the WHO recommendations, coupled with appropriate assistance for psychological recovery (seeing a psychologist is great, but when you're still out of pocket $80 after the medicare rebate, it can it financially prohibitive) would be a start.
generally, women earn less than men, have less superannuation, hold fewer executive positions, have less job security and have their careers paused with query for recovery and advancement. in addition, losing paid time at work for doctor's appointments, morning sickness, pregnancy complications not only mucks with money, but also with workplace relations. i have known women who have resigned months before their intended departure date simply because a healthy work environment had become completely untenable; sometimes it's easier to go and cut your losses. should the time to return to PAID work rear its head, that's when the real balancing comes in. taking into account daycare, transport costs, additional food expenses, stress and inflexibility as far as working hours due to childcare time commitments, the real cost of returning to paid work can be a break-even exercise, if not a financial loss. yet another way women are marginalised - the money/independence/career or the baby? what a crippling choice.
such are the ways women are marginalised, punished, isolated, challenged and disenfranchised due to their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. let me say that again - their phenomenal biological ability to create, grow and birth another human being. RESPECT. it's a sad reflection of a society that doesn't see the value and power of that role, the strength that women discover and demonstrate when submerged in it. what a gift to our community.
why is it men telling women they are family-friendly? women are not a burden that need to be 'managed' or discreted away when they have children. women don't stop being women when they have babies; mothers are not creatures with no sense of self, dreams, wants and needs. most would argue children come first, but the balancing is constant. sometimes the mum needs to come first, and it's this point the government misses every single time.
improbable beauty
this from this morning's age online:
"on a country road near ballarat, the webs of baby orb weaver spiders shimmer in the sunlight to create a scene of improbable beauty."
ghostly gorgeousness.
May 14, 2007
the big dry
i visited friends on saturday and as i walked in, one of them was enjoying a sunny bowl of cornflakes. so effective is kellogg's' advertising from a decade ago, the first words out of my mouth were, "the simple things in life are often the best," a successful campaign for the humble flake that lasted a long time (or at least seemed to, in my ever-aging memory).
it's a truism, a cliche, something you say when you need filler. but in the case of this article, the concept seems to have been missed entirely.
every day i ponder melbourne and australia's water crisis. each time i wait impatiently for the hot water to come through i watch litres of water run down my drain. water as an non-renewable resource has, i believed, reached the forefront of joe and jane average's minds. but not, apparently, the forefront of water minister john thwaites' mind.
it seems a simple enough equation: critically low water reserves = in kind water restrictions. the victorian government is waiting until august 1 to decide whether or not to introduce stage 4 restrictions, rain pending. they created an in between restriction level of 3A, given the public would have apparently flipped their collective lids if stage 4 had been introduced. now they're waiting.
this is what's unfathomable to me: why wait? why not introduce a new restriction and save even more water? train people now how to best use it; what to tweak in their lifestyle before crunch time. thwaites has isolated two groups - the nursery and car-washing industry - as a key reason to not ban outside watering as per stage 4. two industries = an entire state's betterment? can anyone spell subsidies?
the simple things in life are often the best, and water conservation is not rocket science. do i care if my local park is less green than usual? no. not because compared to my backyard everything looks like the botanical garden; i'm happy to part with lawn and have a dirty car if it means people in ballarat, bendigo, shepparton....and the rest of the state have water to drink, grow food and feed livestock.
how big does the big picture on the big dry need to be?
it's a truism, a cliche, something you say when you need filler. but in the case of this article, the concept seems to have been missed entirely.
every day i ponder melbourne and australia's water crisis. each time i wait impatiently for the hot water to come through i watch litres of water run down my drain. water as an non-renewable resource has, i believed, reached the forefront of joe and jane average's minds. but not, apparently, the forefront of water minister john thwaites' mind.
it seems a simple enough equation: critically low water reserves = in kind water restrictions. the victorian government is waiting until august 1 to decide whether or not to introduce stage 4 restrictions, rain pending. they created an in between restriction level of 3A, given the public would have apparently flipped their collective lids if stage 4 had been introduced. now they're waiting.
