I guess I'll jump right in then and discuss a couple of boring things that happened today. I realise that's probably not an ideal method to approach a blog post, but this was my ridiculous idea from earlier in the week to encourage myself to write more, and it seemed like a really good idea at the time.
Hm, where to begin? I believe I'll start with exercise and excuses. Unlike many of my acquaintances, I like to own my excuses and I call them where I see them. For example, I don't go running because I hate cardio and I find it mind-numbingly boring. And I also don't run because I can be quite lazy at times.
But I hear a bunch of excuses - all day, every day - from many people on why they simply cannot exercise in this lifetime. For example, I can't exercise in the cold. I can't exercise because I have children and I don't have time. I twisted my ankle thirty years ago; it might not be healed yet. I can't exercise because my life is so busy and important and I just couldn't possibly fit anything else into my action-packed, yet sedentary, lifestyle.
Apart from the sometimes valid children escape clause, none of these are valid excuses. I know this because I've used them all. Apart from the kids one. I think you need to own children before you can use it.
We women are the worst at whinging about having to exercise. I'm surprised I don't hear more women saying, "well, I was due to go work for NASA as a rocket scientist, but then I fell pregnant". These women have an excuse for everything. Everyone has time to exercise, you just have to want to make the time. And stop using your children as a basis for the web of excuses.
So today I went for a run - walk - run - walk; I think it's called interval training, but I call it interdevil training, because it basically sucks on a massive scale. But I don't want to be an Excuse Person, so I will continue as best I can.
Speaking of painfully, boring things, next Saturday is the A.C.T. local election, which is of little interest to anyone in the A.C.T, let alone the rest of the world. I think they have changed the rules around the use of political advertising around this neck of the woods, because there are a lot more signs stuck into the dirt on the side of the road than there used to be.
Today I noted that these signs are predominatly pro-Labor, which means the Labor factions have ripped out the Liberal ones. I wouldn't vote Labor if my life depended on it, but I think this unsporting behaviour is typical of how that side behaves as a general rule. They are either ripping out Liberal placards in the middle of the night or claiming sexism as an implausible excuse for political failures. That's all they do. Such great role models for the kiddies.
What else happened? Nothing. It turns out this latest writing thing is an abject failure. I think I will have to think up a new tactical plan to get me in the writing mood.
Showing posts with label Australian Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, 14 October 2012
Friday, 12 October 2012
Political Fight and African Flight
There are far too many ism's in the world - sexism, criticism - I get them all so very mixed up. Evidently the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Ei-leen Gillard, gets these two ism’s confused all the time too, screeching 'sexism!' when valid criticism is thrown at her over her government's poor performance.
Gillard is currently swimming, although I imagine will soon be sinking, into the mire of her self-created gender war. As far as one can tell, this war on men is motivated by a bitter hatred and resentment of her male competition, and is fed by the preposterous, delusional assumption that women will support her in her desperate attempt to cling to power at the forthcoming federal election.
I personally don’t have a scintilla of interest in anything she says. And I'm not going to call her my Prime Minister because that woman is a horrible embarrassment to me. If you are in any doubt about whether I aided her party’s accession to power, I can advise that I did not. So glad to clear that up.
Speaking of swimming in the mire, I am fairly devoid of any motivation to exercise at present. Why can’t I just be naturally fit? If I lived in the wilds of some arid African desert I wouldn't need to go to the gym because I’d naturally be in tiptop shape. It would be super; I'd spend my days chasing things, and then hastily turning around and having things pursue me.
Wouldn’t we all prefer that? Rather than spending the best part of our day sitting at a desk staring at an electronic box? Hm, I suppose not. Although unfortunately we live in a manufactured environment that gives rise to low health and fitness level by default.
Gillard is currently swimming, although I imagine will soon be sinking, into the mire of her self-created gender war. As far as one can tell, this war on men is motivated by a bitter hatred and resentment of her male competition, and is fed by the preposterous, delusional assumption that women will support her in her desperate attempt to cling to power at the forthcoming federal election.
I personally don’t have a scintilla of interest in anything she says. And I'm not going to call her my Prime Minister because that woman is a horrible embarrassment to me. If you are in any doubt about whether I aided her party’s accession to power, I can advise that I did not. So glad to clear that up.
Speaking of swimming in the mire, I am fairly devoid of any motivation to exercise at present. Why can’t I just be naturally fit? If I lived in the wilds of some arid African desert I wouldn't need to go to the gym because I’d naturally be in tiptop shape. It would be super; I'd spend my days chasing things, and then hastily turning around and having things pursue me.
