Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
If youve linked to me, please update to http://members.iinet.net.au/~tealou/mtblog/ If youre visiting me, please click above. All my archives are there as well. I am moving to Movable Type, in order to take advantage of some extra features, such as categories. See you there! Not sure how long this will stay active for as I have changed ISPs. Regards
I had an interview for a great position today. It was shit. And I am a complete loser. Let me tell you why. I applied for a position with the WA Greens for the election. A part-time paid position, coordinating volunteers, coordinating how-to-votes, booth kits, etc. It is a great position, with flexibility and the chance to prove myself politically. I got to the top 3 candidates, and had my interview this afternoon. I spent all morning preparing, reading my application over and over again, checking that I had the responses just right. I practised it in my head and even pictured the expression I should have on my face when I got there. I agonised over every little detail. I was prepared. Then I got myself called into the interview. I had forgotten to turn my mobile phone off, so I asked them if I could. So I did. And, being a Motorola v600, it made a horrifically embarrassing noise when I turned it off. I then shook the hand of the panel members, smiled, did the usual la-di-da and sat down. The chair squeaked underneath me. Not just a squeak but a scream of agony, saying "get your arse off here...I am used to vegans, not your fat meat eating arse!" A little embarrassed, I tried to shift into a position that didn't feel like the chair was going to collapse underneath me. The more I moved, the louder it got. From that moment on, everything I had rehearsed, accounted and prepared for was gone. My body image being terrible at the best of times, assumed that it was my weight, and not just the problem of a simple squeaky chair. So I went bright red, got extremely nervous and stammered the whole way through the interview. Every time they asked me a question I stumbled, obsessing about the chair, and drifting off into "I wonder if..." land. Wondering, of course, what sort of impression I would make if the chair actually broke underneath me. When asked to provide examples of how I would operate in a team environment, I was thinking about my massive arse collapsing to the ground and everyone getting a look at my knickers. When asked about my experience in political parties, I was wondering if the chair broke, whether I would land on chards of wood and have my ovaries stabbed out and whether the chairperson knew First Aid. When they asked me if I had any questions, I had to restrain from "Do I look fat in this?" Tragic. With my copious body mass at the forefront of my mind, I forgot all of my strengths. I forgot how good I am at everything else. I couldn't string one good sentence together for the whole interview. I couldn't bring myself to say one positive thing about myself because I had the thoughts of complete self hatred brought on by a squeaking chair. Which makes me wonder: do skinny people worry about squeaking chairs as much as bigger folks do? FOr us, it is the kiss of death. That self doubt about whether you, in all your heiffer-like glory, are the only person to make the chair squeak. Anyway, because of the damn chair I am now unemployed again. I just know it. EDIT: Quick update. Despite the above, I was ranked 2nd. Apparently it was a difficult decision to make as I was equally as good as the chosen candidate. Just different. Ah well. Maybe I should be a member more than 2 months and try again ;)
I am about to completely redesign my blog site, making it more individual etc etc, and I am tired of the name "May Contain Traces of Nuts". I am thinking of a few names, but am having trouble deciding. Suggestions please? I have a couple, but I am not sure... The Seedy Underbelly DJ Bling Bling Feat. Fuckface Latte Sipping Wanker Do-Gooder Headquarters Wonka's Lovechild (which, in response, Andrew replied "Wonka 2: chocolate tealou" hehehe)
Sure. Right. Whatever you say John. You have bullied the unemployed off benefits (and therefore out of the system). You have casualised the workforce. You have increased the number of part time employees. And you have dodgied up the figures, just like your friend Malcolm Fraser did in 1976. If people work ONE HOUR a week, they are no longer considered unemployed in formal figures. So all those 50 year olds with no super that you have forced into menial jobs are not counted. All those people that are stuck with only 5 hours of work because their greedy boss hires casuals, not people, are not counted. And all the mothers who have been pushed back into the home because of your draconian policies, contract work and family unfriendly practices are not counted. And those that have plain given up on finding a job are not counted. On the same day that your Aboriginal Affairs minister, Amanda Vanstone, has offered funding to Aboriginal communities as long as they have daily showers (yes, it's true - I can't believe it either), I can't see how your self-congratulatory backslapping is anything to celebrate. It's a load of bollocks, John. Whilst you do have some redeeming qualities, and you have displayed a few of them over the last couple of weeks, stop trying to bullshit people. Stop pretending that you are anything but a racist, pro-business, divisive political machine. Have another champagne, John. Keep celebrating. Eventually everyone will wake up.
I have been reading some post-US Election commentary on various sites that are blaming Michael Moore for the Democratic loss, and I am perplexed. The organisations that were celebrating Fahrenheit 9/11 earlier this year are now condemning it, saying that Michael Moore is now singlehandedly responsible for the election outcome. The Republicans are saying that their win shows that people hate Moore; the Democrats are saying they lost because they were associated with him. But is it really that simple? Throughout the campaign the Democrats (except for Wes Clark) made a point of distancing themselves from Moore. They tried to walk the tightrope between conservative and liberal America, without taking a real stand either way. Too afraid to alienate the military mothers, too afraid to alienate the Evangelicals, too afraid to alienate the left... and they lost. The odds weren't great to begin with - it is wartime, and there was an incumbent President with a powerful religious base, which meant that it was already an outside shot. They had a candidate that was nice enough, but had the charisma of a tree stump. I am seeing a similar fallout here in Australia, with the ALP scapegoating just about everything from Medicare Gold to the media to Mark Latham himself. There appears to be major disunity within the party (well, as reported by Murdoch...which is a whole other story), with questions about Mark Latham's ability to lead the ALP to victory in 2007. Also the victim of a major scare campaign (re: interest rates) and a religious backlash similar to what we witnessed in the US meant that the ALP lost in a landslide. People were speculating that Fahrenheit 9/11 would shift public opinion towards the Democrats, or the ALP/Greens in Australia. And, given the box office records that Fahrenheit broke, it seemed like a possibility. However, I think a major problem that analysts seem to have is that they tend to overestimate the actual impact that a movie like Fahrenheit would have. Opinion polls just before the election indicated that people still trusted John Howard, despite him lying about 'children overboard' and misleading the public over the War in Iraq. Historically they have also shown that electoral success is more tied to the perceived values, image, and likeability of a leader than the actual issues of policy. Now, that is not to say that people don't vote on issues - the Greens vote was quite significant, but overall, I think that political analysts have a tendency to emphasise politics over popularity. And this is where Fahrenheit fits. I have spoken to a few friends and family who are intelligent, but all in all, are not particularly political. All of them went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. All of them were angry after the film. But none of them seemed to sustain their anger - instead throwing their hands up in the air, proclaiming "the world is fucked" and moving on with the day-to-day. And, as we know, it is the day-to-day issues, such as interest rates, as well as which leader they like, that hit home the hardest with them. Even though most of my friends and family voted Green, their reasons were more to do with the day-to-day issues, and Bob Brown's stand against George Bush, than the War on Terror. And I think this is a more accurate reflection of the impact that Fahrenheit had on voters than many would have us believe. Sure, the youth vote in America was up. But it was more as a result of organisations like Rock the Vote and moveon.org. Sure, people were angry, but with effective scare campaigns around the ol' hip pocket, people soon forgot about the war. This is not to say that people are greedy, or that people are stupid. They just aren't interested. So yes, I think we political folk tend to assume that everyone is as interested in politics as we are - and as a result we tend to overstate the impact of films, celebrities, etc, when really, at the end of the day, all it is is an inability to engage. The Democrats need a charismatic leader whom people identify with. The ALP needs a leader for more than a year - to give the people a chance to love them. Don't dump Latham. He has the qualities that make a great Labor leader. Don't blame Moore. He's just a filmmaker. Just accept the political realities and deal with them.
How many times have you heard the oft-said phrase "They're big in Japan"? We all know about the Mr. Sparkle fiasco, and my own favourite singer, Lisa Loeb, having quite a significant market over there. I am also the first to snigger when I hear about David Hasselhoff having quite the reputation for being big everywhere it doesn't count (ooooh a double entrendre!). But never, not for one second, did I think that I, little old Téa, would be big in Japan. Of course, if I went there I would be big, because I am a 5'8 fat white woman, but I never thought that I would have a following. Let us rewind back to 2001. As you all know I am a pretty decent fan of Lisa Loeb. I think she's had a hard run, been given a rough time by record companies over the years, and as a result, has been, ironically, relegated to the "big in Japan" group of artists. Over the years I have managed to establish myself as the fan who produces "Educational Purposes Only" tabs for the Lisa Loeb fan community - its a job that I enjoy, and given my moderate amount of musical talent, I manage to pull it off. So, it should come as no surprise to people that when a project to produce a Tribute CD from fans for Lisa's birthday came about, I was happy to contribute. I have contributed a couple of covers, mostly done on my crappy computer, shared them, and they have appeared on 3 CDs that we have given to Lisa for her birthday (1999, 2000 & 2001). Most notable is I Wish, even though I have done a heap of others. It's just a bit of fun that I didn't even think about. Until now. A friend of mine, and fellow Lisa fan, has told me that when you search for "Téa Smith" on Japanese peer-to-peer networks, it comes up with 500+ results on 50+ pages. 523 people have my version of "I Wish" in their shared folders. In case you don't believe me, here is the evidence. So, there you have it. I was suprised to know that 10 people had heard it, let alone over 500. Maybe its time to start thinking about touring? Or maybe its just proof that anyone can be big in Japan?
OK, you should all know by now that I am not easily outraged, but I think I have another nominee for the worst news story of 2004. Parents don't see fat children There are a couple of reasons why I am outraged by this "study". Superficially it relates to what people judge as "fat". But, in a much more sinister fashion, it disguises horrible prejudice against overweight people as "research" - implying that they are somehow lazy, ignorant or stupid. Not only that, it imposes this obscene idea of what a "normal" body is onto CHILDREN. It is breeding a generation of anorexics. Why can't people see these things for what they are? It is prejudice, pure and simple - a moral outrage by elites about an issue that has no scientific basis whatsoever. What about those parents, like me, who refuse to believe that my child is going to die because they're carrying some extra weight (In my case, my daughter is actually underweight for her age, but I am talking generally here)? What about those who see these "studies" as an imposition of a consumer culture, devoted to diet pills, gurus and McSalads? The arbitrary definition of obesity (ok, not so arbitrary when you factor in who created it and who benefits from it, but bullshit all the same) is exactly that. A number. But that is entirely beside the point, because, according to many "obesity" studies, "maximum longevity is associated with above average weight" (andres, Haskew & Ernsberger), and that body mass does "not correlate well with increased risk, and that indeed the correlation sometimes [runs] in the opposite direction" (Campos). I saw on Compass last night that there may be a non-weight related reason why people are getting diabetes more often (aside from increased screening inflating the figures), and it is potentially linked to germ exposure as a child. It should come as no surprise that mothers obsessed with Pine-O-Cleen wipes and overly sterile conditions are also those that support this idea that obesity is to blame: They have been programmed to consume cleaning products, diet pills, low fat cookies and Oprah's books, in search of this elusive "perfect motherhood". And its biting them on the arse. One day I hope that people will wake up from their collective consumer fog to realise they have been had. They have been manipulated all in the name of consumption. I am not saying I have escaped it, but at least I can see this prejudice for what it is: imposing anorexic thought onto children who are otherwise perfectly healthy (although they could get out more - but more because TV rots their brain and makes them a part of this ridiculous culture). The blame needs to shift AWAY from parents and onto the people that are responsible - the food companies, the drug companies, the media companies, that create this hysterical consumer culture that both encourages overeating and despises it.
Premier waits for train advice
OK, I'm not one to make fun of tragedies... but surely, naming it the "Tilt Train" is asking for trouble?
C'mon Queenslanders, enlighten me...
(Can't stop thinking about the Chaser's "Tilt Australia" campaign....Exams are funny things. I remember, years ago, as a fresh faced first year student, cramming until the last minute, a look of sheer terror on my face as I contemplated the possibility of failing an exam. Having not slept for weeks, trying to get my head around Aristotle, Macchiavelli and New Right Politics, I went into exams, worried that I might fail. Fast forward to today. I am studying a Unit (and "study" is putting it very lightly) about the Internation Global Political Economy - a concept I have become quite familiar with over the past 8 years of my life. I did no study. My Reader and textbooks are all pretty much unopened, save for the odd coffee stain where I got momentary episdes of guilt and fell asleep with coffee in my hand. I walked into the exam today with a completey different approach to the one I took in 1997, having done absolutely no study whatsoever, and walking in with a Distinction average (for basically writing shit about globalisation - "oh the ills! what about the poor?! What about the NIKE FACTORIES?! The RIAA are EEEEVIL!" and so forth), and a pretty good sense of the crap I needed to spit forth in order to pass. I answered all the questions in an hour, and left, free as a bird, whilst the anxious pen scratchings of second-year Politics students drilled into my brain like Chinese water torture. For the last week I have realised that I am done in this area of study for a couple of years. I just don't feel challenged, or feel like I need to put any sort of effort in anymore. There is something drastically wrong when a person who is committed to the lifelong pursuit of learning and excellence walks into an exam and doesn't give a fuck. I really don't. I know that in my hour of writing I wrote just enough to get by, just enough to have the lecturer think that I am not a complete retard, and life goes on. This isn't what education is about. So I have pulled out of my Masters, to study something different, most likely doing a year of Dip Ed to reinvigorate my interests in a more interesting area.
It's not that I have nothing to do, I mean, I could spring clean the house, read a book, watch TV, write out more job applications, study for my exam next week... I'm just bored. My life is boring. I haven't been intellectually inspired or challenged in at least 12 months. I am tired of writing the same old essays about the same old topics, where people on either side are never going to agree anyway. I am tired of working day in, day out and getting absolutely nowhere. I am tired of spending hours and hours reading books, newspapers, and research in my subject area, only to have some moron on the internet decide that everything I do doesn't matter, because this is a democracy and, as a man, his opinion is more important than mine. And the worst part is, I don't even care anymore. I went to write a research paper on the effects of advertising on children, and then I realised that I don't care. I just don't have it in me to debate "issues" anymore. And I sit and I wonder, surely there is more to life than this? I used to imagine myself evenually being free from my life: no shitty childhood, no abusive family, none of the constant struggling for everything. And I thought that the key to this was getting an education and working hard. So I work hard, study hard, at the expense of friendships and hobbies, thinking that eventually it would pay off. Instead, I end up with a degree that is useless, and find myself working for people who find me "so great", and "highly competitive" that they don't want me there. So, having sacrificed everything to get ahead in life, I am not even ahead! I really don't get it. Save for the few small pleasures (like my daughter), I often wonder if life is going to continue to be this disappointing. Is this what every 25 year old goes through? Is it a sort of rite of passage to suddenly realise that the world is..well... just fucked - no matter how much you think you can escape its realities? If that's the case, what sort of lie am I leading with my daughter, letting her believe that the world is wonderful, people are nice, and that you can change your destiny if you work hard enough? Maybe some people are just born to have it hard, every step of the way. I actually joked to my husband that I wouldn't get a research position that I wanted "because I never get anything I want". Maybe that's just the way things are? Maybe I am just meant to work hard for ever and ever, and eventually just end up writing a novel about it? Maybe this is all part of a huge journey and i'll reah a point when I am fifty and actually happy... Sometimes I think I should just become a breeder. They seem to have it so easy, cooking and cleaning and sewing and baking. And then I remember that I am infertile... fuck it.
Whether or not it is a case of the "tin foil brigade" at work or not remains to be seen, but there is a groundswell happening, citing that Bush Co. fraudulently inflated Republican votes in Florida and Ohio. I have to admit that I was sceptical that Bush took Florida so early, and looking at CNN changing the exit polls to reflect a more pro-Republican result, as well as some mainstream reports of faulty voting machines in Ohio and a heck of a lot of reporting from individual voters on michaelmoore.com that Kerry votes went to Bush... Greg Palast, one of my favourite commentators (and author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy), wrote this about the election:
I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.Looks like we have some interesting times ahead, folks. Like I said, I am yet to make up my mind fully on this, but most of the commentators I respect are saying that it just doesn't add up. I guess we'll wait and see :)
...for the plot thickening also involves things getting quite heated. Check this out: Outrage in Ohio: Angry residents storm State House in response to massive voter suppression and corruption
I guess you've all been anxiously waiting for the rant that I was coming up with after the debacle that was the US Election. Whilst I would have every right to go into an anti-Bush Co Ltd Pty Ltd rant, or call "shenanigans", or ask for a recount, or go into a serious, indepth analysis, I think what I need to do at this point right now is offer the Democrats some advice. I have been observing the behaviour of both Republicans and Democrats (as well as Liberals and Labor) for well over 8 years, and in this time have been privvy to several thousand political debates, on subjects ranging from abortion to zionism, racism to economic rationalism and everything in between. I used to think that people could resolve their disputes using rational debate, citing statistics, using deductive reasoning, and generally backing up your ideas with research or fact. Oh, what a naive person I was, for I have now realised why the Democrats, or Labor in Australia, cannot seem to win. It has nothing to do with interest rates, the war on terror, forestry policy, education, health, taxation, unemployment, faulty ballots, electronic ballots, paper ballots, numbering above the line, below the line, in Ohio or New York, country or city, terrorist or evangelical. None of that matters for left wingers. And that is the fatal mistake we all make when attempting to beat the right. It has absolutely nothing to to with any of it. You want to know why left wingers lose? We're too complicated. And in a culture that wants instant results, with explosions, cheese in a can and spray on hair, if you can't get it instantly, its not worth the effort. In the land of the right winger, everything is simple. It comes packaged in two colours, its on the middle shelf, and its just 3 minutes in the microwave and they're done: Good v evil, sinners v saints, god v devil, black v white, for us or against us, Coalition of the Willing v French, republicans v communists... and the list goes on. In lefty land, we all know that the world is much more complex than this. We know that what constitutes "good" and "evil" is determined by who is in charge at the time. We believe that world politics is more complex than simply "for us or against us". When someone asks us a question "where do you stand on the issue of abortion?", they want to know whether you're FOR or AGAINST. They don't want 15 minutes devoted to the constitutional right to privacy, nor the potential implications for women's rights. Nobody wants food that is grey, particularly several shades of grey, puce, and brown. They don't want products that are hard to prepare, fiddly and complicated. And this is the root of our problem. We can't get the message across to people who want to know things instantly. The Republicans were brilliant at this in the campaign, coining nice little rhythmic phrases like "flip flopper". Catchy, ain't it? And it put Kerry on the back foot instantly. Akin to the "Four legs good, two legs bad" mantra we're all familiar with from Orwell, the rhythmic name calling, something that Republicans are really good at, swept the nation. Whether it was true or not, whether George Bush lied to the American people, a phrase, packaged as perfectly as a Top 40 album or a pack of cigarettes for the masses to consume... And all of a sudden, Kerry, with his symphony, with layers of different instruments, was defending himself against the political equivalent of a pop song. And this, my friends, is what happened. The left somehow needs to find a way to bring its complexity into the modern world of rhetoric and PR campaigns. We need to engage in rhythmic chanting to avoid debate. We need to repeat it on every radio station, tv channel and on the internet in order to get those toes tapping. We need to resist the temptation to get into serious discourse, explainng the complexity of an argument. Instead, we need to start saying the words "liar liar", or sing the "Enron-ron-ron the Enron-ron". We need to somehow make everyone believe that if you aren't a leftie, you are evil, and if you're anything right of centre, youre a fascist. We need to play the right winger's game, and speak crap as though its the truth. We need to start fighting dirty.