this is what's unfathomable to me: why wait? why not introduce a new restriction and save even more water? train people now how to best use it; what to tweak in their lifestyle before crunch time. thwaites has isolated two groups - the nursery and car-washing industry - as a key reason to not ban outside watering as per stage 4. two industries = an entire state's betterment? can anyone spell subsidies?
the simple things in life are often the best, and water conservation is not rocket science. do i care if my local park is less green than usual? no. not because compared to my backyard everything looks like the botanical garden; i'm happy to part with lawn and have a dirty car if it means people in ballarat, bendigo, shepparton....and the rest of the state have water to drink, grow food and feed livestock.
how big does the big picture on the big dry need to be?
getting the balance right
there's a percentage of people who don't really hold a strong political view either way; their views and votes are more fluid than their dyed-in-the-wool counterparts. again, each to their own; neither is a better way to approach politics, or life.
in fact, i often wonder whether it would be better to be a swinging voter and be more flexible in my views. perhaps it's the true believer who's not able to see what's really happening because they are blinded by their dedication to a party or philosophy.
i'm a left-of-centre kind of person, with an inclination to lean further left than centre. that said, i try to keep an open mind and hear what everyone has to say. seriously. it's hard when most arguments are squashed into 10 second sound bites, and sadly lateline at 10.30pm is pushing my parental sleep requirements, so i rely on online papers to give me a bit more info than the 7 o'clock news. sometimes they do; sometimes not.
this is my first election as a parent, and i'm interested to see how my 'needs' have changed; have my views for the future, now my daughter's future, changed? what would it take to secure my vote - is it even up for grabs?
if the coalition had vision and healthy social policy, i honestly think i may stop and consider. it's tempting to listen to positive economic spin and disregard the rest. but the true believer in me remembers paul keating introducing massive reforms before his exit, the key reason for the past 10 years' balance sheets. i remember hospital closures/downgrades, school funding slashing, tampa, vsu ... and that's a lot to choose not to remember.
the trick is to get the balance right between practical and passion; i've struggled with it over the years, but as i get older i think i get more tolerant and less wound-up - hopefully this will last a couple of decades before i revert to being old, ranting and slightly insufferable.
in fact, i often wonder whether it would be better to be a swinging voter and be more flexible in my views. perhaps it's the true believer who's not able to see what's really happening because they are blinded by their dedication to a party or philosophy.
i'm a left-of-centre kind of person, with an inclination to lean further left than centre. that said, i try to keep an open mind and hear what everyone has to say. seriously. it's hard when most arguments are squashed into 10 second sound bites, and sadly lateline at 10.30pm is pushing my parental sleep requirements, so i rely on online papers to give me a bit more info than the 7 o'clock news. sometimes they do; sometimes not.
this is my first election as a parent, and i'm interested to see how my 'needs' have changed; have my views for the future, now my daughter's future, changed? what would it take to secure my vote - is it even up for grabs?
if the coalition had vision and healthy social policy, i honestly think i may stop and consider. it's tempting to listen to positive economic spin and disregard the rest. but the true believer in me remembers paul keating introducing massive reforms before his exit, the key reason for the past 10 years' balance sheets. i remember hospital closures/downgrades, school funding slashing, tampa, vsu ... and that's a lot to choose not to remember.
the trick is to get the balance right between practical and passion; i've struggled with it over the years, but as i get older i think i get more tolerant and less wound-up - hopefully this will last a couple of decades before i revert to being old, ranting and slightly insufferable.
May 13, 2007
budget time
unless you were hiding somewhere warm and safe this past week, you will have noticed there's been a bit of budget brou-ha-ha going on. it must be said, i love nothing more than a good election campaign, a bit of budget biffo and the promise of an election year - that coupled with a tasty merlot, a comfortable couch and privacy for my rantings is simply hedonism.