Wouldn’t we all prefer that? Rather than spending the best part of our day sitting at a desk staring at an electronic box? Hm, I suppose not. Although unfortunately we live in a manufactured environment that gives rise to low health and fitness level by default.
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Google Uranus, Slippers, Slappers and Bikies
I watched The Truman Show last night, the 90's Jim Carrey movie about a man whose entire life has been broadcast on cable television without his knowledge on his very own dedicated channel, kind of like Keeping up with the Kardashians should be on a dedicated moron channel.
The movie came out before reality shows became ubiquitous in mainstream televisionland, but I imagine the makers of Google were busy taking notes during this flick back in the day - in between their kindergarten naps - for their future gargantuan project of mapping every nook and cranny of earth for their search engine giant. I wonder if Google are thinking of mapping other planets, like a version of Google Uranus*. Hmm, probably not.
 |
What else is going on? Today Aussie PM Gillardo finally threw the Slipper and the Slapper into the cesspool; I'll leave it up to you to work out which daft fool is which.
Throwing out two trashbags - who have swindled the Commonwealth, amongst other charming exploits - for the price of one (election) sounds like a wise move to me, but me and my political preferences would say that. Slippery Pete, Slapper Craig - for fucks sake that party is a disaster.
Throwing out two trashbags - who have swindled the Commonwealth, amongst other charming exploits - for the price of one (election) sounds like a wise move to me, but me and my political preferences would say that. Slippery Pete, Slapper Craig - for fucks sake that party is a disaster.
On another note, I'm so bored with the stupid bikie gangs in this country. Do they really call themselves bikies? Sounds a bit girly to me, like a rampaging horde of 10-year-old girls prancing down the road on their bedazzled pink wheels with ribbons on the handle bars and catfighting it out with semi-automatics outside their local shopping centre.
If these bikie dickheads come anywhere near me while I'm in my current state - that being with massive toothache - it'll be the last thing they ever do. Forget police dogs, just let me loose on them before I've had a kick of Nurofen into my bloodstream. But it needs to be before next Wednesday. The Day of Wisdom Extraction. The police have no powers to stop them, so just let them shoot each other willy-nillly at a pre-arranged meeting point. Like Afghanistan.
* Please don't sue me Google.
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Are you smarter than a Queenslander?
Are you smarter than a toothpick? Hm, now that's a bit of an awkward question to answer honestly. Are you smarter than a Queenslander? Now that's a question I can answer without crushing your soul, unless you think you are smarter than you actually are. Yesterday I would have unequivocally agreed with your incessant whinging that you are smarter than a Queenslander, but not so much today.
A lot of thing have changed since then. Well not that much really; just the much welcome deletion from the universe of the Queensland ALP party. Who knew that our friends up north - those crazy kids who wrestle crocodiles, are deadset psychopathic when it comes to cane toads and say 'ay?' all the time for no apparent reason - were so forward thinking and intelligent?
The people of Queensland have spoken and have vanquished Anna Bligh's torch in some sort of Tribal Council, ay. If this was federal politics, Kevin Rudd would be banging his torch on the ground, Bamm-Bamm Rubble style.
The fallout following yesterday's Queensland Election has left the ALP with only seven seats, which is enough to form a netball team, but not enough to be considered a major political party. Perhaps they should cut their losses, get out their pleated skirts and join a Saturday morning primary school competition. The Greens won no seats whatsoever, and that incoherent nutter, Bob Katter, won a couple of seats in the lower house with his own incoherent nutter party, which says a lot about the Greens.
The federal implications of this political massacre are clear; the electorate are learning that Labor are really not very good at governing. It turns out that if you continually mismanage the local economy and build up debt, then even Queenslanders will work out that an efficient way to solve this problem is to kick your sorry arse to the curb.
A lot of thing have changed since then. Well not that much really; just the much welcome deletion from the universe of the Queensland ALP party. Who knew that our friends up north - those crazy kids who wrestle crocodiles, are deadset psychopathic when it comes to cane toads and say 'ay?' all the time for no apparent reason - were so forward thinking and intelligent?
The people of Queensland have spoken and have vanquished Anna Bligh's torch in some sort of Tribal Council, ay. If this was federal politics, Kevin Rudd would be banging his torch on the ground, Bamm-Bamm Rubble style.