Just looking at the exit polls at CNN.com for the US Presidential Election, and it seems very close. One interesting thing is that 11% of people polled had not voted before, and the majority of them appear to have been mobilised to vote for Kerry. It might be interesting for you lot to have a look at the exit polls sites, only to get a sense of the demographics. Very interesting indeed...
I hate this time of year... My house is a mess, my daughter and husband are neglected, and I get more blogging done than ever before. Thats right, its exam time! This means that I need to do all the assignments a day before they are due, beg for extensions, scramble to get them in, then study for and sit an exam for a subject I did no reading for throughout the semester. Ah well, such is life :) In other news, I got a sample of Britney Spears' perfume, "Curious" (muffled laughter). I imagined it would smell something like Doritos and sweat, but its actually a really nice fragrance. Problem is, if I want to go buy it, I need to go and buy Britney Spears perfume... I can just imagine the retail assistant at Myer having a secret laugh to herself. Then again, the women on those counters are ususally so shallow and stupid they probably wouldn't even care. Ah heck, why deal with them at all. Might just buy it online. But I can't wait for that nice workmate to say "I like your perfume, what is it?" and have me just burst out laughing and say its Britney perfume. lol.
you know what I am...
| You Are a Pundit Blogger! |
 Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few. |
This is an essay I just wrote about the RIAA. It really sucks because I was really lazy, but I figured that those who are interested can steal from me if they want to. -------- If there is one thing that is undisputed in the current debates about globalisation, it is that transnational corporations (TNCs) play a significant role in the daily lives of people around the world: the hours they work, the food they eat, the papers they read, the television they watch, the music they listen to and even their political opinions. TNCs have increased in number, but, most significantly, they have increased in size, and this has prompted widespread calls for their role to be carefully scrutinised, and held more accountable by local governments. Massive conglomerates are forming every day between media companies, software companies, resource companies, and many others, forming giant corporations that spread across industries, giving these extremely wealthy companies unprecedented resources and influence in the global market. But exactly how much of the scathing criticism is warranted? Is it simply a matter of corporations being the “bad guys” in the global economy, or is it more complex? In this paper I will attempt to outline the complexity of the “TNCs” debate (and broader issues of globalization) with a case study of the Recording Industry Association of America and its recent attempts to thwart peer-to-peer file sharing. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is, according to their website , a “…trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world”. Most notably, the members of the RIAA consist of what was known as the “Big Five”: EMI, Universal Music, Time Warner, Sony Music Entertainment., and BMG (Bertelsmann Music Group), but has since become the “Big Four” since the merger between BMG And Sony in August 2004 . According to the RIAA website, this “Big Four”, “…manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States”. The RIAA represents the interests of four of the biggest TNCs in the global media. With the emergence of new compression technologies, faster internet connections, and inexpensive (CD & DVD burning) hardware in recent years, a tremendous controversy has been created about the future legitimacy of traditional music companies. People who utilize and advocate peer-to-peer (P2P) software often argue that the “Big Four” are threatened by file sharing, and that their exploitation of artists and consumers is about to (rightly) come to an end. File sharing has effectively made it possible for independent artists to gain bigger fan bases and bypass the traditional means, and artists that have traditionally relied on record deals to distribute their music to fans can now, effectively, manage their own production, marketing, distribution and expenses. The RIAA contends that unregulated file-swapping is "piracy", and “robs artists”, and has rigorously campaigned to enforce this view on P2P users. How does this apply to transnational corporations? Firstly, the RIAA is a perfect example of a set of TNCs that are attempting to enforce their world view on governments. It appears, however, that they are, at best, only mildly successful at getting this point across. Secondly, it appears that the emergence of new technology, in this case P2P, has resulted in a struggle over who owns it. This struggle, which is being played out before our eyes, can have two outcomes: that the RIAA successfully eradicate “piracy”, or that consumers will no longer see the RIAA (collectively) as a viable source of entertainment, bypass the traditional markets and start to interact with artists on a new level. Finally, through the RIAA example, I hope to show that whilst the future may be painted as grim, and to the benefit of transnational corporations, this is not necessarily the case. However, cultural imperialism may play a role in shifting people’s opinions about “piracy” in the long run, which does indicate that the RIAA may have some impact on newer technologies. Steve Chan (International Relations in Perspective (1984) p270) defines transnational corporations as “enterprises whose business activities and assets extend beyond the boundaries of one state. They usually have their headquarters in one of the developed countries and operate branches or subsidiaries in six or more foreign countries”. More often than not, this means that there are Head Offices in the Global North (predominantly United States and Europe), where administrative decisions and marketing are carried through, with branches in the Global South, where manufacturing and other labour-intensive work is carried out – either in factories, or by sub-contractors. Kegley (World Politics: Trends and Transformations (1997) p191) states that by the mid-1990’s, “more than 38,500 multinational corporations world-wide with more than 250,000 foreign affiliates generated $5.2 trillion in global sales.” In 1998, according to Held et al (Global Transformations (1999) p236) there were 53,000 multinational corporations, with 450,000 subsidiaries, with $9.5 trillion in global sales. In a matter of 3 years, TNCs had nearly doubled their operations and their profits. In 1999, there were more than 63,000 TNCs with 700,000 subsidiaries (United Nations: World Investment Report 2000). This shows that TNC activity is constantly expanding. The report also mentioned that cross-border mergers were more significant than ever. In the case of the corporations that are represented by the RIAA, the movement of the “Big Five” to the “Big Four” represents a significant shift that is consistent with TNCs worldwide. Advocates of globalisation argue that multinational corporations increase the overall production of goods at the most efficient price. In a free market with perfect competition, this is the case, however, as transnational corporations increase their overall size and absorb their competitors, oligopolies, and even monopolies are created, whereby supply can be controlled and prices - therefore profits - can be regulated, often at the expense of quality. The RIAA collectively produces 90% of the music that is produced and distributed worldwide, effectively creating an entertainment cartel. For musicians and songwriters, to effectively reach as many people as they can, need to sign record deals with a major label, which, given their stranglehold on the industry, often means that the RIAA determine not only the selling price of the final product, but often exercise creative control as well. It could be argued that the RIAA has been exploitative in its treatment of artists in the past . Extending from this, a major criticism of the emergence of transnational corporations is that they use their size, wealth and, in the case of the RIAA, political visibility, to manipulate national governments to their point of view. On the surface, this may appear to be correct, as the mainstream media is littered with articles against filesharing, warning people that they could be sued , including the now-notorious case of 12 year old Brianna LaHara, who lived in public housing and settled with the RIAA for $2000USD. In the United States, the RIAA have aggressively lobbied congressmen, firstly to ensure the implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998), and to support not only the criminalisation of ordinary citizens under the RIAA’s definition of “piracy”, but to garner further support in their litigation of people that engage in filesharing. As a result, in 2000 and 2001, it appeared as though the RIAA were having some success with this when they successfully sued Napster, Mp3.com and Audiogalaxy , as well as an initial ruling that Verizon Internet were to provide the details of a customer that used Kazaa to download “illegal” files. Despite these initial wins, are there really major implications for government autonomy and individual freedoms? In April 2003, Verizon internet managed to overturn the initial ruling in December 2003, despite support from the US Justice Department . The court ruled that the recording industry cannot force Internet Service Providers to identify subscribers swapping music online. This was a tremendous setback for the RIAA, and as a result, the RIAA is currently naming as defendants in their lawsuits "John Doe", identified only with their ISP addresses. This has had limited success. Recently, the RIAA have attempted to write warning letters to ISPs about “infringers”, attempting to get ISPs to disconnect people based on their Service Agreements. This has had very little success, with ISPs in countries all over the world refusing to comply. In the US, NetCoalition have been vocal in their opposition to this strategy . In Australia, a number of large ISPs have refused to comply with RIAA action without subpoenas from the Federal Police, and in a landmark ruling from the Dutch High Court, the distribution of P2P software was not considered a breach of Copyright . The trend in recent years seems to indicate that, irrespective of political lobbying and backing, when tested in the courts, the RIAA appears to be having only minimal success in the eradication of piracy. Another particular side effect of the lawsuits appears to have been the negative public perception of the RIAA. Much like Disney’s suing of three Florida day care centres in 1989, the RIAA have not fared well politically for exercising their power over copyright. As a result, hundreds of websites dedicated to fighting the RIAA have surfaced, with the most notable being http://www.boycott-riaa.com, as well as several websites that advocate guerrilla-style stickering of RIAA CDs . The RIAA have felt immense public pressure to withdraw proceedings against children and a 66 year old grandmother. Whilst this phase is most certainly not over, there is some evidence to show that the RIAA is losing ground. The role of the global media is extremely significant when discussing transnational corporations, and particularly in the case of the RIAA’s campaign against piracy. In the early 1980’s the number of global media sources was around fifty; by the early 1990’s it had been reduced to twenty (Kegley & Wittkopf: World Politics (1997) p253). As these companies further merge to create super conglomerates, it has been significantly reduced. The merging of media companies to incorporate internet companies, such as the massive merger between AOL (the biggest ISP in America, with approximately 50 million customers) and Time Warner in 1999, even further limits the amount of information that is available on the scale of the commercial, global media. It is also worth noting at this point that, with regard to the Internet, 93.3% of Internet users live in the richest countries in the world, and 80% of email is written in English. Not only does this control the information that available to ordinary citizens, it also creates a homogenised – or you could even say “Americanised” – culture. It is this “cultural imperialism” argument that is most persuasive in the argument against companies such as the RIAA. This concept refers predominantly to American cultural imperialism, and argues that concentrated ownership not only homogenises culture on the whole, it can often have a usurping effect on local media. But it goes deeper than simply an “American” world view. It is actually representing a predominantly male, white, elite world view, incorporating consumerism, political superficiality and, according to some, a means of “brainwashing” the world into the “global capitalist elites” view of society and the market. As an anti-globalisation website outlines:
“This elite has across the centuries used the divisions and social inequalities in society. In fact, they are the creators and the maintainers of this oppressive structure, and the sole beneficiaries of it. Through a structured and systemic misogynist, racist, homophobic, brutal capitalist protocol, they ensure the maintenance of their global empire and especially, the maintenance of their privilege domain over the majority of the people on earth.”Whether or not one believes that the above statement is correct, in this context, the RIAA are instrumental in disseminating information in the form of entertainment to a significant sector of the world population. As stated before, they collectively control 90% of the music that is produced, distributed and played worldwide. It is in the context of cultural imperialism, or global media dominance, that the power of the transnational corporation can be potentially worrisome. The RIAA have, in recent years, started a campaign to eradicate the sharing of Mp3 files over the internet. The premise of their argument has been that it “robs artists”, and this campaign has been the most successful element of the campaign against piracy. Many artists have spoken out against the RIAA in this instance, including Courtney Love’s now infamous article claiming that the RIAA are the real pirates . Using their global influence, the RIAA have tried to shift public opinion through advertisements, moral-based education in children’s shows, and attempting to shift the vernacular from “filesharing” to “piracy”. Coupled with the threat of lawsuits, the RIAA has effectively utilised its influence in the global media to scare people into submission. In her article “Filesharing is not the enemy”, Joy Lanzendorfer describes an episode of the popular Disney children’s show, The Proud Family, where:
“…the teenager Penny gets addicted to filesharing after she is shown the wonders of a Napster-like program called EZJackster. Crazed, she starts downloading all the music she ever wanted. Soon after, chaos erupts. Her favourite singer doesn't get his royalty check, her local record store goes out of business, the police come to her house and threaten to take her jail, and worst of all, her mom takes away her computer. Penny practically single-handedly destroys the U.S. economy before she finally sees that filesharing is wrong.”This is the element of the RIAA campaign that has been most effectively fought. So, despite their failure in the courts, the RIAA’s public campaigns, utilising the homogenous media, have shifted the P2P issue into the moral consciousness of all internet users. How effective this is in the long term remains to be seen. Another significant element of the P2P debate and the role of the RIAA is the practical implications of censoring the internet and moderating users. Since the RIAA onslaught, new, private P2P networks have been established, using clients such as BitTorrent, DC++ and IRC. As Thomas Mannecke argues:
“While the situation may appear to be cut and dry, this dubious tact may eventually turn against the industry. This situation is hardly new for the RIAA. For the tenure of P2P’s existence, the RIAA’s onslaught has fueled a technological arms race between copyright holders and the file-sharing community. For the duration of this race, P2P has always come on top. For example, when Napster's centralized weakness was exposed, decentralization replaced this vulnerability. When networks were threatened with false files, "hashing" soon rendered this tactic nearly obsolete. This is in addition to numerous other enhancements such as multi-source downloading, the elimination of gateway servers or "peer caches", and greatly improved network reliability. With this battle in mind, the real question remains not who will be on the RIAA's target list, rather, what technological response will the P2P community develop?”Often overshadowed by the legal, moral and political aspects of the debate, the actual technical difficulty posed by the regulation of filesharing is significant. The internet, by its very nature, is a file sharing tool. Whilst email may be a highly inefficient means, it is possible that, if the RIAA are successful in closing down P2P networks (which is unlikely), that people will continue to share files. It is for this reason that the cultural aspect, in the context of globalisation, of the RIAA’s campaign needs more attention, if only to highlight the significant power that can be used to influence public opinion. Instead of winning legal battles, the RIAA focuses on making filesharing unfashionable, or somehow deviant in their world view, then it might have an impact on the demand for Mp3s. A key example here is the MPAA advertisement, which starts with “you wouldn’t steal a car, a mobile, a handbag…” . Using the example of the RIAA, it highlights that whilst TNCs may not have direct power over politicians and judges, but it is much more subtle, and over time they can change the position of society. This has far reaching implications for how citizens are manipulated into seeing the world through the capitalist eyes of the world elite.
I have been told several times before that I am too nice and far too trusting. I tend to see the good in people, and am easily led, and can often be manipulated because of it. I always thought that being nice and genuine was a good quality, but I have had an experience that has made me think that I need to be less trusting of people. I had a really embarrassing situation come to a head a few hours ago, and I felt that I just had to share it. Right now I just want to crawl under the house and die a slow, humiliating death, but I am going to share it with you because I have managed to prove that even the smarter members of our society are vulnerable to internet scams, and that everyone has the capacity to get involved in criminal activity. After I lost my job back in September, I started surfing on seek.com.au for some part time work. I thought that I might like to get out of government, try something new and apply for some jobs that might be a little different. So I started looking in the IT area, and there was a position that took my fancy. It was advertising a part time job where I can work from home, doing some financial processing and general admin-type work. So I thought. Bear in mind that I have been on the internet for over 8 years. In this time I have seen scams come and go, and have so far managed not to get caught up in them, because I have made a point of not getting into things that sound too good to be true, which is the first rule of the internet. The ad, despite being vague (like many job ads are), seemed quite genuine. So, being interested in some part-time work at home, I thought this was a genuine opportunity, and applied. After a week or so, I heard back, and they told me they had selected me to do the work for them. It all seemed a bit straightforward, so, giving them the benefit of the doubt, said that I would go ahead with it. They were based in the US, had a website dedicated to marketing and exchange services, so I didn't question it. They appeared to be a legitimate company that needed some processors in Australia for their Australian clients. They asked me for my bank account details. They said that they want me to receive deposits for them into my bank account and then wire the money to the US. They were offering me a commission of 6-8% for my efforts. Thinking that 6-8% only meant a few bucks every so often, I wondered if it was worth the effort. Seemed like one of those "spend three hours running around and get $10 for the privilege" sort sof things, but for some reason I though "heck, I need to do SOMETHING, so I might as well earn a little bit of money". Having no real reason to seriously doubt their intentions, I gave them my details. I then got a reply saying that the Commonwealth Bank didn't allow International transfers, so I needed to open an account with ANZ. Being an existing customer with ANZ, I was already aware that they allowed direct deposits internationally and the Commonwealth Bank didn't, so I opened another account with them and didn't really think much of it, assuming that it was all legal, and that they wanted me to open an account with ANZ because of their ability to do international Direct Deposits from your online banking. I gave them the new account, and asked them if this was going to be worth my while, with all the fees I was going to be attracting. They then said that I would be getting 6% of an average deposit of $1000 or so once a week. I thought that $60 a week was reasonable, considering that I was using my own car, bank account etc AND they were dealing in US dollars, so I figured that $30-40 US was reasonable for an international marketing company. Fast forward to last night. $4500 appears in my account. Then ANOTHER $4950. A whole lot more than they indicated in the beginning. I knew something was fishy. They then email me, asking me to withdraw the money, minus my cut (which, to my surprise is $591), and moneygram the money to someone in the UK. Alarm bells went off, but I was sitting here with almost $10,000 in my bank account that wasn't mine. So I went to withdraw the money to moneygram it and the ANZ teller, who was really nice, asked me to talk on the phone to a "guy at head office", who just happens to be the fraud investigator for ANZ. My brain was just going "SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT". He was really nice to me, and said that he was aware that I had applied for the job, but filled me in on the scam. Apparently these guys are siphoning money from people's bank accounts and using an intermediary (ie ME) to shuffle the money out of the country. They had frozen my account! The first thing I asked him was "am I in trouble here?" It seems I am not, as I had just innocently applied for a job. I told them that I would cooperate with whatever they needed, and after I hung up I was just SO embarrassed, I wanted to crawl into a hole and die. I couldn't believe I was so stupid. I had my reservations, but there was never anything that would tell me out and out that it was a scam. I even did a search for them to see if they were a known scam and there was nothing indicating it. So, there you have it. I was, for a brief moment, a money launderer and a crook. If I was a more suspicious person I would have picked up on it sooner, but they seemed willing to answer any questions I had (they told me it was a legitimate part time job, and details about their business and everything), and I was fooled. But, for a brief moment, I could understand how innocent people get sucked into criminal activity. Some are too trusting of others, some are stupid. I was both.