i watched peter costello intently on tuesday night, listened earnestly to his words, promises, cash injections and the like, trying to see where the pitch was going. some readers may think budget announcements are dull, to say the least. rg says, the devil is in the detail so WAKE UP!! for half an hour, once a year, a politician that you pay for (and in so many ways) has the nation's entire bank balance in their hot, clammy hands. then they spend it. where do you fit in? how does this change your life, or those in your world? this is the stuff we all should care about; take an interest in. if someone walked into my house, took my credit card, mortgage title, savings details and anything else money-related and said, "rg, take a load off, i've got this covered so just relax," i think i'd (a) attack them, (b) interrogate them as to how they think they can spend my money better than me, and then (c) call the police. perhaps not in that order, apart from (a).
so why the difference with a federal budget? it covers tax rates, national infrastructure, biggies like water and climate protection (in theory), education, inflation, health (sometimes, but not this time) - all the essentials in our lives. how can this be boring? and in an election year, how can it be unimportant?
it's just not good viewing, i understand. at the best of times, there's something about costello that makes me want to slap him, even when he's not smirking. i suspect i'm not alone there. it's a big ask to stare at him as he pretends to be kind and generous and dole out national funds for an entire 30 minutes. but it's necessary. budget week is one of those rare weeks in an election year that if you're not paying attention, you miss a lot of the foundations that are carefully laid by each party as they rev their engines and start the fight on real turf - m-o-n-e-y - and battle for the hearts and minds of the public (i love that phrase!).
if you're the kind of person who's only interested in tax cuts, fair enough; each to their own. BUT is that cost of a pizza each week worth voting for a party who doesn't even mention health in the annual budget? it's worth sitting through the fiscal version of 'he said/she said' budget and opposition reply speeches for some food for thought, if nothing else.
votes are like virginity - something precious that you don't want to throw at the nearest dick asking for it. they have to be earned. the person holding it ought be respected, not lied to, conned or generally screwed over. you've got no idea who's trying to get into your pants if you don't ask questions or get informed.
the flirting is over; foreplay is just beginning.
i watched peter costello intently on tuesday night, listened earnestly to his words, promises, cash injections and the like, trying to see where the pitch was going. some readers may think budget announcements are dull, to say the least. rg says, the devil is in the detail so WAKE UP!! for half an hour, once a year, a politician that you pay for (and in so many ways) has the nation's entire bank balance in their hot, clammy hands. then they spend it. where do you fit in? how does this change your life, or those in your world? this is the stuff we all should care about; take an interest in. if someone walked into my house, took my credit card, mortgage title, savings details and anything else money-related and said, "rg, take a load off, i've got this covered so just relax," i think i'd (a) attack them, (b) interrogate them as to how they think they can spend my money better than me, and then (c) call the police. perhaps not in that order, apart from (a).
so why the difference with a federal budget? it covers tax rates, national infrastructure, biggies like water and climate protection (in theory), education, inflation, health (sometimes, but not this time) - all the essentials in our lives. how can this be boring? and in an election year, how can it be unimportant?
it's just not good viewing, i understand. at the best of times, there's something about costello that makes me want to slap him, even when he's not smirking. i suspect i'm not alone there. it's a big ask to stare at him as he pretends to be kind and generous and dole out national funds for an entire 30 minutes. but it's necessary. budget week is one of those rare weeks in an election year that if you're not paying attention, you miss a lot of the foundations that are carefully laid by each party as they rev their engines and start the fight on real turf - m-o-n-e-y - and battle for the hearts and minds of the public (i love that phrase!).
if you're the kind of person who's only interested in tax cuts, fair enough; each to their own. BUT is that cost of a pizza each week worth voting for a party who doesn't even mention health in the annual budget? it's worth sitting through the fiscal version of 'he said/she said' budget and opposition reply speeches for some food for thought, if nothing else.
votes are like virginity - something precious that you don't want to throw at the nearest dick asking for it. they have to be earned. the person holding it ought be respected, not lied to, conned or generally screwed over. you've got no idea who's trying to get into your pants if you don't ask questions or get informed.
the flirting is over; foreplay is just beginning.
the art of integration
rg is a time-poor parent and political punter whose two previous (and sorely neglected) blogs secretly got it on, merging into a one-stop-shop for parental and political venting.
the mother load invites comments or ideas for discussion.
but more importantly, the mother load welcomes you.
the mother load invites comments or ideas for discussion.
but more importantly, the mother load welcomes you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)