The fallout following yesterday's Queensland Election has left the ALP with only seven seats, which is enough to form a netball team, but not enough to be considered a major political party. Perhaps they should cut their losses, get out their pleated skirts and join a Saturday morning primary school competition. The Greens won no seats whatsoever, and that incoherent nutter, Bob Katter, won a couple of seats in the lower house with his own incoherent nutter party, which says a lot about the Greens.
The federal implications of this political massacre are clear; the electorate are learning that Labor are really not very good at governing. It turns out that if you continually mismanage the local economy and build up debt, then even Queenslanders will work out that an efficient way to solve this problem is to kick your sorry arse to the curb.
Monday, 12 December 2011
The Red Queen's new Slipper
Once upon a time there was a Speaker of the House of Reps in Canberra called Peter Slipper. The Slipper spent years on the right foot, but as a rather overstuffed novelty version of house shoes that annoys the crap out of anyone who wears them, he was never the right fit in a party full of sturdy birkenstocks and scuffy, old but reliable mocassins, and he was rather softer and more lightweight compared to the other types in the Howard Collection.
Alas, one fateful day, Slipper got booted out of the car window by the other right footers, the Liberal Nationals, which can explain at least one of the those random shoes you see on the side of the road. The Nats dumped their Slipper due to his alleged overuse of parliamentary entitlements and his crankypants attacks on the party, so it was a fairly mutual clothing disposal.
The lone Slipper spent a few years as an independent piece of footwear, which meant he served no useful purpose and spent his time reading important parliamentary papers like House and Garden, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue, occasionally crossing the floor, and just generally scuffing up the place as best he could. Alas, no-one likes an odd shoe, so he mostly stayed in the cupboard until someone was desperate enough to drag him out of there.
Finally, one day this year, the Red Queen looked to the Slipper as a means of support for her burgeoning foot problems. She already had a bunch of silly, vibrant and colourful scuffs in the Gillard Collection, but most had no sole and were inflexible as shit. She also had an assortment of ugg boots, but they were all sheepish on the inside and god knows what on the outside. Fortunately for the Red Queen, the Slipper had no issue walking across the floor, and ended up on her left foot.
As luck would have it, the Red Queen had no problem airing her slippers in public. While showing off the Slipper may be seen as an act of passive aggression or even rebellion against the electorate who stupidly voted her into power, it may also be a statement that the wearer holds no interest in any person who disapproves of anything she does while in power.
The newest addition to the Red Queen's Collection, the Slipper, is just as thick as the other wannabe socks, and fortunately he has a set of rubber grips along his soles which should provide some traction. He's gonna need it.
Although, buyer beware for the Red Queen too, as the Slipper's renown lack of support can result in the foot rolling inward - occasionally crossing over to the other side - with can result in serious health problems and perhaps motions of lost confidence in the Gillard Collection.
It's quite clear that I have nothing to blog about anymore.
Alas, one fateful day, Slipper got booted out of the car window by the other right footers, the Liberal Nationals, which can explain at least one of the those random shoes you see on the side of the road. The Nats dumped their Slipper due to his alleged overuse of parliamentary entitlements and his crankypants attacks on the party, so it was a fairly mutual clothing disposal.
The lone Slipper spent a few years as an independent piece of footwear, which meant he served no useful purpose and spent his time reading important parliamentary papers like House and Garden, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue, occasionally crossing the floor, and just generally scuffing up the place as best he could. Alas, no-one likes an odd shoe, so he mostly stayed in the cupboard until someone was desperate enough to drag him out of there.
Finally, one day this year, the Red Queen looked to the Slipper as a means of support for her burgeoning foot problems. She already had a bunch of silly, vibrant and colourful scuffs in the Gillard Collection, but most had no sole and were inflexible as shit. She also had an assortment of ugg boots, but they were all sheepish on the inside and god knows what on the outside. Fortunately for the Red Queen, the Slipper had no issue walking across the floor, and ended up on her left foot.
As luck would have it, the Red Queen had no problem airing her slippers in public. While showing off the Slipper may be seen as an act of passive aggression or even rebellion against the electorate who stupidly voted her into power, it may also be a statement that the wearer holds no interest in any person who disapproves of anything she does while in power.
The newest addition to the Red Queen's Collection, the Slipper, is just as thick as the other wannabe socks, and fortunately he has a set of rubber grips along his soles which should provide some traction. He's gonna need it.