I just had to share this picture. The Onion Have the caption "baby takes political science"
Made me laugh :)
I have been reading this book called "The Obesity Myth" by Paul Campos, and it is a really interesting, compelling investigation into America's (and can easily be translated into Australia) obsession with weight (read: thinness). I can't recommend this book highly enough - it is really a fascinating read. If you liked "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, "The CUlture of Fear" by Barry Glassner, etc, I urge you to check it out. He basically looks at the obesity "epidemic" in a socio-political framework, and explores the studies that have created the multi-billion dollar diet industry, as well as the hysterical nature in which obesity is reported. He debunks the causal links between "obesity" and heart disease/diabetes, and says that weight isn't the issue - it is actually healthy eating and activity levels that determine our risk factors. Moderately active obese people have the same risk factors as moderately active thin people - and he even goes on to say that there appears to be a higher mortality risk associated with being thin, or in the BMI "ideal weight" category, particularly if you are over 65. It can be found on Amazon, not sure if its available here, but it has really given me some amazing perspective in a way that I best understand - from a political/sociological point of view, intrinsically linked to class and prejudice. And, if you want to buy it, feel free to use my affiliate link (although you dont have to): Obesity Myth by Paul Campos
Apology could be price of support This story, after I stopped laughing at the irony of it all, prompted me to visit the Family First website and check out their policies. I ploughed through their policy documents, and was actually surprised more than once about how they will use their balance of power. Whilst there are many issues I disagree with, I have to say that I am now less worried about a Coalition "majority" in the Senate than I initially was. Here's a few examples: 1. The government may not have as much success in selling Telstra as they initially thought, because Family First acknowledge monopolies as a contributor to market failure. Given Telstra's natural monopoly, they may put provisions in that split it up... 2. Family First believe in a fair industrial relations system and acknowledge the growing disadvantage caused by increased casualisation and so-called "flexibility" in the current system. 3. The believe in increased funding to University and decreases in HECS liability. 4. Family First are opposed to the War in Iraq. 5. They are committed to ecologically sustainable development. 6. Whilst they are pro-mother-at-home (as expected), they also support work-family balance for those mothers that do work, as well as quality childcare in closer proximity to the workplace. 7. They believe in shared care arrangements as an ideal in the Family Court system. 8. They believe in tax deductibility for Education expenses. 9. They are pro-Medicare, pro accessible dental care, and pro-help for Carers. They reject harm minimisation, but hey... like Howard will ever introduce that one! So, there you have it. Whilst I would never back down from my original ideas about church and state, I think we have a little less to worry about now that I have looked at the policy documents. I have to say that I am more than mildly amused at the Liberals' assumption that Family First would come on board... seems it might be a little more difficult than originally thought.
I need to write about the election. I watched every minute of the coverage on the ABC, and couldn't believe what I heard. The Coalition Government have been returned a fourth term. There were two sides of me that came out last night. First, there was the passionate lefty, the other was the political nerd. The passionate lefty has now renounced democracy, in sheer and utter disbelief and despair that the Australian government was now going to be controlled by not only the Coalition, but the absolute nut-jobs "Family First". Somehow, the Liberal government managed to convince the mullet majority that their interest rates would go up under Labor. Somehow, despite mass hatred of John Howard, he was returned in not just a majority, but a landslide. What the hell is WRONG with this country? Passionate lefty has wondered why the hell she even bothers studying politics, becoming an 'expert', only to have all the policy ideas she believes in pissed on by the great unwashed. Passionate lefty is angry. And scared. The political nerd saw this as an election that has significant implications. First of all, it seems that Australia is divided. There is a massive conservative-Christian backlash akin to the bible-belt-loonies in America, and there is a massive left-wing gay-right pro-choice anti-conservative backlash as well. The Democrats have split into their rightful places: the left went to the Greens and the pseudo-Libs went back to the Liberals. The ALP has suffered a horrible fate from this polarisation: the disenfranchised ALP Left voters have voted Green; the economically and socailly conservative Catholic voters have gone to the Liberals - leaving a middle ground that is not strong enough to win government. This is an election where voters have rallied behind the ideological extremes, depending on which fence you sat on during the war, gay marriage, USFTA debates. And, for political nerd, this is both interesting and terrifying. Because I can see the damage that is about to be done when the Bible loonies walk into parliament. And then I remember my Australian politics unit in my 2nd year of my Politics degree, where we did some analysis of voter education in Australia. We were told that only 6% knew the Australian Constitution even existed, and that the majority of people don't even know the difference between the two houses of parliament (yes, folks, there were two - you know, accountability??). And get this: over 75% of Australians get their political information from commercial television. In that class, we were effectively told that people are political imbeciles - they don't know or understand the implications of their voting behaviour - and Aristotle's "tyranny of the majority" seemed to ring true. But I rejected that idea. I refused to believe that people were that gullible - that the majority of people were decent, intelligent and cared about their democratic responsibility. I also underplayed the impact of negative advertising. And I was wrong. Australia, WAKE UP. You are a bunch of idiots and you deserve EVERYTHING you get from this idiot government. I am going to continue fighting the good fight because I ddn't vote for them. But for every one of you who did, I hope you rot in the system that has been created by your apathy. I will criticise the government at every turn - I have that right because I didn't vote for them. But I will no longer represent any of your interests because you'll only spit in my face, ignore that advice of people that know better and return the government that has gone out of its way to divide this country to the point that people are now polarised in their votes. Not only that, they'll swallow any old shit that the Liberals can throw at them. It seems like you want more, so you got it. So, there you go. I am no longer going to defend the mullets, the workers, the small business owners, the poor. Because you all swallowed Howard's bullshit and now, you deserve everything you get. From now on I am an elitist. I represent the interests of University students, teachers, academics, sociologists, social workers, lawyers and any of the above who actually did vote Green or ALP.
I just wanted to give a last minute plea to any Aussies reading this weblog to get out there, vote and vote Green. Even if you want your preferences to go elsewhere, I urge you to put the only party that will hold the government accountable in the Senate. After being burned quite badly by the ALP I have decided to jump in feet first and join the Greens. They are the only party in Australia that are a viable voice of the left. So, here we go...
God, I love the internet. And, despite my 6 hours a day of slacking off on it, I never quite realised its power until just now. I saw a comedian on the Comedy Channel a few months back. I didn't know his name. All I knew was what he looked like and he made my jaw hurt from laughing. I think I literally split a side when I heard him. The only thing I did remember was that his name was "Jimmy" or "Jeremy" and sounded Jewish. Which, when you consider the legion of Jewish comedians names Jimmy or Jerry, it seems a bit futile. But, alas, somehow, after about 8 minutes of searching, I came up with Jeremy Hotz. He is SO funny... check him out. Apparently he writes for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But his comedy... my god... it touches a major funny bone. So now, with my new friend Jeremy Hotz, I am currently downlaoding all of his standup from emule. And, thus, with no name, a vague description and what felt to be an impossible task... I now have a new favourite comedian.
Bidding war erupts on childcare: "Mr Latham yesterday conceded that families that put their children into care for five days each week would be better off under the Coalition's tax rebate plan. But he said families usually used child care two to three days a week, and they would be between $20 to $44 a week better off under Labor's one-free-day program. " There you go. When are the ALP going to stop being such cynical vote-grabbers and put the money where it counts? I will not vote Liberal on ANY issue, but I am bitterly disappointed with the ALP Policy on this issue.
Now, if there is one issue that I feel strongly about in this election, it is about the way the Howard government have, over the course of 8 years, created a regressive, conservative country that makes it damn hard to be a woman. Okay, to be fair he hasn't made it difficult for all women, as long as they fit into John Howard's idea of what a woman does. That is, if I sit at home, dependent on my husband, without any desire to find myself, find a job, or get an education, I am pretty much alright under this government. However, I am none of those things. I am a young woman, with an Arts degree, who wants to work full time and also wants to have a family. And I think, for the most part, I do it pretty darn well given the obstacles that have been placed in front of me. I also have more than just a passing interest in family policy, and have researched a few papers on the subject, so I guess its no surprise that I do feel strongly about the issue. And here's why. If I decide to stay at home and be dependent on my husband, I get a payment of approximately $250 a fortnight. I also get heavily subsidised childcare, to the point where I only really need to pay about $8 a day ($40 a week). Now, that's not so bad, and I believe that all families should get some assistance, however, wait till you see this. If I go out and work part time, earning only $10,000 a year, my daycare costs double and I lose the $250 a fortnight. This means that we are actually worse off if I work anything but full time. Same goes for a job earning $20,000 a year working part time, except my daycare costs are now $35 a day. Now, if I work full time, earning $40,000 a year, we are considered "rich" by the government and I get to pay the full amount of daycare costs, which equals approximately $180 per week. Add to the problem that you only get the opportunity for full time daycare at the beginning of the year due to a major shortage of places, and voila! I end up out of work and I need to pay full fees for my daughter to attend daycare. Even if I am at home looking for work, because otherwise we lose our place and I am without care when I start a new job. Now, if you consider that we are paying less for rent than we do for daycare, you can see why I might be a little bit ticked off. So, because I work because I want to and not because I have to, I fork out the $180 a week for a daycare place. So, if you consider that I only earn about $550 a week, being an entry level pleb (when the hell will THAT end?! I want more money!), when you consider the cost of daycare, parking, lunches, the opportunity cost of leisure time as well as the forfeiture of the $250 a week I get for staying at home, you can imagine why I am a bit resentful at barely breaking even. To top it off, for three years in a row the Family "Assistance" Office have told us that we have a debt. Now, given that I don't even receive payments because they just keep garnishing it to pay off last years debts (that I don't even know how I accumulated - I always give them accurate information), and given that I didn't even claim childcare for the 5 months we were in Esperance, you can imagine why, yes, I might be pissed off. As a family we are in a position of not being able to get daycare places, and when we can, we pay a fortune for them. Like I said, I don't mind because the centre my daughter goes to is fabulous, but geez... So, for this election I have sat in hope, dying to hear Mr Latham tell me that he is going to ease my squeeze and make it easier for me to work. And then today, I read this: NEWS.com.au | Latham's $1.6bn free childcare plan (September 27, 2004) Looks promising, doesn't it? Wrong. Normally I would not get in a resentful rant about people having it better than me, but I can't help but wonder how this improves the system for those mothers that work in any way? All it is going to do is encourage those stay-at-home mothers who wouldn't ordinarily put their children in daycare to put their kids into care, and to give those who already have heavily subsidised care some breathing room. The extra places he has offered to fund would barely even cover the new demand from the stay-at-homes. It in no way addresses the real issue of affordability of daycare for full time workers, nor the availability of care. The single mums and stay-at-home mums are still the only people benefiting from these policies. Sure, i'll get a free day, but all it will do is put upward pressure on the price of the other four days. And yet again, the full timers will subsidise those who have the luxury of staying home with their children. But heck, i'll keep doing it, despite my disappointment in the ALP's policies, because I am committed to being a working parent. Mark Latham is a politician who is very hit and miss, and this one is most certainly a miss.
As you all may know, I am not the kind of person to bitch about just any trivial subject. So it may surprise you that I am about to act really out of character and bitch about a "customer service" representative. Again. But first... I am really bad at filling up my car with petrol. I always leave it to the very last minute, to the point where I am worried my car is going to have to chug to the station. It's not a money problem and I pass at least three service stations on the way home. For some reason I am always chasing that elusive sub-dollar-per-litre fuel price, yet it never quite works out. It's a bit like Homer Simpson really - Drive to the first station: $1.01 a litre. Decide to see what the next one is. Drive to the second one: 99c a litre, but meh, I can't bothered making a right hand turn in traffic. I'll try the next one. Fuel running on empty, getting very nervous. Drive to the third station $1.03 a litre. D'oh! And this happens every week. And so you're wondering "why on earth do we care about this?" I'll tell you. It's CONTEXT you illiterate moron! Which brings me to my Caltex experience yesterday. I did the usual $1.01 "shit". Then my car's light went on and I drove to the next closest servo, which was the Caltex in Beechboro. $1.03 a litre. Okay, whatever. So I get out of my car, and proceed to fill up the car, the usual routine, and then go in to pay for my petrol. The "customer service" guy gets this look on his face, really bitchy-like. Sort of like that blonde guy on Queer Eye when he says something really nasty, girlfriend... He looks at me, and says in his best Ricki Lake voice: "You know, that's a prepaid bowser. You're supposed to come in and pay first". At which point I was looking for a camera, because I had never heard of this before. "Sorry I didn't realise", I said. "Yes, well, there was a sign on there saying it, but...oh well". "I'm sorry, I didn't read it". At which point he rolls his eyes, sniggers and smirks to himself in his god-aren't-you-an-idiot tone. Normally I would just let it go, but he was being so snippy with me. So I said "so, I have to come in and pay for my fuel first, then go out and put it in, then come back in?" "Yes" "But what if I don't know how much it's going to be to fill up my car?" He sniggered again. I couldn't believe it. I just laughed at him and walked out. And then I thought of a funny thing to say by the time I was in the car. Dammit. But how annoying is that? Not only have the replaced petrol station attendants with self-serve machines, they now expect me to READ things for myself? Shit, that means that they expect me to be twice as skilled as the attendants they replaced! I not only have to pump my own petrol, but I have to be literate as well! The world is going to shit! As much as I'd like to say that I won't go back. I mist likely will, because it will always be that third station that I pull into when I am scared my car is going to run out of fuel again.
I had a heart "procedure" on Monday, and as a result, am limited in my activites whilst I recover. In spite of the "imposed leave" (see previous post) I am on, I can't even do housework because I feel too crook. Anyway, after visiting the Lisa Loeb Forum for the fourth time with no new posts, an email appeared in my Inbox from Schoolfriends announcing that there are new people registered at my school. So, in my boredom I wander over to schoolfriends.com.au (which I haven't visited in a good 6 months or so). To my surprise, there were actually two new names I recognised. I contacted one of them, and the other caused me major stress and made me question my whole existence. For obvious reasons I won't name names, but I will call her "M". Let me take you back... M was the person at school you simultaneously hated and wanted to be. She was good looking, artistic, intelligent, funny, and popular. And to make matters worse, she got "Champion Girl" at our school athletics carnival. She was on the student council, she organised the ball. She was Head Girl. She dated the "cricketers" (which really is a stupid thing to look up to her for - after all they were just vacuum headed bogans anyway...but still), and, to top it off, she had money. She didn't appear to need anything. I, on the other hand, was the 'gifted' child that was never understood (That would imply, of course, that I am understood now, which isn't the case!). Roald Dahl's "Matilda", may as well be my life story (except for the super powers bit...I haven't quite mastered that yet). I came from a family best described as the "underclass", whose primary objective was to sabotage any attempts of other family members to better themselves. From the day I turned 14, I was working most afternoons to pay my own school fees. I was good-looking enough, but only wore what I could afford. I was athletic and played sports, I was involved in the school radio station. I also had a smart mouth, which was the source of a lot of my problems at school... but still. I had my fair share of achievements in school, was always bright, and in hindsight it wasn't so bad. But M was that person that always made me feel fat, ugly, stupid and poor. I used to look at her life and wish that I had it that good. No matter how hard I worked to buy new clothes or to fit in, she always came out better. And I doubt she even realised it. I don't think I ever saw her work for anything. Of course, she did, but in my teenage dreamland her life was better. So, long story short, like anyone who didn't fit in I always secretly hoped that I would end up more successful than everyone - I would breeze into my reunion and everybody would love me again. I would have a grand old pissing contest AND be a wonderful person and they'd all love me. However, after high school I didn't really give it much more thought, and figured she'd just become a normal person with a normal job and I would keep plodding along until my hard work pays off. Which brings me to my schoolfriends visit. I see M's name - teasing me. Lulling me into a false, voyeuristic, one-upping moment where I think I have won. I click on her name. And damn, she's successful. She spends half her life in the US and half her life here. She's happily engaged to her boss, and, yet again, leads a nice life in the fashion business, as well as taking some of her valuable time to work with underprivileged children in a third world country in between travelling. Is this a joke?! And suddenly, I am 15 again. I grumble to myself that this isn't how its supposed to be - people like that are supposed to be unhappy, miserable and poor, and those who work hard are supposed to be a success. After all, that's what Romy and Michelle told me! Janeane Garofalo's character got rich from quick burning paper, didn't she?! And the cheerleaders and jocks all ended up loser drunks! Thats how its supposed to be! So now, here I sit, feeling completely and utterly inadequate, realising that my 10 year reunion is happening in 2 years and I have very little to show for it, except a bunch of qualifications and no stable career path. How boring is it to be a public servant? Not only that, but how much of a loser am I that I am not even a permanent nor important public servant? It doesn't look very promising, does it? I am sure in ten years I will feel differently, but man, just once I would like to metaphorically trump M. Yeah, that'd be nice.
You all may have noticed the conspicuous lack of Election commentary on my blog. I am as surprised as the rest of you - after all, I had great plans of educating the ill-informed about how "preferences just flow" in Elections; I had considered a rant about John Howard being a snotty little shit (ok, well I have done that one before), I thought about a blog about Mark I-only-agree-with-him-50%-of-the-time-at-best-but- he's-better-than-the-alternative Latham... but, I can't explain it. I completely lack inspiration about this campaign. In 1998 I did letterbox drops for my local member at 2 in the morning, manned the polling booth, and got pissed at the commiseration party. In 2001 I was less active but still as passionate, if not burned out by ALP bullshit. But this time around, I am a different person. I am a person who has woken up to Politics. OK, at least I have woken up to power and how it corrupts. Is it wrong to be a political person, yet not give a shit about an election?