Although, buyer beware for the Red Queen too, as the Slipper's renown lack of support can result in the foot rolling inward - occasionally crossing over to the other side - with can result in serious health problems and perhaps motions of lost confidence in the Gillard Collection.
It's quite clear that I have nothing to blog about anymore.
Friday, 8 April 2011
Media should name names
The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) says that it is 'more than just a university'. Oh, ain't that the truth. That's ADFA as in the Defence military kindergarten, not the Australian Dried Fruits Association. But I'm sure they'd understand if you got the two confused.
The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are really good at defending us; which is useful, because my only expectation of them is to ensure we don’t turn into a country that is anyway different to how it is now. I want them to fight wars in foreign lands, rather than wait until the enemy rocks up here. I want them to stop the bad people among the legitimate refugees from traipsing illegally onto our shores from god knows where, and I want them to kick the arse of any terrorist who plans to obliterate us from the inside. And as far as defending all things Australian, I think they are doing a tops job.
I am very comfortable and confident that the ADF know how to handle any shituation that involves war, intelligence, national security, machine guns, bad people and other defence type matters. That said, I have no confidence whatsoever that they can handle incidents involving women.
The latest Defence scandal involves an 18-year-old student at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). The girl, known as Kate, went to the media after the Defence head honchos allegedly ignored her complaint that she had unknowlingly been filmed with a webcam while having sex with another student, while another six male students watched in another room. Yes, Kate broke the rules by fraternising with the opposite sex, which is banned at the academy. But that's not the key issue.
How naïve of the Defence heads to believe that dismissing this complaint would be the end of the matter. What the hell is wrong with these men? They need to stick to playing with their guns and tanks and not involve themselves in negotiations with any members of the opposite sex, ever. Because it always seems to turn out badly. And now a former naval officer has come out, claiming she was raped in her sleep by a fellow officer, and I hope many more people come forward, as difficult as that may be for them. The ADF has had this coming for a very long time.
And then we have the media. Whenever something controversial is going on, particularly when it involves a government department, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist will be censored by their news organisation if they upset the applecart. In this case, the requirement is to not upset the highest echelons of the Defence Department, in fear of losing key contacts, and thus the journalist will end up covering trade fairs and dog shows, rather than getting any big scoops from key sources inside the government.
So the while the media whinge endlessly about their impartiality, and how it’s their sole purpose to expose the truth and keep the public informed, in reality, it’s a lot muddier than that. The media and government exist in a complex symbiotic relationship. It’s a two-way mechanism – needing each other, but also needing to keep the other at arm's length. You think it’s just as simple as writing a story and exposing the truth? Get real. We only get a sanitised version of the truth; a version that generally won’t result in any of the top brass going out to pasture on a controversial note.
But doesn’t the public have a right to know who's raping women in the armed forces? Sure we do, but we aren’t going to get the whole truth. The media always claim they protect the identities of bad people because of defamation laws, but I want to know why, even after court proceedings, the media does not, or is not allowed to, name names? Isn’t this hypocritical, given they claim their role is to inform the public?
And I think it would be pretty easy to identify who put it on Skype. Surely the public is entitled to demand that the media expose the truth. Expose the jackass who raped (it might be under ACT law) Kate, the others who watched on Skype, and the top brass, and/or government members who decided to cover it up.
Protect the source (Kate), but expose the predators. I don't want the identity of these men protected. I want their faces on the front of all national newspapers, so they can deal with the fallout. Surely the Defence Department would think again about their leniency in cracking down on rapists if there was even the possibility that the faces of these dropkicks would go viral.
Any excuse that is rolled out in defence of protecting their identity is based on an outcome I'd be happy to see - like they won't get work anywhere (cry me a river), or they'll be rejected by women (sounds like a community service to me), or the top brass have had a honourable career (they did, until now). I don't care what happens to these people, I just want them exposed for who they are. I really, really would like to see them exposed for who they are.
And let's be clear; the media do not give a stuff about protecting identities of people like Kate; all they care about is ratings and circulation figures, and you only get these through big stories, which you only get by retaining the rapport with the higher echelons in government departments and other business and industry leaders. They sure as shit do not care about protecting society, specifically ADFA women, from men who rape.