I never thought I would experience something like this in my life. After all, I consider myself to be fairly competent - I work hard, I try to give the best effort I can, and I usually get results. So, imagine my surprise when I was told that my contract would not be renewed. Now, I understand that when you are an employee ona fixted term contract (as I am), that there is some risk involved, and if they had just said that it wasn't working out, fair enough. However, I was told that it was because I was taking too much sick leave (bullshit), couldnt work after hours (bullshit) and that my time management skills were poor (also bullshit). This was a decision made by someone who 1) had nothing to do with the team and therefore had no accurate information on my performance, and 2) the extent of conversations with this person have been "hello, how are you?" up to this point. So, imagine my surprise when my supervisor (who I have mentioned in the past - she is really nice and generally supportive) came in and said that this "Team Leader" had decided not to renew my contract. Apparently it isn't me, apparently i am wonderful and a great addition to the team, however, because I have circumstances out of my control, they are not renewing my contract. Hmmmm. It just didnt sit right. I thought over and over again what I could have done. Sure, I had some learning to do, its all part of a new job, and sure, I had taken some sick leave recently, but that is for legitimate reasons... anyway... which is why I sent this email, addressed to the "Team Leader", as well as her Line Management asking for answers. I will let the rest of this tell the story. Obviously names have been removed and my workplace concealed, for obvious reasons. Hi (Team Leader), (Senior) informed me yesterday that I was not going to have my contract renewed. She cited three main reasons for this: 1) That I have taken "too much" sick leave 2) That I am unable to work after hours 3) That I have "poor" time management skills I would like the opportunity to address these concerns one-by-one, but first I would like to express my disappointment at the way this has been handled. I was told that this is not (Senior's) decision, and I appreciate that it was difficult for her to do, however I am not satisfied with the reasons that have been cited. I believe that they are misinformed and discriminatory, and this is formal notification that I would like the decision to be reassessed. I was really excited about this position, to the point where I moved to Perth from Esperance 2 weeks earlier than planned to start at. Despite it being a Level 2, and given my qualifications I was expecting something a bit higher, the actual duties of the position excited me and I felt I had a lot of room for growth. The team are fantastic, dynamic and supportive - in fact, I would say that they are the best I have seen in (Department) to date. About 2 weeks into my contract, I discovered that I had a congenital atrial tachycardia (heart rates flies up over 200bpm) that was giving me blackouts and needed a procedure to fix it. When I discovered this, I weighed up my options, discussed it at length with my husband, and decided that it was probably not in my best interests to be on the road for 2 hours a day because of the risk of blackouts. I was also thinking of doing a Grad Dip Ed after I finish my Masters (next year), so it made sense to resign and study full time rather than part time as planned. I did not make the decision to resign lightly, and I did what I thought was best for the team at the time. It may have seemed to you to be a lack of loyalty or a dislike of the job, but it was quite the opposite. I have a tremendous respect for the team, especially (Senior), and really felt that it was somewhere that I "fit". However, after visiting with my cardiologist, he advised me of some strategies to overcome these "attacks" until such a time that it could be fixed (which is the "surgery" that I am booked into. It is a 2 hours day-surgery procedure). I now have it 90% under control, unless of course I have an "off day", which can happen to anyone (of which I have never had a day off). I am also, as you are aware, booked in to have the procedure on 13th September. So, I would like to clarify that I am not having "heart surgery" in the traditional sense (ie bypass, repair etc), it is something more akin to laser eye surgery than major surgery. Whilst I do not think that I should be compelled to share the details of my condition, I believe that it is important in terms of the way you have assessed my commitment to the position. To cut a long story short, when (Senior) asked me to stay on at (Program), I thought about it, and decided to stay, given that I had adjusted back to city traffic and was managing my condition. Since starting here, I admit that I have had 5 days off sick, for reasons that are unrelated to my condition. I have a three year old daughter who is in daycare, which means that generally any illness that goes around I get. The first sick leave was due to an ear infection that I had caught from my daughter. I never get them and this was a one-off, probably caused by the stress of moving, adjusting to the weather, etc. The second time was a bout of gastronteritis, which I initially thought was food poisoning. I didn't visit a doctor until it had continued for 2 days, because my doctor costs $50 to visit - if I had food poisoning he would've just told me to rest anyway! 2 days later my daughter got sick with the same illness, however, I was able to come in and get some work to do at home because I was aware of some tasks I needed to complete. These are legitimate illnesses that I believe I am entitled to leave for. My leave history shows the occasional sick day over the course of a year - and all of these have been legitimate. I believe this is discriminatory but I will discuss that later. Any issues with my work performance, I believe should have been addressed with the proper procedure. I have had discussions with (Senior) about my performance and she did identify areas that may need work. I take this on board, and believe that I have not been given the opportunity to perform to levels that I usually do. Because I have not been given a caseload (based on assumptions about my ability to work after hours), most of my work has been task-oriented. Because I am learning tasks and how to do them correctly, it is only natural that I would need time to adjust. I was of the understanding that my contracts would be ongoing and that we would be able to develop these skills. I would like to now get the to the crux of the matter. I believe that you have made an unjust decision, and I would like to address these issues one by one. 1) That I have taken "too much" sick leave (and leave) I have only taken leave that I have accrued since the beginning of my employment at DCD which is a minimum work-related entitlement. As you are aware, Personal Leave is now more flexible and incorporates Carer's leave. Whilst I am aware that leave needs to be taken as per operational requirements, I am also aware that if I am legitimately ill and can produce evidence of this, I am entitled to paid leave. I have not exceeded my allowable sick leave, however for the tachycardia procedure I have opted for annual leave only because I would like a bit of extra time off as a "buffer zone" to heal completely. The last time I accessed my annual leave was when I took a week to move to Esperance for the Department. I took a couple of annual leave days in Esperance because there was no study leave (as I am a postgraduate) or flexi time that I could use, and my examinations were held during the day. I actually consider my use of leave to be reasonable, given the circumstances. It is unfortunate timing that I have had 2 lots of sick leave in 2 months, however, being Winter (when most people get flu, gastro etc) and given my circumstances, I believe I have not acted in a way that is unusual nor unprofessional. In my time at DCD I have worked over the Christmas period, I have not taken any great chunk of annual leave with the exception of "packing time" to move to Esperance (which I think is reasonable). I also find it surprising that nobody has sought clarification of my position prior to this. I also believe that I have been directly discriminated against because of my health. The Equal Opportunity Act provides for discrimination based on impairment, and it includes access to employment, namely failure to renew my contract. Given that I have been expressly told that my "sick days" are a factor in the decision to not renew my contract, I have made enquiries with the CPSU/CSA about this. I think it is spurious (and unlawlful) to make assumptions about the reasons why I have taken legitimate leave for legitimate purposes. I request that this be explored and the decision reassessed. 2) That I am unable to work after hours This is an assumption that has been made, based on me expressing concerns about the hours involved in the job when I initially resigned. I expressed concern that I may not be able to work after hours too much because my 3 year old daughter attends a daycare that closes at 6pm. However, I did not say that I was inflexible around this - just that I would need to plan my workload in advance so that I could make arrangements. I do have a few people that happily pick Mina up in the event that I was running late - however I expressed that, as part of my commitment to my daughter and work/family balance (which the Department should also support), it would be preferable that I do not. This was never clarified with me - and I have in fact worked after hours on two occasions when required. All I have ever said about working after hours is that I require some notice, and if I had been given a caseload I would have had an opportunity to prove this. (Senior) informed me that the position, although it does require some after horus work, is also "plannable" = in that I should be able to manage and plan my workload in advance (by making appointments etc). I can, and always have, been able to make arrangements around this. Bearing this in mind, it is also unlawful under the Equal Opportunity Act to discriminate on the grounds of family commitments, with the exception of it being disruptive to the operational requirements of the position. Given that I accept the operational requirments of the position and am prepared to make arrangements around them, I believe I have been discriminated against on the grounds that you have made assumptions about my ability to carry out the work required, based on the fact that I am a parent of a young child. Out of the three occasions I have been required to work after hours, I have done it twice, and the third time was because it was short notice and I had a prior appointment. I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to set some parameters around hours worked, after all, the Department is supposed to be committed to family-friendly work practices. Any reasonable person with a child in daycare could not work late without notice. This constitutes both direct and indirect discrimination. Again, I believe I have been unfairly judged and am exploring this with the union. I request that this decision be reassessed. 3) That I have "poor" time management skills Since I stated at (workplace), I have not had the opportunity of working with a caseload. I have asked (Senior) for some "real" work on a couple of occasions, and because of the recuitment cycle I have not been allocated any. Instead, I have been completing individual tasks, including the monthly newsletter, assessments, and some administrative tasks for my colleagues. Given that I am new to the position and thus need to learn about the program, the tasks involved, getting to know the team members and developing good working relationships with carers, I believe that I have done as well as could be expected. The feedback has been predominantly positive. (Senior) and my team members were all happy with the work I produced, and were generally positive about my other work. I am the first to acknowledge my weaknesses, however I am always open to criticism and correction. An example of this is when I did the newsletter for (workplace)and it took me too long. (Senior) told me to "have a go" at designing a logo for the newsletter, and I did, however coming from a "designer" perspective, it took me longer than (Senior) expected, because I spent time trying to get the right images, the right look, etc. Part of this was out of a desire to get it "perfect" and was well intentioned. However, (Senior) informed me that it took too long and I corrected myself, making sure to balance my perfectionist side with the time constraints of tasks. I then managed to complete the rest of the newsletter in a more timely fashion. Being an entry level position, I would expect that this should as much a learning experience as a job. I believe that it is unreasonable to expect that I would automatically know or understand what is expected of me in a specific sense (aside, of course, from basic Departmental processes and software, which I do know well), for example how assessments are written, the processes involved, or to what standard we produce our newsletters, particularly when I have had to be proactive in terms of training (asking questions about the process, what is expected etc). (Senior) will tell you that whenever I have been corrected about something (which is usually a misunderstanding), I respond well to it. I believe that I have been unjustly terminated on spurious grounds - given that I have been given no caseload, have had to be reactionary in my work (ie doing individual tasks) and have had a learning curve that comes with a new position. It is fair enough to just say that you do not wish to renew my contract, however, to cite reasons that are in direct conflict with EEO legislation, is surprising and upsetting. (Team Leader), I am surprised and still quite upset about this whole thing, as I cannot see why you intend to replace me with someone else. After all, I have never been asked to clarify the circumstances around my leave, I have been nothing but forthcoming with (Senior), and I believe I have been a positive addition to the team. I am still shocked that you actually say that you are not renewing me on the above grounds, as parts of it is quite clearly discriminatory. I am pursuing these issues with the union, because I believe I have been treated unfairly. I was led to believe that if I stayed, the leave would be acceptable for my surgery. I am also now in a position where I will lose my full time place at daycare because I pay the maximum rate. I have not been given the opportunity to find other employment or make plans (I was given 1 day's notice) and I just cannot believe how poorly this has been handled. I would like to stay at (workplace). I believe I have many strengths that I can bring to the team, but I also admit that there are some areas that might need improvement. However, I believe that I should be given the opportunity to grow professionally and to make (minor) mistakes. At the same time, I am a creative, qualified and valuable member of a team, so I do not feel that I should be in a position where I have to "beg" for my job. I simply believe that this decision needs to be revised, and I am pursuing the avenues I need to. I await your reply. ~ So, now I await the reply. I am still trying to work out what it is that I did wrong. I have never had anyone say this to me before, so I am horrified. I thought I'd let all of you in on it because I think I have been poorly treated. Of course, I could be wrong, but ...meh...
I am a member, unfortunately, of HBF. Whilst I believe in public health, it is hard to be a sick person and not have insurance, so I pay the bare minimum I have to to get coverage. So, during my attempts to update some account information, I went to the HBF website, which had this article on its front page. The gist of it is: "The 30% rebate is the Federal Government's contribution towards the cost of your health insurance. Put simply, for every $100 in premium you should pay, the Government pays $30. This means that rather than $100, you only have to pay $70. Without the rebate, many Australians would not be able to afford private health insurance and this would almost certainly increase demand and the burden on the public health system... So, next time you hear someone talking about reducing or abolishing the rebate, remind them that it is your rebate they're talking about. As a taxpaying Australian who is responsibly taking care of your health needs, you deserve it. To register your support visit the Save Your 30% Rebate site at: http://www.ahia.org.au/savetherebate.htm" So, guess what I did. I went to the website to register my disgust, but not in a way that they would expect. The form asked me the usual details, and also if I would be interested in writing to members of Parliament, or give interviews to press and radio. I couldn't help myself. In the comments section I wrote the following: "I, like the majority of Australians, are only in Health Insurance because our healthcare system has been eroded, and we are in a position where we need surgery. Private Health Insurance, and particularly the public money spent on private insurance, further erodes the health system by diverting funds that are needed by our public hospitals. The insurance industry is profiting from the erosion of public health, and your attempts to claim you 'represent' the people by scaring their hip pockets into action (as you have done here)is extremely cynical. What our taxpayers need to do is stop the diversion of funds away from public healthcare, and instead demand that our money goes into our hospitals and encourages bulk billing. I note the irony of you using the word "taxpayer" in your arguments - after all, doesn;t that imply that they are paying TWICE for a 30% rebate on health insurance that doesn;t pay the full amounts anyway? I resent the assumption that as a member of HBF I would support the rebate, or take action based on my fear of losing the rebate. We are in health insurance because the Howard government came up with this crappy system, whereby anyone who needs care needs to pay for it. I would be more than happy to express this to any member of Parliament, radio station or newspaper and would be quite happy to engage in a thorough debate of this issue. (Sorry, but you're asking for it by having a link on the HBF main page...)" I hit submit. I'll be interested to see what their response is.
In the spirit of the vacuum cleaner salesman blog, in no less than two weeks I have encountered another slightly less obnoxious, but still utterly perplexing shop assistant... that seems completely unaware of the impact they have on people. I am going to take a risk, as I am about to "out" myself. Confess my "sins" and hope for forgiveness from the society that simultaneously creates and treats eating disorders, produces packages that say "low fat and low carb", and have fast food joints (that, by and large are responsible for our expanding arses) that sell salad. But, I am sure you will forgive me of my my mortal sin, after all, a person is more than what they look like, right? Wrong. I am fat. There. I am out. That wasn't so bad. Argh! But seriously. Like 60% of the planet I do not put on a pair of teeny Levis with confidence. I do not bear my midriff, and I do NOT wear mini skirts. I look more like Humphrey B Bear than Jessica Rabbit. And if you ever caught me in the Catwoman suit, you would recoil at the horror before you, thus rendering useless the need for any martial arts ability. But hey, for the most part I am ok with it. I am fairly healthy, save for a few "inborn" illnesses that I can't help. And I try to exercise at least one a month or so (it counts as once a month when you consider the 1 month a year where I get the surge of energy and decide to exercise 4 times a week. After 3 weeks I have done my once-monthly exercise for a year! W00t!). OK, I am exaggerating, but still... I am also diabetic and have PCOS, which means I have particular dietary needs and have a tremendous difficulty losing weight. However, I have managed to feel better by managing my diet. This involves, by and large, very little sugar and more protein. I tend to gravitate towards the Atkins-style diet because it helps me to manage my blood sugar without going insane from hunger. So there you go. Part of the Atkins regimen, as the working-class medical journals (ie New Weekly & Woman's Day) have no doubt told you, is a healthy breakfast consisting of protein and less than 10g of carbs, and enough fat to limit the insulin response. That can take the form of bacon and eggs, an omelette, or scrambled eggs if you are so inclined. Problem is, I often have trouble finding time for breakfast, which means I usually skip it or worse (Maccas). Which leads me, in a convoluted way, to my latest idiot shopkeeper experience. Because I tend to skip breakfast and know this is bad, I thought I would start exploring the idea of a protein shake that I can take in the car on my way to work in the morning. So, I walk into the health food shop in the Galleria and start to eye off the Max's Shake. All of a sudden a woman came up to me and asked if she could help me. Actually, the sentence was more like "what are you after?". I told her that I was looking for protein shakes and that I knew what I was after. She then commenced to peruse through every shake. And, before I knew it or could even respond, she had made a list of presumptions about me: 1. I was after meal replacement shake. This is partially true, but I planned on adding a dollop of cream to it! haha! It was more about the way she said it. 2. That I wanted to lose weight with it. It would be nice, but again, the way she said was really presumptuous, like I was some idiot infomercial-believing type that a shake would help me. I couldn't help but snap back at her "diabetes management, actually". She ignored me and continued, offering me some "Thermal" tablets that will speed up my metabolism and help me lose weight. THen, highly offended and quite annoyed, I informed her that I am having heart surgery next month to cure a trachycardia (which is where my heart races over 200bpm causing blackouts). I asked her "do you think that taking something taht speeds up my heart would be a good idea?" Of course, she didn't answer. I said "I know what I am after, I'll just look myself thanks". She then went off rambling something about low carb diets under her breath... Protein powders cost about $75. But I didn't buy any. I figured I could just get up 15 minutes earlier and eat breakfast. If I have to go through that just for a shake, I am sure I could endure 15 minutes less sleep.
Let me just share a little bit of stupidity on my part. Normally I am pretty good at troubleshooting computer problems; I generally know the differnece between a RAM problem and a CPU problem, or a software problem. However, I have to say that, despite my usual godliness, I too have my flaws - and that is my occasional inability to see the things are obvious... So, I had computer problems for the last few days. I had googled, I had mucked around, I had even clean installed Windows... and it was STILL driving me nuts. So, eventually I surrender to the folks at Whirlpool for help. Here is my post: "Hi Folks, After 3 days of Googling, new mouse & keyboard, switching from PS/2 to USB AND a complete format and reinstall of XP, I am now desperately searching for any other ideas on my problem. About 3 days ago My optical mouse started becoming "jittery" - in that it would hang intermittently, freeze up on occasion, and be generally annoying. The old mouse was about 2 years old so I figured I'd go and buy a nice new cordless number, with a keyboard. Plugged it in, still jittery. Stumped. Thought it might be a virus. Ran 2 different Virus scanners (AVG and NOD32), and Adaware. Nothing. Thought it might be a problem with the PS/2 plug. Switched it to USB. Still a pain. Stumped. Tried a Windows Update. New Nvidia drivers rooted my system. Stumped. Clean install of WIndows XP. Still jittery and, yes, I am stumped. I have googled to my heart's content and I can't think of anything else. The only thing different is the DVD burner I bought 3 weeks ago, but that has been working fine. Any ideas? My hardware is as follows (due for an upgrade but I was hoping to hold out a few more months): ECS K7S5A Athlon XP 1800+ 768MB RAM 64MB GeForce4 MX440 60GB Seagate LG DVD burner Liteon CD Burner Netcomm modem. Any help would be very much appreciated. " Then, I get two replies. One suggested that it was a mainboard problem (which I had suggested). the other said this: Hmmm.... have you tried it on a different surface? I put a piece of paper under my mouse. Voila. My visit to idiot city now complete, I then recoil and marvel at my own stupidity... and then think how great it is now that I have a wireless keyboard and mouse AND a clean install of windows... Feel free to throw rocks at my head.