These ADFA guys are a small bunch of really rotten eggs among the good eggs in the defence forces. I think we should ship the rotten ones off to the hot spots right now - no training, no guns, no armour, no chance in hell of getting out of there. Perhaps the Defence Department needs a female Pal Sec to act as Defence Women's Relations Liaison, or something to that effect. We could get an outrageously annoying feminist in the role and watch the boys squirm. Germaine 'name and shame rapists' Greer comes immediately to mind for some reason. No-one can emasculate quite like Germaine.
The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are really good at defending us; which is useful, because my only expectation of them is to ensure we don’t turn into a country that is anyway different to how it is now. I want them to fight wars in foreign lands, rather than wait until the enemy rocks up here. I want them to stop the bad people among the legitimate refugees from traipsing illegally onto our shores from god knows where, and I want them to kick the arse of any terrorist who plans to obliterate us from the inside. And as far as defending all things Australian, I think they are doing a tops job.
I am very comfortable and confident that the ADF know how to handle any shituation that involves war, intelligence, national security, machine guns, bad people and other defence type matters. That said, I have no confidence whatsoever that they can handle incidents involving women.
The latest Defence scandal involves an 18-year-old student at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). The girl, known as Kate, went to the media after the Defence head honchos allegedly ignored her complaint that she had unknowlingly been filmed with a webcam while having sex with another student, while another six male students watched in another room. Yes, Kate broke the rules by fraternising with the opposite sex, which is banned at the academy. But that's not the key issue.
How naïve of the Defence heads to believe that dismissing this complaint would be the end of the matter. What the hell is wrong with these men? They need to stick to playing with their guns and tanks and not involve themselves in negotiations with any members of the opposite sex, ever. Because it always seems to turn out badly. And now a former naval officer has come out, claiming she was raped in her sleep by a fellow officer, and I hope many more people come forward, as difficult as that may be for them. The ADF has had this coming for a very long time.
And then we have the media. Whenever something controversial is going on, particularly when it involves a government department, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist will be censored by their news organisation if they upset the applecart. In this case, the requirement is to not upset the highest echelons of the Defence Department, in fear of losing key contacts, and thus the journalist will end up covering trade fairs and dog shows, rather than getting any big scoops from key sources inside the government.
So the while the media whinge endlessly about their impartiality, and how it’s their sole purpose to expose the truth and keep the public informed, in reality, it’s a lot muddier than that. The media and government exist in a complex symbiotic relationship. It’s a two-way mechanism – needing each other, but also needing to keep the other at arm's length. You think it’s just as simple as writing a story and exposing the truth? Get real. We only get a sanitised version of the truth; a version that generally won’t result in any of the top brass going out to pasture on a controversial note.
But doesn’t the public have a right to know who's raping women in the armed forces? Sure we do, but we aren’t going to get the whole truth. The media always claim they protect the identities of bad people because of defamation laws, but I want to know why, even after court proceedings, the media does not, or is not allowed to, name names? Isn’t this hypocritical, given they claim their role is to inform the public?
And I think it would be pretty easy to identify who put it on Skype. Surely the public is entitled to demand that the media expose the truth. Expose the jackass who raped (it might be under ACT law) Kate, the others who watched on Skype, and the top brass, and/or government members who decided to cover it up.
Protect the source (Kate), but expose the predators. I don't want the identity of these men protected. I want their faces on the front of all national newspapers, so they can deal with the fallout. Surely the Defence Department would think again about their leniency in cracking down on rapists if there was even the possibility that the faces of these dropkicks would go viral.
Any excuse that is rolled out in defence of protecting their identity is based on an outcome I'd be happy to see - like they won't get work anywhere (cry me a river), or they'll be rejected by women (sounds like a community service to me), or the top brass have had a honourable career (they did, until now). I don't care what happens to these people, I just want them exposed for who they are. I really, really would like to see them exposed for who they are.
And let's be clear; the media do not give a stuff about protecting identities of people like Kate; all they care about is ratings and circulation figures, and you only get these through big stories, which you only get by retaining the rapport with the higher echelons in government departments and other business and industry leaders. They sure as shit do not care about protecting society, specifically ADFA women, from men who rape.
These ADFA guys are a small bunch of really rotten eggs among the good eggs in the defence forces. I think we should ship the rotten ones off to the hot spots right now - no training, no guns, no armour, no chance in hell of getting out of there. Perhaps the Defence Department needs a female Pal Sec to act as Defence Women's Relations Liaison, or something to that effect. We could get an outrageously annoying feminist in the role and watch the boys squirm. Germaine 'name and shame rapists' Greer comes immediately to mind for some reason. No-one can emasculate quite like Germaine.