Poms want Aussies to talk proper I can't help but wonder why the English are so strict on letting us uncultured lot into the country... when we have whole suburbs dedicated to Poms in Australia... hmmm... Maybe we could reciprocate and test how people pronounce "film" as part of our immigration tests. I am both humoured and disturbed by this article :)
There is only one reason that anyone ever refers to me as "ma'am". And, when they do, I have to fight the temptation to push them over, step on their neck and say "what the hell are you talking about -- MA'AM?! I am only twenty six!". Instead, I instantly shoot at them a look of sheer contempt and they lose me from the get go... I am no longer interested in anything they have to say. Because, my friends, the only time anyone ever calls me ma'am is when they are trying to sell me something I don't need at an inflated price. And this is where my story needs context, for I want you to feel my pain. "What pain?" you ask. I'll tell you... it's the insufferable pain of purchasing a vacuum cleaner. Never again. I managed to catch myself some gastro-loving last week. That was a bittersweet experience to say the least. On one hand I was throwing up like Courtney Love; on the other I had the day off work. So, despite my raging belly and massive headache, I thought that, feeling a little bit better (and only a little bit), I would do what any sensible person would do: I would brave a trip to the shop to buy a new vacuum. You see, my illness provides important background information - perhaps it provides an explanation as to why I found the experience so utterly horrible...read and decide for yourselves I guess! I walked into Godfrey's, mistakenly thinking that $200 cash would be enough to buy me a vacuum cleaner. After all, they just suck, right? That's all they do. They have a hose and a motor and they suck the dirt off the carpet. But alas, I was clearly deluded. I was approached by a guy with a painted on smile and a very thick accent, who proceeded to 1) call me ma'am, 2) ask me if he could help me and 3) tell me that, out of 50 vacuums, there was only one model that was under $200 (and that was $199), but I was wasting my time with that crappy model... and thus, it begins. Before I go any further I have to admit my own contribution to this experience, because I was stupid enough to ask him about the payment plan that they have on offer, whereby they deduct the cost of a vacuum in 6 monthly installments from my Credit Card. I thought to myself that if this deal was acceptable that it might be worth exploring a wet/dry vac, paying a little bit more and having a slightly better quality machine. So yes, I egged on an eager salesman and deserve everything I got. However, it wouldn't be a funny story if it was all my fault. Besides, its my blog and I will write whatever the hell I want. Painty-face is welcome to write his own version on HIS blog. Anyway, after having stupidly asked about the payment plan, painty-face asked me "So, what would you be willing to pay?". "Probably about $600." "Well, let's look at this vacuum here." Oh good, I thought to myself, this looks like a good machine for $600. He then proceeded to go into every stupid detail about the vacuum. And folks, there are only so many "Ooohs" and "Aaaahs" you can feign with a vacuum cleaner salesman before it sounds utterly ridiculous. And it is hard to be genuinely impressed by a vacuum cleaner. With this in mind, picture my face as he pulls out the cord, exclaims that this cord is "the longest cord ever in a vacuum cleaner". I wanted to kill him. Bearing in mind my foggy head, rolling stomach and general disinterest in all things housework, I was quite insulted that he would think I was THAT stupid and uninteresting that I would CARE about the stupid vacuum cleaner cord. So, at this point, after hearing about filters, cords and 360 degree swivel, I finally ask him if I can buy it, just to shut him the hell up. He pulls out a calculator, touches his nose, and says "what was it you said you can afford again?" "I didn't say what I could afford, I said what I was willing to pay. That was $600." "OK, so [typing on calculator] this vacuum retails for $1495. I can give it to you for $1395." "No thanks." "But you said you could afford it." "No I didn't." "Then what can you afford?" "I can afford to pay plenty, but I am willing to pay $600." At which point, I was so offended that he thought I was some stupid bogan housewife that would go into hock over a vacuum cleaner... and that he had wasted my time. I felt sick, I was feigning interest in the machine just to get the hell out of there, only to have him dupe me. I was spitting mad. He continued trying to talk up the vacuum cleaner, convincing me to sign. I then said I would get back to them this afternoon, and took a business card. Paintey-face then said "alright, $1295." I couldn't believe it. What an arsehole. I walked out, muttering that I needed to "discuss it with my husband" like a good little housewife should, went across the road to Kmart, picked up a Kambrook vacuum cleaner with, funnily enough, filters and 360 degree swivel for $158. Kmart underpay their staff and it is often difficult to find a sales rep. Most of the time I woudl criticise this sort of things, but this was one day where I thanked Buddha for Department stores. At least they don't call me ma'am. They just leave me be.
I have recently started a job (yes, I ended up staying) that involves a 50 minute commute to work every day in peak hour. Before that, I tended to be 15 minutes from everywhere, and as a result had not really experienced too many bad drivers. But recently, things have changed. And, Téa being Téa, I felt the urge to apply my experiences to my understanding of Politics. So, I am going to pick on my two favourite politicians of all time (not). Self Interested Fucktard #1: Driving one of those pretend 4WD's, like a RAV4 or something, driving up West Coast Highway. I am doing 2kms over the limit and this guy is on my tail. I resisted the temptation to pound on the brakes just to show him a lesson... but anyway, no matter what speed the traffic is going, I notice him overtake, push in and tailgate every car that he is following. I am not even talking your lame, 1m behind tailgating, I am talking literally inches away from the car in front of him, bullying his way through. I can't help but think that George Bush and the other members of the American aristocracy would drive like this (that is, if they didn't have drivers). Like this guy is so frigging important that he needs to be aggressive and bully his way in (despite the illegality). He is so much more important than anyone else - after all - on the road its every man for himself, and if YOU can't get ahead, then its your own fault for not doing more! Self Interest Fucktard #2 (otherwise known as a courier): Sneaky little buggers they are. Which naturally brings me to John Howard. They sit in blind spots, waiting for their opportunity to make you crash and burn. It might take 2 mintues, it might take 6 years, but eventually, their tenacity and persisitence will pay off - because eventually everyone else just gives up and lets him ride in front of you. Then, after you finally become complacent about said "courier" - when you have swerve to miss the bastards, they curse YOU out for getting in their way in the first place. Self Interested Fucktard #3: People with a white hat in their rear window (otherwise known as the passive-aggressive octogenarian driver...) Which, again (funnily enough), reminds me of our RSL loving Prime Minister. They'll just keep going on their merry way - keep driving at 30km/hr because "it's not a race", blissfully unaware of the carnage that falls around them, or that society has actually moved on and people are much, much busier these days. Because, you see, they aren't breaking the law. And all those young 'uns are just speed freaks anyway. But alas, I have decided to brave these people after all. I accept their existence, and try to incorporate my own little ways to get back at them, like turning the music up, singing at the top of my lungs... and refuse to bow to their methods.
I quit the job today. It was quite a nerveracking experience for me, because I am not very good at quitting jobs, especially when I have only been there for a week! My supervisor is really nice. She made me feel really welcome and is a really positive person to work for. The rest of the team are also really good, so, with liking my workmates and enjoying the job I did what any sane person would do: I quit. I walked in this morning, feeling like crap (I have had an ear infection for the last 3 days and I feel like I am being stabbed in the head with a pumpkin), and having braved yet another hour-long drive from home to work, I make morning niceties such as "hello, how are you" etc... and then I tell my supervisor how I didn't do the whiteboard on onday because I needed some stuff explained to me. Then, she said something and went to answer her phone. About half an hour later, and after some agonising on my part, she came and sat on my desk and said "I've got a really good job for you". I cut her off and said "at the whiteboard, we got interrupted." I flinched. I then said that I was planning to quit working and focus on Mina and full time study. They didn't take it very well at all. They put massive guilt trips on me for taking the job (which I think is fair enough), and blah dee blah... Anyway... I am tired now. Will try to post something of more substance later on.
...to have my feet firmly planted on the ground after a couple of weeks of chaos. I finally made it back to Perth on the 10th, and the dust has only just settled, as I was only given a week to start the job I was offered. However, this week I have decided to quit and focus on my studies and do some preliminary studies for my Grad Dip Ed next year. I have a 50 minute drive to and from work, and have a few problems with stress and palpitations (for which I am seeing a cardiologist next week! argggh), and, as you can imagine, being stuck in traffic is not that good for my health. Also, the money I am shelling out for daycare and the time I am forfeiting with my daughter just doesn't make it worth it. So I am going back to uni full time as of next week, staying at home with Mina and enjoying it for the next year and a half until I become a high school teacher. Woohoo!
Read this article The concept of freedom of speech is yet again undermined by the bible belt loonies in the US. WHy on earth would SlimFast be so opposed to Whoopi's comments? Surely they aren't naive enough to support Bush? Then again, they are a money-grubbing corporation that is profiting from the obesity epidemic, so I guess that its not that hard to believe...
...to the Australian Flag, whether I want to or not. Schools forced to fly the flag C'mon, John. Get real. Do you really think that this is a real issue? Of course you don't. What this is, however, is your acknowledgement of your failure to win the aspirational, under-50 voters back from Mark Latham. So now, what you are doing is appealing to the grey RSL regulars that you *know* dominate our society. You've gone back to Johnny heartland: the voters that are resistant to change; resistant to dissent; and, above all, resistant to those pesky young-folk that have no respect for their elders. You have to wonder why, John, when you pull such cynical stunts such as this. it shows a politician that is desperate: trying to exploit the racist, conservative heartland - instead of making politics about ideas, you make it about winning. I have to ask: what happens to the Aboriginal children? Will their flag be displayed alongside the Australian flag as a symbol of unity? Or will the Australian flag be it - a symbol of the "like it or leave it" attitude of colonialism? A symbol of pride for some, but a symbol of oppression for others? John, you have successfully reversed most of the things that have made this country great and unique. It is only when I get a tolerant Australia with a flag that does not have the Union Jack on it (first and foremost) that I will stand proud. Until then, I will write this off as yet another political stunt from a cynical politician, desperate to cling onto his power base.
Normally I leave Big Brother commentary to those who are better at it than I am, but I just can't leave last Sunday's eviction show without commenting on it.
For those that did not see it, the 5th evictee, Merlin, walked down the plank to the stage. He put gaffa tape on his mouth, help up a sign "free the refugees" and refused to talk to Gretel (who handled it fabulously given the circumstances), with sexy results.
Now, there were two great things that came out of this show. Firstly, it showed tremendous courage on Merlin's part. Secondly, I think it showed a new, young side of Australia that is really encouraging - and rare - to see on national television.
When Merlin jumped out of the car, you could see that he was extremely nervous. There were thousands (is it thousands? I looked like it) of people cheering him on. He fiddled with the sign and the tape for a while and everyone was collectively wondering "what the hell is he up to?". And then he pulled it out. A shitty sign with "Free the Refugees" on it. And it gets better... he WALKED RIGHT PAST GRETEL AND SAT DOWN, gaffa tape on, and refused to talk. I nearly peed my pants from that one! But you could see it in his eyes - he looked like he wanted to cry, apologise and take it all back, but he stood his ground.
I just have to say that it was phenomenally brave of Merlin to do such a thing, with the audience booing (why?!), and Gretel trying to salvage what was left of the eviction show. It was one of those great moments in television... where a leftie got one over the big guys :)
The main thing that surprised me, however, is the way the housemates reacted to Merlin's message. We hear on talkback radio that refugees are "dangerous terrorists", that the majority of Australians support mandatory detention, and that to support their freedom would be "unAustralian". But I saw something very different. For me it showed a huge cultural shift that represents how Generation X & Y are ignored in public debate. Sure, Big Brother is hardly representative of young Australia, but its all we've got for now... and I liked what I saw. People who were tolerant of Merlin's opinion (and most even agreed with him), had great respect for him and defended him over and over.
The way the housemates reacted gave me more than pure voyeuristic pleasure - it gave me a sense of confidence that things will eventually be ok. Baby boomers dominate the political scene, and whilst it is their democratic right to do so, we often lose sight of the younger generations' opinions - generally opinions supportive of multiculturalism, diversity, postmodern theory, and most importantly, a strong sense of justice.
It sure made me feel good for a fleeting moment. Of course, then I read the newspaper again and I turned into a frustrated young person again. But hey, it was a special moment, even if it did only last an hour.
Good on ya Merlin...
I didn't get it. They said that I was a competitve candidate, but didn't really get it. Ah well. No biggie really.
I wasn't going to update until my last essay and exam were out of the way at the end of the week, but hey, What would study be without procrastination? Yesterday I had a job interview for a really good [Policy] position that I thought I had absolutely no chance of getting. To make matters worse, living 800km from Perth meant that I had to have a phone interview. And, my god, was that the worst possible thing that could ever happen to anyone. Public service positions are based on merit based selection, and that is great. But when you are already a bundle of nerves and cannot even SEE the people that are interviewing you, it adds a whole new dimension to the interview experience. So, being the self-loathing, agonised writing-type with absolutely NO idea why I was even being interviewed in the first place, you can imagine how much fun I had... First, I had to talk about community engagement principles, my understanding of domestic violence and the state strategic plan and all that... and I did really well. The boss-man was making jokes and seemed to understand what I was getting at most of the time (which is new for me... it must be a policy-person thing, where there is an unspoken understanding of sleepless nights thinking about political problems!). I made a comment early in the interview that it is hard to know whether I am saying the right thing, oe boring them to death because I can't see their faces. Big Kahuna laughed and said "don't worry, we're all smiling" So, anyway, I was doing really well. Then, I got an EASY question. An EASY question that I just could not answer, despite me having done several interviews in the past and being acutely aware of the position and everything that it involves. ARGH! Here's a little transcript. Interviewer: "So, Téa, knowing that this is a small office whose decisions can impact on a whole state of women, government employees' practice and the community at large, how would this affect the way that you do your work." (silence) (more silence) Me [thinking]: "Shit... potentially 2 million people..." Me [talking]: "I would utilise community engagement principles of course..." Interviewer: "What skills do you believe you could bring to the position, in that context?" (silence) Me: "Good communication skills, good team skills as it is a small policy unit, good understanding of community engagement principles, including having an awareness of cultural diversity, researching and educating myself about these things..." (silence) Me: "Do you want to know specifically how I would communicate?" Interviewer: Yes. Me: "I'm sorry, you know how something just...well..leaves your head? I know this stuff!" Interviewer: "It's ok, I think you've touched on what we need..." And then, we moved onto Q&A time, where I asked if I was shortlisted, because I was surprised I was selected for an interview. He said that I had been shortlisted from a huge number of applicants and that my applciation was really strong. Wowee. Bit of a confidence boost for me, considering the job that this is... So, anyway, now I wait. And I agonise. Apparently I will hear on Monday. Damn them for making me wait all weekend! I don't want to be overly confident, after all, in hindsight I cannot believe the things I forgot to say... but hey... wish me luck. And tell me if you think I got the job. I went to Facade for some Tarot insight and it gave me a really good card, which means excitement, rebirth and challenges. So yeah... anyway, how this ended up so long I have no idea.
To add insult to injury... Doctors want an extra $675 a week. Well, whoopee. Since when have doctors been the only professionals that deserve a payrise in our public health system? Not only that, but $675 a week is more than the average nurse or social worker EARNS. It's an absolute joke. I don't care if I piss off doctors - I am all for investing in the health system, but demanding a raise that is more money than most people, including nurses, orderlies, social workers, hospital administrators, and so on earn... it is absolutely disgraceful. Sure, they are overworked, and sure 20 hour shifts are ridiculous, but until everyone gets greater recognition of their skills in the health sector, I am not about to start crying over someone that earns $130,000 a year.
Bush says Reagan helped save the world Yes. Sure he did. He sold weapons to Iran...
...but only if you're American. First of all I want to get this off my chest: "what a load of shit". Now, let me get to the real stuff. Australia is one of the truly democratic nations in the world. Sure, it isn't perfect - like most nations it is run by wealthy white heterosexual men and has a long history of native blood going splat in the name of Christianity. But hey, which country doesn't?! One thing we can be proud of, despite our ills, is that we have a nation that is pretty darn good in comparison to other "democracies". We have a system of compulsory, preferential voting that ensures everybody's vote (whether informed or not) counts. We have a vibrant pluralist system (occasionally), a strong bureaucracy (despite it being undermined in recent years) with fairly good appeals processes, and most importantly, a parliament that allows for alternative policies to the government of the day. Not only that, we have two current affairs shows that ensure that just about anyone can get their opinions heard. Unless of course you're a hippy, a bureaucrat, a welfare worker, a dodgy builder or any sort of do-gooder. Alas, I digress. I was talking about how Australia is a democratic nation, with a parliament that allows for something that is strange to the likes of George Bush: a viable opposition. Mark Latham, as the next Prime Minister of this country, has the FREEDOM, through this DEMOCRATIC institution that he is about to lead, to express his point of view on Iraq. Now, I may diagree with Mark Latham's position on many things, but on this one I think he is right on the money. But, that is beside the point. George Bush walks around, bible in hand, dribbling rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy", but does not promote it in his policies, in his speeches or in Iraq. But of course, we all know that America is an autocracy disguised cleverly as a democracy. George Bush acts in spite of public opinion and without the mandate of the American people. People cannot forget that. But again, I digress. This democracy that Australia has, as complex as it may be, is more representative than America. Here, the government of the day, for better or worse, has the mandate of the Australian people. Sure, they are accountable in the Senate, but Australians like it that way. If the ALP win this election, troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. This means that Mark Latham will have the mandate of the majority of Australians to withdraw troops from Iraq. Surely George Bush would not argue with that? After all, he is such a huge fan of freedom and democracy...
Thanks to Jase for this great link: Pictures in Baghdad Its actually a little unnerving to see picture of flowers, nut shops and palm trees. Take a look.
I would like to take the opportunity to publicise my husband's blog. Yes, he has entered into the adventurous world of blogging - and does it better than I do. Darn it. It sucks to be you. Apparently so-named because if you are reading his blog, you truly are pathetic ;) But hey... Here's a shout out to Jason.
Cheney's slick deal for old firm Is anyone as surprised as I am? (not) And here's another one. "Sorry" Sign to ease road rage I have two cracks I can make here: 1) If I have to have a sign that says "I'm Sorry", then I also want one that will flip the bird. Or, perhaps, a big red boxing glove on a spring that you can eject. What movie was that again? 2) I wonder if the Prime Minister will use his? It seems the words "I'm Sorry" are not his favourite. The light may result in an admiision of guilt, and we don't want that now, do we? hmm...
OK, I couldn't let this one go by without at least a comment. I think that this is one of the poorest pieces of journalism I have EVER seen in a Murdoch paper. And that really is saying a lot, given that, well, it's Murdoch. My question is, why is Natasha Stott-Despoja's eligibility for the $3000 maternity payment even relevant to the debate, other than, of course, to try and make a mockery of a young working woman's opinion that the payment is nothing but a whitewash? I imagine that the writer (or writers, given that the Murdoch press usually have a few staff writers working on one 200 word article) was trying to point out some sort of irony, or try to counter Natasha's valid criticism of the maternity payment by pointing out an inconsistency (if there is one at all). I just don't get what the purpose of this story is, because it fails in the irony stakes, it fails to counter Natasha's view... perhaps it is a politically motivated page-filler to further relegate women's issues to pettiness and mockery. Oh. I think thats exactly what it is. In amongst the adverts and stories about chickens that can talk is this little ditty about the critic of the maternity allowance being eligible for the payment... What people are forgetting, firstly, is that both the $800 maternity payment and baby bonus (worth up to $2500) have been replaced by this allowance. It is not a new allowance, it is merely consolidated benefits. Secondly, those who work prior to pregnancy are still going to be worse off as a result of having a baby due to forfeiting a salary. Thirdly, the payment is not "family" friendly for one important reason: there are a lot of families out there that have finished having their babies and need to cope with the day-to-day. A truly "family-friendly" policy needs to account for the mothers who spend half their income on childcare, rack up debt with a no-win-situation, otherwise called the Family Assistance Office, and, of course... young families being crippled by HECS debts, and unable to buy houses amongst other things. And, of course, assuming that all families have a stay-at-home mother in a heterosexual marriage (as defined by the Marriage Act amendments) and living behind a white picket fence... BLERGH! Come off it John. This payment is nothing but another conservative sweetener to keep women as breeders, but providing absolutely no assistance to women who do not stay at home with their children.
This is the key to my success... or is it? It seems that publishers are now taking notice of the Blog thing. I'd better lift my game - who knows, there could be limitless fame and fortune awaiting me. Or not. We all know that most writers still survive on baked beans, even if they are published. Now, children's books , that's where the Harry-Potter-who-gives-a-shit-but-I-would-sure-like-to-write-sonmething-worth-billions successes are. OK, I'm feeling a bit cynical today. I doubt anyone will be emailing me out of the blue asking me for my Michael Moore-esque rants in print... But, if you are out there, I will wave like an uncomfortable Sim without a chair at you and hope for the best.
The local primary school's Principal came into the office today and offered us a heap of books they are getting rid of. There were three boxes full, and there were SO many classics, like Robin Klein, Roald Dahl, Paul Jennings, Choose You Own Adventure books, Babysitter's Club... you name it! I feel like I have won the lottery - all my favourite childhood books are now sitting in ap lastic bag, waiting for me to take them home. Woohoooooo!
Bush falls off bike This is what happens when Daddy Bush takes off the training wheels... Bush suffered minor abrasions to his chin, upper lip, nose, right hand and both knees, but was able to ride back home, Duffy said. Wow, he got himself injured during the Iraq war, but not quite how people would imagine... Tubb treated the president at the scene. Bush was wearing a helmet and a mouth guard when he fell, Duffy said. Buahahahahaha! He wore a mouthguard riding a bicycle? In January 2002, Bush fainted for a brief time in the residence of the White House while eating a pretzel and watching a professional football game on television. OK, so let me get this straight. Our wartime President get injured twice in his term. Once from falling of a bike and the other from choking on a pretzel. Its no surprise this guy wears a mouthguard whilst riding a bicycle - he seems a little accident-prone. :)
Normally I am a good sport. Really, I am. I applied for an internal vacancy yesterday back in Perth, and it took no more than 12 hours to get this reply: Tea, thank you for your expression of interest for the advertised position. You have not been successful. Wow, geez, thanks. I mean, I know how the public service works: they advertise internal vacancies in order to renew existing contracts, but still... where is the honesty? Being the bundle of self-loathing mess that I am, I naturally assume it was something to do with me and my application that made me get rejected. Not only that, getting rejected so quickly after the application...ARGH. But, I am a wuss. You know what I did? Little miss polite Téa just replies: Hi xxx, Could you please provide some feedback about why I was not considered for the role? Pussy! That was NOT what I was thinking at all. Here is what I would have LIKED to have written: I really wanted to say "Dear Sir, Sorry to have WASTED your time with a job I am obviously overqualified for. Seeing as you have obviously not taken the time to assess my application on its merits, could you at least tell me WHY so that I can shatter any further hope of fulfilling anything even remotely close to my goal? Or at least reevaluate why the hell I even bother with a Masters degree to miss out on a paltry Level 4 position? And, for the record, I will have your job one day. Bitchy, I know. But damn, I wish I could have been honest about it. They say that the process is meant to be fair and open. Bullshit. Like I said, normally I am a good sport, and I do understand how it all works. But it doesn't help being on the receiving end of it.
The America We Know I found it interesting that I was saying a similar thing this time last year around the war. Of course, I used Michael Jackson and Saddam Hussein, but hey, maybe I could be a paid writer too... If you go back and read what I wrote, you will notice that I was commenting on the way war is presented, or represented, on commercial television. My friends, the events of the past few weeks are what I was waiting for. Now, don't get me wrong - it is horrific what is happening and the images are very upsetting - but I was waiting for this. I was hoping for the gory details to snap people out of the dream world that has been created for us by the media. For once we are being forced to confront the violence and the human suffering that has been caused by this invasion. So, I want to give a big thumbs up to the journalists that exposed the gritty reality of this war. The more we see, the more we'll be outraged. And the more we are outraged - and the more we are witness to the tragedy of war - the more we will oppose it. And the more we oppose it, the more resistant we will be to Bush and his ilk the next time they drag us into a war nobody wants.
Gwyneth gives birth to girl OK. That is the stupidest thing of 2004. Apple? FFS... Gwyneth, there are cool "different" names and then there are just plain stupid. Try to guess which category yours fits into.
It is interesting how much you learn about yourself when you're least expecting it. Right now I am homesick as hell, and feel a bit like I could easily just jump in the car, drive home, and start all over again. And sometimes, I can't help but think I have made a horrible mistake by dragging my family to a small town, a small office and a job that..sometimes...I don't know that I committed to anymore. I feel like I have forfeited all my chances of promotion into a policy job, its really hard to make friends and the work is hard. Actually, hard doesn't do it justice. It's painful sometimes. For weeks I have been thinking "what does this mean?", "why can't I commit to this job?". Well, in part, its because I took a huge risk - jumping into a field that is different to what I am used to - but part of it is around me and my broader search for meaning. And I found it in the most unlikely of places. I watched eLove on the Lifestyle channel last night, which is a reality show cum documentary about internet love. A divorced American Policeman had been chatting to an English woman for over a year. He had told her "I love you", they had phone conversations, they had shared photos and webcams, emailed back and forth, chatted, talked obsessively about each other to their friends... well, you get the picture. Then, this eLove show comes along, pays for her to go to New York to meet him...with sexy results. OK, no sexy results, but that's just a lame thing I say ;) Anyway, despite this electronic barrage of intimate secret sharing, joking, and mutual "I Love You" sessions, the American policeman ended up not only rejecting the pommie lady, but he CUT THE DATE SHORT! Now, this could be a reflection of his personality (I mean, NY Policeman: read moustache, chewing gum and a loud mouth - a walking stereotype), or it could be a broader comment around human nature. Of course, it wouldn't be a very interesting blog if I just called him a jerk, so of course I am going to say that it is something bigger than that. It is about fantasy and reality, and how we always want what we can't have. Internet relationships are a little like the fantasy of living and working in a small town. You build up this fantasy of how different life would be if you were away, or if this person you had fantasised about were with you. You create a magical place, where you can relax, socialise effortlessly, and run through daisies in a meadow. And then you do it. You decide to turn this fantasy into reality. And that reality is nothing like you thought it would be. It is the day-to-day, warts and all, experience of what you had conjured up in your head. If you had experienced this without the fantasy, it wouldn't be a disappointment - it would just be life. But, because you've dreamt about it for a long time, often because of a desire to escape this bitch called reality, it will never, EVER live up to the glossy images. It's a bit like holidays. You pour over the glossy magazines of white sandy beaches and cafés, but when you get there, you realise that there is gastro, homelessness and human suffering outside the cosy confines of the resort. Internet relationships are exactly the same. No matter how honest particpants profess to be with each other, you are still only seeing the magazine article. You are not hearing the loudmouth policeman, or smelling the bad breath in the morning, or having to deal with that person rolling their eyes when you speak. And in Esperance, despite its physical beauty, there is an undercurrent of religious zeal, homelessness, depression, cliquey-ness and cold. Lots of cold. The reality is just far too much. Then you start to yearn for the days where life was better: the warm fuzzy feeling you got when you were in-a-relationship-with-no-human-contact, writing nice notes and having heartfelt discussions. And you were only dreaming about moving to the country, but still living a life you like. On eLove, they pommie chick and the policeman managed to salvage their friendship via email, but it will never be the same. Most of these come-crashing-down-to-reality experiences change you at your core. Part of it is growing up and realise that you cannot escape the reality of life, and part of it is the disappointment associated with it. I will go home to the city soon, having learnt that maybe I made a huge mistake. But, on the other hand, I can take some relief in the fact that if I didn't experience it, I would never have learned that real life isn't so bad.
Watchdog of the Wankers Now *this* is what a blog should look like. Well written, funny, and right on the money (except for that Craig Reucassel thing..I am more of a Chris Taylor sort of girl) :) Will update again soon. I have loads of juicy stuff.
Write This!: an excellent creative writing exercise tool that gives random words and random situations to write around within a set timeframe. I have already written a few stories that I would have never thought of otherwise. Check it out!
I have discovered WindowBlinds, a cool little utility that lets you skin XP. Being a Mac OSX wannabe, I thought it was only natural that I skin my XP with OSX. This is what it looks like.
Not sure if anyone is interested in reading this, but I thought I would share an essay I wrote on Elite theory. It still needs some work (I got a bit lazy around the ending), but it might provoke someone's interest :)
--
It has been said that pluralism is one of the main characteristics of a thriving liberal democracy, and it has been long accepted that Australia is, indeed, a pluralist democracy (Henderson, 1990, p.201). A manifestation of a truly pluralist democracy is the existence of interest groups that compete for government attention, and actively try to influence government policy.
Pluralism refers to “…a form of democracy that operates through the capacity of organised groups and interests to articulate popular demands and ensure government responsiveness.” (Heywood, 1997, p.77) This has been a long-held ideal for Australia: the notion of a ‘fair go’ that manifests in all interest groups having a chance to influence government - irrespective of wealth, size or the political status of those being represented. However, there has also been significant criticism of this opinion, arguing that despite the ideals of pluralism, Australia more closely fits the ‘elitist model’ – in that some groups are the most influential in the Australian system (Henderson, 1990, p.201).
Elite theory is defined in many different ways, depending on whether it has been seen as desirable, undesirable or simply as inevitability (Heywood, 1997, p.78). Modern elite theory, however, has been generally associated with American thinkers such as C. Wright Mills and Thomas Dye. It refers to “…a minority in whose hands power, wealth or privilege is concentrated.” In other words, a highly-concentrated number of ‘elites’ control most of the wealth, most of the power and most of the privilege in society – and use this wealth, power and privilege to influence the decisions of government.
I haven't written for some time, as many of you may be aware (if anyone is still reading this at all...). I have had a bit of a change recently. I changed jobs, which took me 800km away from Perth, in a beautiful, postcard-esque town called Esperance.
It is the first time I have lived away from Perth, and I must say it has taken some adjustment. I basically got offered a position as a social worker out of the blue, and had about 2 weeks to get all my stuff packed, Jason to give his notice, kiss everyone goodbye and head for Esperance.
And then, all of a sudden we were here, living 800 kilometres from home, still renting DVD's, still watching Foxtel, still trying desperately to stick to the low carb diet, still going to work everyday - only amidst this backdrop of sheer paradise. Look at this picture - this is literally 5 minutes from my house. It is really, really strange. And really, really surreal.
And life goes on. My family ring me asking "so, how is it in Esperance?" and I don't know what to say. I guess they want me to enthuse, or go into great detail about everything, but, at the end of the day, I guess I have already, in the space of six weeks, taken for granted the paradise I live in. It's really hard not to just say "You know, same old, same old" to your family when they ask, but, really, that's all it is. If you keep the same comforts, the same hobbies, and have your family around you, it's amazing how we can be satisfied wherever we are.
Occasionally I think of the distance and feel like I have been punched in the stomach for a few seconds, but I guess that goes with the territory. Occasionally I wonder if I made the right move career-wise, but then I remember that its all part of my life experience.
I hope that I can share some good experiences through this blog here: I have just had a conversation with my "supervisor" about creative expression and my work, and whether I can write about my experiences down here. You'll find some things shocking, i'll tell you... I am here as much for my own philosophical learning experience as I am to make a living, so I would really like to express it.
But, we'll see. Just thought I would check in and let everyone know that I am here, I am sane... I am just making sure I don't get fired for writing things ;)
First off, I would like to wish everyone a Happy and Prosperous 2004. I, for one, hope to have a better year than I did last year: I guess that's really all we can hope for. Not dying and maybe trying to improve our lives a little bit from year to year. Not that I am really keen on the whole resolution thing, but still... It's been an eventful few weeks, what with earthquakes all over the place, Michael Jackson's arrest, and Steve Irwin being investigated for mistaking his newborn son for crocodile bait. But instead, me being the narcissist that I am, I am going to talk about myself. I learned a lot in 2003. I could focus on your typical Oprah-remembering-your-spirit crap, or I could talk about the things that I was rather surprised to learn about in 2003. You see, despite being fairly widely read, and despite being a moderately intelligent human being, there are a few things that I have naively taken for granted. You know, the silly, trivial things that you have never really questioned until you are surprised to learn how stupid you actually are. Here goes. 1. "Grease" has a lot of sexual references. I had no idea. I must've seen that movie about 40 times throughout my childhood: I knew the movie off by heart, I sang with it, dreamed I was Olivia Newton John singing "Hopelessly Devoted to You" whilst kneeling in the front yard (The neighbors thought I was a very strange kid). Then I watched it not so long ago and heard words that I had never known about. All of a sudden Rizzo was talking about gang bangs and all other sorts of stuff that I had no idea about! I was horrified! 2. There is no such thing as an anti-gravity chamber. Ok, I am sure the nerd-boys that love physics will snigger at me and say "what an idiot", but I really thought that there was some such thing as an anti-gravity chmber where you could just go and float around. Apparently they don't exist. Apparently there's something called gravitational pull on earth and you can't get around it. 3. Stealth bombers do not have special invisible paint. My husband was quick to point out this one to me. I thought that the diamond-type design was there to make it look cool and futuristic, and the steathy-ness was made by special paint that was undetectable by radar. Okay, so maybe I deserve to be laughed out of the room for that one, but hey, unless you have sought out the information, how are you supposed to know? The only reason it came up was because of some documentary on the stealth bomber came on the Discovery Channel. Until then my husband thought he was married to someone with a brain. Boy, was he wrong. 4. Pencils are not made by drilling a hole down the middle. I learned this from Play School of all places (a kids show, aimed at 3-5 year olds), where they went to a pencil factory. I always thought that pencils were made from really good quality sticks, and you just drilled a hole down the middle and put the leads in that way. Apparently that is *not* how it is done. Maybe if I had been allowed to watch television as a kid I might know this! So, there you have it. Four things that I have learned in 2003. Who knows, maybe in 2004 I'll learn that my favourite childhood singer is a paedophile. The thing about the New Year is not to make grand resolutions about changing your life. You can only do that if you are truly committed to it for the long term. But you can look back at the previous year and realise that at least you're just that little bit less stupid than you used to be
I don't know if any of you have been following the debate lately about higher education reform, but it is an issue that I am particularly interested in. For the un-initiated, the main reforms involve allowing school leavers who do not get the marks to enter University to pay their way into a course. I am interested in this issue not only as someone who has benefited from accessible education, but I am also opposed to the reforms because it is unfair. Plain and simple. Let me tell you why. The higher education system in America is a two tiered system, similar to the one proposed by the Liberal government. Wealthy children with not-so-great marks get into Harvard, Princeton, etc, and the rest either struggle their way through the tens of thousands of dollars in tuition fees, or take athletic scholarships to subsidise their education. Then, you have the countless young people who try to get an education by joining the military, like that poor, poor "Shock and Awe" poster-girl, Jessica Lynch. Like many other young working class (and increasingly, middle class) Americans, Jessica Lynch joined the military because she wanted a college degree, so that she could eventually become a teacher. Now, whether you agree with war or not, whether you believe the exaggerated stories of her 'rescue' or not, or even whether you agree with military service for our young or not - one thing remains abundantly clear. There are kids in America that are prepared to risk permanent disfigurement and even death so that they can receive an education. Surely, that can't be right. Surely, if you want an education in America you can have one? Right? Right...? Now, let us take a look at the person that sent Jessica Lynch and thousands of other teenagers to the war in Iraq. The walking answer to the question "what is wrong with the United States?" - George W. Bush. Did you know that George Junior has a degree in History from Yale? Did you know that he also holds an MBA from Harvard Business School? Pretty amazing feats for a man that referred to the "Chinesians". I guess I am amazed, primarily because I always thought that Universities like Harvard and Yale had some degree of academic integrity - where it most certainly helped to be rich, but it wasn't the overriding factor in admissions. I always thought that Harvard required a particularly high standard for entry, including a resume of real world experience, a strong grade-point average, and a 'reputable' degree. But, alas, I have been proven wrong, because it seems that baby George didn't need it because 1) his daddy was Chairman of the Republican National Committee and 2) They had shit loads of money. Sure, he had a degree from a reputable University...but honestly, do we *really* believe he has studied History? Maybe he's confusing an American History unit for a History degree... alas...back to my point. We don't know Jessica Lynch's academic history - for all we know she could have been a bare-pass student. She could also be very bright. However, even if she is only average, what differentiates one bear-pass student like Lynch, from another like George W Bush? The Moula. And its wrong. There is something inherently unfair about a stupid man with a lot of money, coasting his way through life, having access to all the "best" schools, and others who are not necessarily outstanding, but also not rich, being sent off to war so that they can receive an education. And this, my friends, brings to my point about user-pays in higher education reforms in Australia. If you allow universities to charge upfront fees to people who cannot get in on their own merits, you take one step closer towards a two-tiered education system. On one hand, you have students who work hard to get a 65%+ average to get into University. They will graduate with massive amounts of debt and get squeezed out of the more expensive courses, and as a result, will never escape the working class trap. Then, you'll have kids who have never worked an honest day in their lives - coasting into an LLB with a 60% average and a fistful of dollars, who will graduate into easy jobs with friends-of-friends, and maintain their hold on society by forming the elite. And then, before you know it, we'll no longer be saying "don't let it go the way of America", because by then we'll already be there. And by then, we'll be sending our working class kids to fight in wars, getting themselves maimed and killed in order to get an education. Higher education "reform" is nothing but another attempt by John Howard to turn us into the 51st state of America. Its times like this I feel an awful lot like a Canadian.