Saturday, 5 February 2011
The naming of natural disasters
Apart from a pressing need for an amendment to its ‘beautiful one day, perfect the next’ self-styled motto, Queensland needs to go buy itself a state-wide lotto ticket, because it has, for the most part, narrowly avoided being completely scuttled by TC Yasi. Yasi, or the Banana Crop Murderer as I like to call her, is one of the manliest sounding cyclone names we have come across in a long time. Which isn’t difficult when you are comparing it to Larry or Tracy.
I know the people who name natural disasters are just trying their best, and are probably more concerned with the meteorological side of weather things that blow up a fierce gale, but who the heck thought Larry, Katrina, Bianca and Anthony were appropriate names for these monsters created out of mother nature's fury?
I suppose the really important point to remember is that celebrities don’t get the opportunity to name them. Or else we would have ‘Hurricane Pomegranate’ by Gwyneth Paltrow, 'Tornado Bluebelle Sweet Nectarin' by Bob Geldof, and ‘Tropical Cyclone Princess Plush Pillow’ by Michael Jackson.
Apart from the obvious similarities in personality traits and disposition, natural disasters resemble children in other ways too; that is, someone has to name them and someone has to pay for the damage they inflict on society and the environment. Hmm, who has to pay for natural disasters in Australia? Oh wait, that’s us taxpayers. Which we are more than happy to do. But just when you thought those bucks would be covered through your annual taxes...
Our fearless and rather stupid Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has whipped up a whole tornado of bullshit by deciding that Australians need to fork out for a ‘flood levy’, to pay for the wet and wild ride that devastated Queensland a few weeks ago.
Our Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, in opposing the PM, decided to fight the levy, and called for donations to set this in motion. Yes, the former is in charge of running the country and the latter is supposed to be holding the other to account, but that's no fun when there is a cyclone to exploit and much natural disaster politicking to oversee. As usual, I had the lowest of expectations and I'm still disappointed.
Maybe there is another solution. I have noticed that big whopper companies love to show their philanthropic streak when times are tough for Aussies. So what if we allow these companies to sponsor natural disasters (eg. Tropical Cyclone McDonald's Angus Burger), and the trade off is that they pick up the dry-cleaning bill?
Then we wouldn’t have to pay the stupid levy. It’s a two-pronged effect – they raise awareness of their company whilst looking like they care about the public and the environment. In my defence, I haven’t thought this idea through at all. But that excuse seems good enough for our PM and Peter Garrett and the other hillbillies who are supposedly governing the country, so it's good enough for me.
Also in my defence, I haven’t been elected by the people to stop the country running into bankruptcy, and it’s also not my responsibility to prevent a situation where the electorate are needing to take on second jobs to pay for natural disasters, which we rather ignorantly assume are covered by our normal taxes.
I know the people who name natural disasters are just trying their best, and are probably more concerned with the meteorological side of weather things that blow up a fierce gale, but who the heck thought Larry, Katrina, Bianca and Anthony were appropriate names for these monsters created out of mother nature's fury?
I suppose the really important point to remember is that celebrities don’t get the opportunity to name them. Or else we would have ‘Hurricane Pomegranate’ by Gwyneth Paltrow, 'Tornado Bluebelle Sweet Nectarin' by Bob Geldof, and ‘Tropical Cyclone Princess Plush Pillow’ by Michael Jackson.
Apart from the obvious similarities in personality traits and disposition, natural disasters resemble children in other ways too; that is, someone has to name them and someone has to pay for the damage they inflict on society and the environment. Hmm, who has to pay for natural disasters in Australia? Oh wait, that’s us taxpayers. Which we are more than happy to do. But just when you thought those bucks would be covered through your annual taxes...
Our fearless and rather stupid Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has whipped up a whole tornado of bullshit by deciding that Australians need to fork out for a ‘flood levy’, to pay for the wet and wild ride that devastated Queensland a few weeks ago.
Our Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, in opposing the PM, decided to fight the levy, and called for donations to set this in motion. Yes, the former is in charge of running the country and the latter is supposed to be holding the other to account, but that's no fun when there is a cyclone to exploit and much natural disaster politicking to oversee. As usual, I had the lowest of expectations and I'm still disappointed.
Maybe there is another solution. I have noticed that big whopper companies love to show their philanthropic streak when times are tough for Aussies. So what if we allow these companies to sponsor natural disasters (eg. Tropical Cyclone McDonald's Angus Burger), and the trade off is that they pick up the dry-cleaning bill?
Then we wouldn’t have to pay the stupid levy. It’s a two-pronged effect – they raise awareness of their company whilst looking like they care about the public and the environment. In my defence, I haven’t thought this idea through at all. But that excuse seems good enough for our PM and Peter Garrett and the other hillbillies who are supposedly governing the country, so it's good enough for me.
Also in my defence, I haven’t been elected by the people to stop the country running into bankruptcy, and it’s also not my responsibility to prevent a situation where the electorate are needing to take on second jobs to pay for natural disasters, which we rather ignorantly assume are covered by our normal taxes.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Kia & tennis balls
So I wanted to talk about the tennis today. Just because. But I’m at ‘K’ in my Alphabet Writing Challenge and what tennis terminology starts with ‘K’ other than the Australian Open’s main sponsor?
I love the Australian Open. I’ve wanted to head down to Melbourne for years, and I would have if it wasn’t so hot in January, if it wasn’t so much better to watch on Channel Seven, and if I didn't mind crowds of drunken hooligans throwing stadium seating and molotov cocktails at my head. It would be like going to a Canterbury Bulldogs NRL game but escaping with all your limbs in tact. Ah, multiculturalism at its finest. Don't call me racist, I'm not the one hurling furniture around stadiums.
There are many cool reasons to watch the Australian Open. I like Jim Courier’s entertaining courtside interviews with the players after their match. I like how John Alexander gets all tetchy with Courier in the commentary box when Courier gets the answer to Alexander’s nightly ‘tennis brain teaser’ in about two seconds.
I wonder if Alexander will continue to commentate now that he is the Federal Member for Bennelong (which he won from Maxine McKew in the 2010 Federal Election after she stole it from John Howard)? I like how the female commentators do the bitchy thing some females do when they argue about inane little details, like whether the hems of men’s shorts are stitched or over-locked.
I like Andy Roddick. His appearance and sense of humour; his attitude problem not so much. I like how Roger Fedderer cries. I hate how Roger Fedderer cries. I like to ponder why Lleyton Hewitt is vilified and Pat Rafter is a demigod. I like how they make it look so damn easy. I like to think that I could play like this with a spot of training, a good pair of Nike sandshoes and some of that ubiquitous bling dripping off my body.
Um, so it turns out that Kia is a very generous sponsor. For the 2011 Australian Open, they will introduce the new Kia Grand Slam zoom zoom, for those players who are just too buggered to continue running around the court. They come equipped with fashionable lucozade holders, stylish sweatband seatbelts and an extra big glovebox for all your tennis ball requirements.
I love the Australian Open. I’ve wanted to head down to Melbourne for years, and I would have if it wasn’t so hot in January, if it wasn’t so much better to watch on Channel Seven, and if I didn't mind crowds of drunken hooligans throwing stadium seating and molotov cocktails at my head. It would be like going to a Canterbury Bulldogs NRL game but escaping with all your limbs in tact. Ah, multiculturalism at its finest. Don't call me racist, I'm not the one hurling furniture around stadiums.
There are many cool reasons to watch the Australian Open. I like Jim Courier’s entertaining courtside interviews with the players after their match. I like how John Alexander gets all tetchy with Courier in the commentary box when Courier gets the answer to Alexander’s nightly ‘tennis brain teaser’ in about two seconds.
I wonder if Alexander will continue to commentate now that he is the Federal Member for Bennelong (which he won from Maxine McKew in the 2010 Federal Election after she stole it from John Howard)? I like how the female commentators do the bitchy thing some females do when they argue about inane little details, like whether the hems of men’s shorts are stitched or over-locked.
I like Andy Roddick. His appearance and sense of humour; his attitude problem not so much. I like how Roger Fedderer cries. I hate how Roger Fedderer cries. I like to ponder why Lleyton Hewitt is vilified and Pat Rafter is a demigod. I like how they make it look so damn easy. I like to think that I could play like this with a spot of training, a good pair of Nike sandshoes and some of that ubiquitous bling dripping off my body.
Um, so it turns out that Kia is a very generous sponsor. For the 2011 Australian Open, they will introduce the new Kia Grand Slam zoom zoom, for those players who are just too buggered to continue running around the court. They come equipped with fashionable lucozade holders, stylish sweatband seatbelts and an extra big glovebox for all your tennis ball requirements.