Well, today marks the second anniversary of the September 11th attacks. I bet you weren't aware of that, seeing as the media so often underplays that footage...and there is practically no commemorative spam...lol. I just got a CNN Breaking News message that says "[the] State Department warns of "increased indications" that al Qaeda is preparing attacks on U.S. interests to coincide with 9/11 anniversary." What the hell does "increased indications" mean? How much longer is the government going to keep Americans in a state of fear? Excuse me if I rant a little bit, but it is fear of EVERYTHING that makes yanks so utterly irrational. They are afraid of everything that might happen - and nothing that *does* happen. For example, did you know that 38% of children in America, or 27 million kids, live in a low income family? Of those, over 12 million live in poverty, and over 5 million live in extreme poverty. That's more alarming than 'increased indications' of an al Qaeda attack. Did you know that heart disease is America's biggest killer? Did you know that lung cancer is the second? And did you know that the number one disease affecting children is asthma? Did you know that there is a causal link between air pollution and all of these chronic diseases? And did you know that Bush and Cheney have an interest in companies that are responsible for massive amounts of pollution? Oil companies are the largest industrial source of volatile organic compounds (which lead to ozone smog), the second largest industrial source of sulfur dioxide (which is transformed into dangerous fine particles and acid rain) and the third largest industrial source of nitrogen oxides (another smog- forming pollutant). Oil refineries also emit large amounts of toxic air pollutants -- more than 58 million pounds in 1997. Healthcare funding has been cut, which makes things even worse for those who suffer illnesses as a result of pollution. Why aren't people angry or scared about this? Military spending is at an all time high. It has been legitimised by the periodic releases of terror alerts, each getting more and more vague. Keep them scared...keep them frightened about things that will be unlikely to affect them...so that they don't have time to think about the things that do. "Increased indications" of a terrorist attack. Just look at that phrase. That's the BEST they can do. Coincidentally, it came out just as people were starting to doubt the success of the war on Iraq. Just as Bush' popularity is declining. Just as domestic issues, like the environment and health care, are slowly making their way back onto the agenda...what happens? The anniversary of September 11. That hotbed of grief, injustice and terror that is still fresh in most people's minds. But, we need to put it in perspective. It happened. It was horrible. And it does represent people's worst fears. However, it gets to the point where the government starts to use it as a tool to manipulate the public. They manipulate the grief, anxiety and shock to further their own morally corrupt agendas. And, worse than that, to criticise them means that you are un-American, or anti-American (as I have been called a fair few times *g*). I am not saying 'get over it' to Americans. But I am saying that you shouldn't let a group of corrupt, wealthy, and very greedy men use the memory to manipulate public opinion and further their own agendas. Start holding them accountable. Demand quality healthcare. Demand clean air. Sure, there is a slightly increased risk of a terrorist attack, and yes, someone might kill you. That is, if the air you breathe doesn't kill you first. We need to get our fears into perspective. We need to realise that being hit by a bus is more likely than being on a bus with a suicide bomber. And that you are more likely to die from the"food" you ingest than from anthrax. And most of all, you need to get that oaf out of power before we're all wiped off the face of the earth
I am sorry I haven't updated much (yet again), but I have been busy with uni work. However, I promise better quality posting from here on in. As you can see, I have implemented a book reviews page - to share some of my favourite books with you. I am putting an Amazon link up here, just to see if I can get any help funding my book addiction. If you're interested in buying the book, by all means feel free to buy them using my affiliate number: All it does is give me some sort of discount on the books I buy all the time from Amazon. So any help would be great. That's not me trying to make money off my site at all - I just figured that if I was going to link to Amazon I might as well get those gift vouchers ;) The first book is "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. I wont be cross-promoting my areas at all - this is the last time :) So, even if you don't see a lot of updates from me in the blog department - I do try my best - but, unfortunately when your 3000 word essay on Elite theory in Australia beckons, it is hard to find an excuse to update when ...well...you know how it is. Anyway, I hope that there are still people visiting this site. lol.
The Matrix versus the real world and soggy sandwiches.. Golly gosh, where do I begin? I haven't written here for what - 2 months now? Despite my grand promises of updating every week, life inevitably gets in the way. And, whenever I do go to update, my Blog ideas end up being out of date. Let me fill you all in on the brilliant ideas I have had for Blogs in the last few months. There was that brilliant piece I had mapped out in my head that was meant to coincide with the release of Matrix: Reloaded, intertwining global media corporations and Matrix philosophy. Then there was the brilliant piece about Michael Jackson, and that bit about why I actively avoid Harry Potter and want to strangle Avril Lavigne, or... ok, I think you get the point. I had a lot of really good Blog ideas and I never wrote any of them. Why? You ask? Well, For the first time ever, Téa has ventured into the big wide world of the 9-5. The hustle and bustle of peak hour traffic and the smell of soggy homemade lunches. That's right - I got myself a job. For years, people have been telling me that I should join the real world, and escape the insular, protective shell of University life. Why they thought I wasn't in the real world is beyond me - I think that cleaning grease-catches and making souvlaki for intoxicated accountants for $4 an hour is about as real-world as you can get. I suppose its more a strategy for fobbing off intelligent conversation. But anyway. I have, for all intents and purposes, joined the "real world", where people don't have time to write humourous (apparently) columns, troll usenet or talk about insignificant crap with American feral mothers. I have entered a world where no matter how creative, no matter how brilliant, or no matter how committed we are to surfing for porn, we all do the same thing: flop on the couch at 6pm and go to sleep by 9:30. That's right. I have been eaten by the work monster. That beast that usurps all my creative energy, and lets my hard earned finger callouses from years of guitar playing go soft. It makes my webpage feel neglected and my Yahoo! groups have a gaping great hole where there was once insignificant diatribe. It leaves my IM windows unanswered, my phone messages ignored, and that 20 pages of the novel I started go unwritten. I used to iron clothes once every 2 weeks or so. Now I iron every day. And I wear stockings. I hate stockings. I always said that there was one way to know you were officially a grownup - and that is that you wear stockings more than once a month. You may be thinking right about now "gawd, you'd think she was the only person to ever start working full time!" Don't get me wrong, as far as jobs go, I have a good one, but sometimes I don't feel there is a lot of scope for Uni graduates in particular to be able to adjust. When you are someone like me who is particularly creative, and actually has physical withdrawals when I am not writing, or drawing, or playing music, it is a major culture shock going from University to full time work. First of all, University was invented so that people could sit around, smoke pot and think about life. It allows self-expression, creativity, and exploration of all things magical in this world, like philosophy, art, and popular culture (It also enables a lot of TV viewing, such as Springer, Bold and the Beautiful and Passions, but that is another story altogether!). Secondly, there is all this free time. Sure, you'd need to get up for that "early" lecture at 9am once a week, but for the most part, Uni work was on your own terms and to your own schedule. Then, the unwitting graduate walks into a job where there is structure and process and post it notes and a computer that actually uses the Calendar and Tasks in Outlook. And suddenly 11 hours a day is gone. And then whammo - all of a sudden you are consumed by paper and phone calls and process and paper - and before you know it, you have neglected your web pages, your music and your writing, and bit by bit you lose a little piece of yourself that you'll never get back. Maybe I was just never really cut out for the 9-5 in a strict sense. I don't have patience for detail, and worst of all, I really get stifled and bored very quickly if I am not creatively stimulated (shaddup dirty minded people). I have been seriously contemplating the idea of doing a Dip Ed in 2004, then heading out to a country school to teach in 2005. I suppose everyone idealises certain career paths, but my whole life I have been drawn to teaching. And especially being in an office environment (even though that particular environment is fantastic), I don't know if I am really cut out for it. I need to be constantly challenged, moved and entertained - and I have a strong desire to make a difference in people's lives. And, I don't have to wear stockings. Maybe I just belong in an education environment for the rest of my life. I am so happy when I am teaching others or learning that I suppose its the natural choice. But then that would mean I'd need to escape the "real world". Is that such a bad thing? After all, 99.9% of people in the Matrix live in blissful ignorance.The Matrix Versus The Real World and Soggy Sandwiches...
As you all may have noticed, I haven't written here for some time. It wasn't because I didn't have anything to write about, but because there has just been so much, and I am just *so* lazy :). Where on earth do I begin? In January, the last time I posted here, the world was only talking about bombing Iraq to smitherines; now they are "liberated". In January the infamous Bashir interviews with Michael Jackson were only talked about and not seen; now, we are aware of what an absolute freak he is - and how thin a line there is between a documentary and tabloid journalism. In January 70% of people in Australia and in America opposed war on Iraq; now public opposition is less than half of that. Oh, and of course, "freedom" fries are the new side dish at McDonald's. Try swallowing those without gagging! So, with such huge issues unfolding before our very eyes, where can I begin? What can I write about? All of these issues are rant-worthy in their own right. However, as unrelated as Michael Jackson may appear to be to the war on Iraq, there are elements that are eerily similar. And no, its not about both Saddam and Michael being weird recluses or even a joke about Michael Jackson hiring Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (the Iraqi Intelligence Minister) as his publicist, its about our obsession with entertainment: our ability, through the media, and as a society, to detach ourselves from tragedy and turn it into entertainment. Watching Michael Jackson's interview gave me an uneasy feeling, and yet I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. At first I thought it was because I felt undecided about his "involvement" with children (and I am not prepared to speculate, as far as I am concerned he has not been found guilty by a jury) - or that I felt he was just such a sad, tragic figure that it broke my heart. But I realised that it wasn't any of that. It was the fact that this man had been propped up as entertainment for the millions of people that watched, even though he is clearly in need of help (what sort, I don't know, but I believe he's mentally ill). The spectacle that was made of his life and his problems, through this documentary, did what the media does best. It detached us from the very real tragedy of Michael Jackson's life. An arguably brilliant man who has been destroyed by his family and by the media. And what did people talk about after the interview aired? Not whether it was moral to interview him in the first place, nor whether it was responsible to portray Michael that way (in my opinion, 'trial by media' should be a crime). They talked about - you guessed it - whether he raped some kid with cancer. Its this obsession with gossip and innuendo, and of course, celebrity, that desensitises us from the issues we should be thinking about. The issues that really should matter, such as media morality, or the concept of "celebrity". I don't think I will ever forget how I felt the morning (Australian time) that the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad. All of our television networks (with the exception of the ABC) brought live footage, uttering buzzwords such as "shock and awe", "dazzling display", and "light show over Baghdad" - like it was some sort of pretty fireworks display for all the loyal viewers. The 24 hour coverage, complete with sexy footage and advertising revenue, reiterated and repeated the same information over again. It had a two-tiered effect: Firstly, it perpetuated that culture of fear that has dominated America for the better part of this century, and secondly, it reduced the war into yet another ratings bonanza. For those that supported the war it was great seeing the "fireworks" around Baghdad, and journalists reporting with gasmasks, struggling to breathe. It was, first and foremost, quality entertainment. People were being fed simplistic ideas in a simple way - and we wonder why they now support the war? Of course, because we don't get to see the hundreds (possibly thousands) of Iraqi women's bodies, impaled, limbless, clutching the corpses of their newborn babies. We don't see Iraqi children who are in hospital with shrapnel wounds. No, that would be too confronting for prime time. But that, my friends, is the reality of war. The reality that we are not seeing, because we only see what "they" want us to see. They want us to see advertising. They want us to keep consuming. They don't want us to see the gritty reality of war, nor do they want to see real debate about the legality or the moral justification for it. So they trivialise it. Make it pretty. Make it seem like a distant problem, that is only happening to "them" in Iraq. Well, unfortunately, the more we detach ourselves from tragedy, the more we create a real problem in our society, because we allow our leaders to get away with brainwashing, greed and corruption. And then, instead of actually debating the issues, we do idiotic things like renaming French Fries to "Freedom Fries". They've really done their job well when you think about it.
Its been a big week for sports this week. The Superbowl, the Australian Open, the Cricket...the Geelong bay cycling classic. And of course, the FA Cup. For those who are not aware, soccer riots are not particularly uncommon around the world. We often see it on the news: some club has lost, the fans start a riot, a few people get injured or killed, arrests are made and they move onto the next game, where yet another riot breaks out. It's not something that surprises me much anymore - seeing English soccer fans with all their dutch courage trampling some poor old lady wearing a Manchester scarf. Generally I just scoff and say that it is something that is unique to soccer fans. "It's like religion, it's weeird" I say to myself. Yesterday's Superbowl also induced riots when Oakland Raiders fans lost the game. They set fire to cars and a McDonald's restaurant because they were drunk and noone would serve them. Ok, I made that bit up. But they did actually set fire to the place. What is interesting here, however, is that the Raiders' fans also rioted when they *won* the week before! It's rather funny when you think about it, but it also makes me wonder if people, firstly, use sport as an excuse to be utter melonheads, or whether they are so blinded by faith for their teams that they *honestly* believe that supporters of the opposing team are an "enemy". As someone who defines my interest in sport as 'passing', and my knowledge of sporting events being limited to the 10 minutes on Chennel Ten news every night, it's something I simply cannot comprehend. Or can I? Perhaps it gives us more insight into nationalism and how it can skew our perspective. "Nation" as a concept is something that is unclear in its meaning. It is not simply a matter of drawing a line on a map and calling it a nation - it is far more complex than that. It is both objective and subjective. In a formal sense, it is a cultural entity: people who speak the same language, have the same religion, have a shared history, and so on. However, it is commonly accepted that a nation, or a community, can also be defined subjectively by its members, and could be distinguished by a shared loyalty or affection in the form of patriotism. Why doesn't this apply to soccer teams? Or Raiders fans? Or the Lisa Loeb Fan Forum? As I type, American, UK and Australian troops are headed for the gulf to fight a war that about 60% (and rising) of their people disagree with. There was an article in the West Australian a couple of days ago that says that 65% of people have no faith in their politicians with regard to environmental issues, and this is a common trend across the western world. Our governments are simply not listening to their people. Most of us just want good quality healthcare and education for our children, and reliable roads and a government that takes care of those unable to take care of themselves. And we simply aren't getting it. America spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the military, Australia has increased its funding in defence. And noone wants it. People's faith in their government is dwindling and they are feeling increasingly helpless as we are led into World War 3 by a maniac with a vendetta and a lust for crude. Now you may wonder why this is related to soccer riots and the riots that took place at the Superbowl. Well, it occured to me the other day, as I heard the news about the Superbowl riot, that people have nothing to fight for anymore because their governments just won't listen. They have noone to believe in, noone to identify with and bind them as a nation. Our politicians are corrupt, our priests abuse their power. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, and the poor are marginalised for objecting under the guise of "free enterprise". So instead, we turn to that last place where equality is not a dirty word: Sports. The one place where the "level playing field" is exactly that, and not another government buzzword to dupe the poor out of medicine. Where flags once flew there are now team scarves and hats. And where national anthems once rang, there are team songs. Where there were inspirational political speeches about how our world *should be*, there are backflips and bum patts over a goal. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not at all trying to justify the behaviour of those hooligans that go and beat up other fans. If anything, it gives us some insight into the ugly side of human nature: that instead of enjoying a game together in an environment of equality and respect, they'll attempt to beat up the enemy, all the while disrespecting other people's environment and property to prove their point. Just like the Americans are quite prepared to create war, to the detriment of our environment and our people, to prove the point that they are the "biggest" in the world. However, in the end, is it really worth it? At the end of the day all you have is a burnt car and a burnt McDonalds restaurant. And a few people dead. But it never actually solves the issue, does it?
It has been a while since I posted anything here, but I will try to post more from now on. There have been a few reasons why I wasn't as enthusiastic about keeping this blog going. The main one was simply that I was too afraid to write! That may sound silly, but I will give you a little back story. I am a member of a Yahoo Group called "September2001Babies". Don't ask me why, but I joined it when I first found out I was pregnant with Mina and I made some good friends, so I stayed. Anyway, The list was predominantly American. When I say "predominantly", I mean that there were probably 3 members out of 90 that were outside of the United States, with one Canadian, one from Australia (ie me) and one from Finland (I think it was - one of those Nordic ones anyway). Anyway, most Australians and Canadians, and even a few Americans, look at things differently to the dominant conservative culture that exists, and even have a different sense of humour from the dominant culture that is White America. Me being the type of person that I am, I questioned the Americans more than I should, and probably challenged them more often than they would have liked me too. Most of the time they spent their time arguing about how not to upset each other with subject headers whilst upsetting people...go figure... until my Canadian friend posted pictures of her Halloween carvings of Bush and Osama Bin laden to the list. Well, needless to say, the irony was not noted and it sparked a mass exodus from the list - of all the US "Moms" away from me and my Canadian friend. A few decent folks stayed, but the list basically died at the hands of one or two people who couldn't take a joke. This isn't the full story - there were a few other troublemakers and "discussions" that would usually end in me calling them all "retarded" or something, but fundamentally, I was consistently bullied for my opinions for nearly two years before the wenches left the group. Basically it ended in me believing that Americans live in a freaky Sliders episode and I was too scared to post anything controversial or even honest for fear of losing the few members that stuck around on the babies list. This wasn't a direct cause, but it was one of the reasons I became too afraid to post anything about what I was thinking for fear of being harassed again. In other words, I started to conform. Fast forward to yesterday. I saw Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" and I had one of those rare moments where it felt really good to be "me". For months I have felt marginalised. In fact, I have felt marginalised for practically my whole life, having always been isolated or harassed for being "gifted" (whatever the heck that means). But these last few months, I have felt particularly isolated and down, because no matter where I turned - the mainstream media, my family, that email list that I talked about, even people at uni - there was this air of not only hatred and racism, but support for war, support for American dominant culture, and propaganda against Muslim communities around the world. I have also been confused about what I am supposed to do with my life, how I can use my diverse talents and interests to make a difference. And, not only that, I have been frustrated that noone would listen to me when I expressed an opinion that was different to the norm. So I just stopped. I stopped debating with my grandmother when she talked about "those Muslims". I stopped writing my blog and writing my book, and just writing in general. I stopped caring about me degree and worried more about finishing than learning. I stopped writing because, without my strong convictions and my strong sense of irony and humour, I had nothing to write about. I was so afraid of saying the wrong thing that my 'craft' was suffering, and I was becoming everything I despised: Someone who censors themselves for the sake of appearances. I was becoming mainstream. And then I watched Bowling for Columbine (www.michaelmoore.com). I watched Michael Moore making a difference - rubbing against the grain of American mainstream politics. And taking galant risks for what he believes in, through his craft of comedy and filmmaking. I watched him challenge Charlton Heston in his own home and present the facts about American Imperialism. I watched him take 2 teenage boys that had bullets lodged in their bodies after the Columbine shootings to Kmart. I watched as he used his profile and convictions to cause Kmart to phase out the sale of handgun and semi-automatic ammunition. And not only did I feel inspired, I felt vindicated. And I had an epiphony. I realised that it is a GOOD thing that I am different to all those women on my list. I am not someone prepared to settle for a house in a gated community to convince myself that life is strawberries and cream, and that blacks are a threat and everyone outside the US is out to get you. I am not prepared to sacrifice my convictions for fear of what some brainwashed, Oprah-watching housewives are going to say, because I *am* better than them. They will hate me for saying it, but I am, because instead of spending my days playing peekaboo and doing laundry, I have decided to make a difference in this world through my writing. And anyone who attempt to scare me into submission will not succeed anymore, because I am a different person. I have realised that it takes strength to have opinions and it takes courage to express those opinions in face of opposition. I also realised that its okay to be myself, and being armed with education and writing ability puts me in a position of power in this world. Now, while this may only be a weblog amongst millions, I have realised that there is a reason I was put on this earth - and that is to use my writing in the same way that Michael Moore has used filmmaking. It may sound arrogant, but I really don't care. Consider this a mission statement for the blog entries to come. I will be writing my book again; I will be writing newspaper articles and columns. And I will make a difference through my art. I promise I won't make too many self-indulgent, Oprah-magazine editorials from now on. but I did need to explain why I disappeared. I look forward to feedback from people. Thanks for reading.
Why is it that people only feel good about themselves if they are making another human being feel like a piece of rotten roadkill? I admit it, I do the same thing - sometimes I seem to get great satisfaction out of other people's weaknesses. It is most certainly arrogance and cruelty on my part, fuelled by a hideous lack of true self esteem - I admit it. But its not like everyone else doesn't. The proof of this is in the myriad of gossip magazines, usenet groups, mailing lists, websites, newspapers, and even people idle chatter - that is devoted to celebrity gossip. We post to gossip channels, read magazines, join email lists devoted to celebrity gossip. We say scathing things, we scrutinise their every move - from outfits to opinions. We blame them for being too skinny, and yet all hell breaks loose when they are too "fat" (obviously a relative term). We praise them for their 'wonderful' bodies, only to find out they are bulimic 6 months down the line. We want to know who the father of Liz Hurley's baby is, but not only that, we accuse her for being some sort of money-grubbing trickster. We mock Britney Spears (I'll get to that later). We speculate on people's marriages, and, the worst part - we believe the outright lies that are presented to us. Celebrity Gossip cuts across class, gender (yes, believe it or not!) and race. Why? According to most psychologists, humans need to feel good about themselves and their position in society to be productive. And this is where I believe Celebrity Gossip fits in. Celebrities are beautiful. They are wealthy. They can do anything they want, because money and beauty and a lack of 'connections' are not barriers, like they are for most of us. They get to be spokespeople for the United Nations and adopt children from overseas. In other words, they get to do all the wonderful things that all of us would do if we had the same money and profile. How on earth are we supposed to feel good about ourselves while these people exist? I know I don't! In a world that worships beauty over brains, people like me are destined to the middle classes - and the only greatness we can hope to achieve would be if, in 3000 years from now, we are seen as "thinkers". Ha! I suppose if the Google archives count... So, in comparison to celebrities, we all feel like worthless pieces of crap - cogs in the machine that make other people wealthy. Ben Elton refers to people like us as "farties" - people who aren't beautiful or wealthy. People who have impeccable manners - who you couldn't imagine doing a great big burp whilst sitting down to a microwave dinner. People that take home doggy bags from an expensive restaurant because it costs $120 for a meal and you can't bear to throw it away. People who have a gruesome birth experience and walk around in public with baby vomit on their shirt and are most certainly not beaming with full makeup and a perfect body when their baby is 2 weeks old. I could go on for hours. To us, celebrities represent our dreams, our aspirations and our regrets.They represent everything we wish we were and everything most of us are not - even if we tried our absolute best. So what we do is we tear them to shreds to make us feel better about ourselves. We would be horrified if our husbands or family said "oi, you're looking a bit fat today" or "good lord...what the fuck are you wearing?". Also, if you were walking up the street and everyone was looking at you and pointing, how would you feel? Thats right, you'd feel terrible. So why is it alright to do this to celebrities? When you post to usenet that scathing message, how do you know that they aren't reading everything you say? And, if you knew they were reading it, would it make you rethink? Take Britney Spears for instance. Now, those who know me know that I am not a fan. I also don't dislike her at all - call me a casual "hummer" along to her music. My initial reaction to Britney Spears, is that she represents everything that is wrong with the music industry. I am someone with more formal music training and come from old-school that it is your ability to play an instrument or sing perfectly that makes you famous. Naive, I know. But, all the same, I appreciate singer/songwriters, like Lisa Loeb, Ben Folds, etc, where if you strip them down to just them and their instrument in an acoustic show, their prescence still knocks you over. I admit my biases there. And I emulate that music style - fine tuning the acoustic, solo performance so that everything else is just a bonus - it doesnt MAKE the musician - or make the song. So, I lay my biases on the table in that regard. But, Britney, if you ever wanted someone to give you some quality advice about where to go with your career, I'm here! :) Issues of musical integrity aside (and I like some BS songs....), I think that the personal attacks on her and the scrunity are uncalled for. Comments of late (in various places) have started to become vindictive, callous, and just plain false. I often wonder that if people knew she was hurt by all of this if they would stop saying such horrible things about her. I know I would, because I can't stand the though of my words hurting someone else, even if its a superstar that could buy and sell me on any day of the week! :) Seriously though, how would we feel if we were put in that position? If I were Britney Spears (heh now THEREs a stretch for anyones imagination lol), I would seriously wonder if its all worth it - I mean, she's made enough money to take care of herself and her family for the rest of her life. If she invested a lot of the money into her own label and signed other artists, she could do wonders. I really would be wondering if its all worth it. Here she is, 20 years old, a multi millionaire, with a myriad of options available to her. There would have to come a time when you wonder if its worth it. I personally believe that Britney should learn to play an instrument and try to do it on her "own" if you will. But thats just me :) Little do we realise that eventually someone's got to crack. I know that I could only take so much before I said "fuck it - I'm rich" and disappear out of the public eye. And little do we realise that this could be happening. Do you REALLY want to be the person whose irascible comments caused someone to quit doing what they love? Because eventually it will happen. Celebrities have internet access too. And I think they read a lot more about themselves than they should. Eventually someone is going to crack. I for one don't want to be one of the people that makes someone feel so awful that they question their whole career. Maybe you can live with that, but I can't.
Don't talk to me in the morning. Don't even look at me. I hate getting up at 6am. I hate the fact that going to bed at 9:30 (which is relatively early for me) and getting up at 6am still only means 8.5 hours sleep. This may seem trivial and self-indulgent (when isn't it?), but bear with me. I was having a wonderful dream at 6 this morning - it involved all the great elements: Canada, the beach, shopping, Ben Folds, Deborah Mailman and me being 10kg lighter. I don't normally have good dreams, so I was quite perturbed at the incessant HONK HONK HONK that woke me up. And that wasn't my alarm clock. it was Jason telling me he was running late and that he'd be putting Mina in the car. See, I have to drive him to work so I can have the car. And I hate it. And there is only one thing I hate more than geting up at 6am. It is idle, trivial, chatter when I am still waking up. I got in the car and everything was quiet. I was sitting there with my arms folded and all was well - I'd be awake by the time we got to Jason's work. Look, I love my husband dearly, and we know each well, but he just doesn't seem to get that I don't want to talk to anyone for about half an hour after I wake up. No amount of grunt-answering seems to deter him. Example. For some reason the radio was tuned to 96fm. I have no idea why people actually tune into this mindless crap - the last thing I want to hear is "alright, call in to us to tell us what you can cook to win tickets to XXX" I'm serious. No mental challenges there, except for the kitchen-illiterate. But sriously, 96% of the population can cook SOMETHING. And 'something' was all we heard. Here's one brilliant response: "uh hi.... I make spaghetti bolognese with chopped up onions, chopped up mushrooms and tomato sauce". My god. How astounding. I always thought that having radio call-ins was a way to engage an aidience to come up with quality entertainment - I normally listen to Triple J and they seem to have it down pretty well. But, my theory is, that anyone who is calling breakfast radio at 6am is a bloody moron to begin with. Firstly, because they are one of those irritating people that "love mornings". Secondly, I don't trust them because they have time to call said stations. Now, when I have to get up for something, chances are I will work out exactly how long I need between waking up and leaving, and get up at that time. Like this morning for instance. I crawled out of bed, put on my tracky dacks and got in the car. I have a serious mistrust of those that actually have time for anything other than breakfast, showers or driving. Thirdly, the fact that these people brains are working at that time of morning (or clearly arent, seeing that 96fm dialogue) shows that they are clearly aliens and not to be trusted. Anyway, as if the inane drivel on the radio wasnt enough - Jason starts talking about Iraq. Now, I consider myself a fairly active person in terms of politics, and I find it hard to turn down a good discussion. In fact, right now "Iraq" is one of my main interests. But it should come as no surprise to you all that, for half an hour a day, I couldn't give a flying fuck about it. All I want to do is go back to bed and dream about Canada and Ben Folds.And, for half an hour a day, I like being able to give the bird to the world without caring. Of course it does wonders for my relationship - you know, being snappy and all that. But I have always been the same so I suppose thats what he deserves for marrying me. My daughter is the same as me. I think I have the only baby on the planet that quite happily goes to bed at 7:30 and will sleep until 10am given the opportunity. And she looks like me when she wakes up too. It srather funny - and scary - to see a mirror of yourself in the morning. Erm, without looking the mirror. Of course. So, don't talk to me until 8am. I likely to tell you to go fuck yourself.
I have a problem. It doesn't matter how straightforward it is, or how overdue it is, I will pissfart around and make it take twice as long. the most notable is my Uni work. For 3 weeks now I have been trying to sit down and write an essay on Civil and Criminal Procedure. As thrilling as it is, when it comes to actually sitting down and typing my measly 1500 words, I will do everything in mw power, including writing in this blog, to evade 'real' work (Some may question University as falling within the definition of real work, but I think they should bite me). Maybe I am self-destructive. Actually, I don't think there's a 'maybe' about it - I mean every single report card I got in primary school said "Téa takes herself for granted" or "Téa does not work to the best of her ability" or "Téa keeps chewing her chair." That sort of thing. Similarly, in high school I got "Téa does not work hard enough" -or I'd get an "A", but there was usually reluctance on the part of my teachers because of my so-called "attitude". I wonder if i'll ever change. What is strange is that I am sitting here writing about how I should be working - but no - I'd never actually WORK. Well, I am, but I am taking my sweet time doing it. And as much as I dont mean it to be conceited - I am lucky I am "gifted", otherwise I'd be an abysmal failure. Luckily I can bluff my way through ;) How I ever got to this point i'll never know. Back to work for me I think.
The internet is indeed a strange place. Over the few days I have been diligently avoiding doing any actual work by visiting every link that is sent my inbox. Normally I just skip them, but hey, I am a girl on a mission ;) First up, this one. http://www.31337.pl/. Its so simple, and yet it articulates what I think at least 15 times a day. I don't usually like elitism - but there are two kinds of people I find insufferable. Stupid people and, worse, Stupid people who try to disguise themselves as intelligent people. Now, that may sound like a horrible thing to say, but hey, further to my rant the other other day about AOL - there really are too many stupid people around with access to a keyboard... then again, many may say the same thing about me so I guess we're even :) You might think I have a pessimistic view of people. I suppose in many ways I do - John Howard won the last federal election so its not entirely baseless - but I really do like people. Really, I do. Its just my standards are higher than most ;) I have no idea what I was doing. Oh yes, I was sharing some funny URLs. hmmm What else did I find this week... (hunts through favourites)... (hunts through history because I havent added anything to my favourites)....ah stuffit. I installed Cool Edit Pro 2 yesterday. It is SO much better than 1.2. Not that I ever use these things - I install them with all the best intentions and then never use them again. I like mucking around with music and I do write some things, but it never gets finished. I don't know if its because of a lack of confidence or a lack of ability (I am guessing its a combination of the two - you can have plenty of confidence and no ability and still be fine *grin*) but I just never finish it. I suppose i am doing the world a favour with that! LOL! Anyway, this post was more to bump the anti-American rant. While I can't bring myself to delete it, seeing as my ascii drawing of the American flag was second to none (heehee), I figured I'd at least stop it from ebing the first thing you read when you enter the blog ;) I was expecting hate mail but got none - even though i've had a fair few visitors (doesn't look like it on thepage though because I had to reset my counter)... its great to se that there are people as devoid of life as I am ;) Who is worse? the person who writes it or the person who actually reads it? :) Well, thats enough insults from me today. To be honest, I am having troule finding things to rant about. Maybe some of my visitors could email me an article or two to get my back up ;) In the meantime, have fun eh and i'll write back soon. I think I left a stinky nappy in my daughters room by mistake.... dont worry, it hasnt been there any more than a week (GRIN)
I spent most of the evening working on my Formula Feeding support site. itmay sound boring to non-mothers, but believe me, is it controversial. I don't know how to be a support group for formula feeding without getting hatemail from the militant breastfeeders - I mean those women are organised! They send out emails to their site members urging them to harass people like me! lol! I definitely see a need for it. But did you know that you can't even get information about baby formula from the manufacturers? This is how much of a strangehold the breastfeeders have - that us formula feeding mothers can't even access information. I challenge people to find any info on Wyeth's site, Heinz' website, Nestlé, and so on. Geez... So much for freedom of choice - you only have it if you choose the same as they do... its a pain in the arse if you ask me. Why can't you just say "I like this formula." You can't. You have to have a disclaimer "Breast is best...." so that the militants won't come after you. And, even if you have this disclaimer, many still will flame you and have sit-ins on your front lawn! Women victimising and scrutinising other women's decisions is not what I would consider moving towards a better society. it is only when these people learn to lighten up and accept that free-thinking individuals are able to make different decisions to other free thinking individuals - and society can function in spite of it - even BECAUSE of it! I have no idea how this turned into a rant about breastfeeders... it is late and I should be in bed. Yes. That explains it. I also really needed an excuse to test my right click thingo in my browser that lets me instantaneously update this thing. Its pretty cool :) Thanks for reading :p
OK....well this seems to be working now! Its weird how hard it is to write when you feel the pressure! I was browsing the net today and found a couple of sites that might be of interest. The first one is www.bushwatch.com which is dedicated to my favourite world leader (AHEM!) George W. Bush. there is a some great stuff there - Be sure to check out the Bushlexia section! There is also a great feminist magazine called "Bitch" magazine. It ha some insightful commentary - mostly dedicated to feminist responses to popular culture. There are some interesting reads there, anyway. The address is www.bitchmagazine.com. What more can I say today? What I am thinking of doing with this is posting articles and then writing my own commentary on it. It might be a news article, a website, or something in the global media. Of course, being hideously lazy on the best of days (not to mention a myriad of assignments that are yet to be written...:)), I may not get here as often as I would like. However, Blogger makes it a little less cumbersome to update, so I may pop in fairly often. We'll see how it goes huh? :) I suppose I should add a little disclaimer for the rest of my posts. These are my opinions only. While I like to think I am a fairly learned person, and generally do not say things unless there is some basis, I would like to say in advance that I do hold controversial opinions in many areas. There. You were warned. :) I will not respond to hate mail. There are a few issues that i already know are likely to incite strong reactions in some people, and I will lay them on the table now. I am a social democrat through and through. I am a feminist. I am opposed to the 'War on Terror', even though I have sympathy for the victims of 9/11 (or 11/9 where I come from heh). I formula feed my child. I am not religious and I believe that 'god" has been used far too many times as an excuse for oppression. In other words: Crazy "militant" Americans will not only be ignored, they will be killfiled and reported to their ISP. Same goes for abusive people, militant breastfeeding organisations that suppress choice, fundamentalist ANYTHINGS that preach, whatever. However, if you do email me in a hateful way, be prepared for it to show up here and for me to write a reply. I am sorry if this appears harsh, but I needed to put this in. I have already received enough loony emails for a lifetime! :) With all that nasty stuff out of the way, I do, however, welcome polite debate! It is what I do! Even if you hold different/opposing views to my own, I am happy to defend my position in a polite and respectful way. :) Well... now that the housekeeping is out of the way...lets get on with eh? :)