Friday, 18 August 2006
Public service broadcasting - its relevance
There is agreement in the literature of the role Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) should play in society and that it should be judged on the way it manages that role. Both the ABC and the BBC, arguably the most influential public broadcaster in the world, take measures in programming to justify their existence. Some commentators see this as a justification for PSB, there is also criticism PSB lacks consumer sovereignty, is no more relevant to society than commercial broadcasting, and its programming is prone to bias and interference by the government.
While government intervention into PSB can be seen as an economic success, one commentator highlights the need for governments to take care to avoid PSB failures, and there is call for PSB to adapt to the new technological era of endless choice for the consumer to avoid becoming irrelevant. PSB includes television and radio that receive funding direct from the government, from a specific tax (eg. a television licence fee) or from public donations.
There is mostly agreement in the literature I read of the role that public service broadcasting should play. According to Burns (2008: 868), a public service broadcaster should be universally available, have universal appeal, have provisions for minorities, should educate the public, should remain distant from vested interests and have freedom from the programme maker.
Jacka (2006: 344) discusses the vision of the BBC’s founder, Lord John Reith, to see public broadcasting as a new way of forming public opinion; a ‘public service’ that would act as a “moral and educative force”. The Reithian ideals can be summarised as the access to fine culture for all and the key role it should play in informing the public, reaffirming that high quality content continues to be a defence for the existence of PSB.
According to Oesterlen (2008: 34) public service broadcasters assert their value and cultural credentials by broadcasting high culture to prove they are still culturally relevant and beneficial to the taxpayer. Oesterlen (2008) discusses BBC's global broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear as an attempt to assert power in determining cultural content in the new competitive media landscape of the twenty-first century.
The ABC Charter (ABC Online) maintains the ABC is valuable to society. Its core functions include keeping the public informed through programs that contribute to a sense of national identity, that educate and entertain and that reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Also, to transmit internationally to encourage an awareness of Australia and enable expatriate or travelling Australians to be aware of what's going on at home. The Charter also says the ABC has an awareness of the multicultural nature of the Australian community, and has an understanding of its responsibility to provide a balance of popular programs with those of special interest.
But what about what happens to the taxpayer’s dollars? According to Doyle (2002: 61), PSB is valuable to society from an economic perspective. The author discusses this value in terms of its ‘public good’ characteristics; which are its non-excludability, meaning the consumption of the good by a viewer does not reduce its availability for anyone else, and its non-exhaustibility, meaning no-one is excluded from accessing the good.
But Doyle (2002: 64) also explores public broadcasting as a market failure, due to the fact the price and quantity of the goods are not determined by supply and demand, so there is no mechanism for direct revenue from the consumer. This is relevant because PSB is funded by the public. The author (2002: 66) discusses the idea that governments produce PSB because it is thought the market does not supply the values that are need to maintain a civil society, and the people are not capable of judging what is in their own best interests. Cooper (2007: 2) says governments know that television is engrained in modern life, and will seek to control what may be broadcast, as a form of social control.
But according to Williams (1996: 103), public service broadcasters are “running smack” into television’s basic law, which is “give people more choice, they use it”. Williams (1996) also found that the public don’t really want to be educated by television. In a study, the author looked at the most popular television programs in 1995, even before the internet had really caught on, and found consumers want popular, commercial television, not specialised PSB. The top programs from the ABC didn’t even rate in the top 100.
Other literature says commercial television is just as relevant as PSB in terms of keeping the public informed on important issues. Krajina (2007: 198) thinks popular commercial television is as useful as PSB, and should not be condemned as “mere profit-motivated irrational pleasures”; because consumers are involved in “rational deliberation” as active citizens. The author (2007: 199) looked at the power of “democratic entertainment”, through an assessment of a game/talk show “The Pyramid”, which involved informed discussions on important national issues with an audience, celebrities and politicians.
There is agreement in the literature that consumer sovereignty is important to viewers; they like to engage and have some say in a medium they are paying for. According to some commentators, PSB consumers do not get to dictate what is produced, so there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Doyle (2002) argues that in a normal market, public service broadcasters would need to meet the preferences of their consumers if they wished to remain in business.
Others argue consumer sovereignty is a myth that is perpetuated by the media to defend its programming (Pauwels & Bauwens, 2007, 149). Pauwels & Bauwens (2007) argue TV viewers have a choice of programmes, but it is merely a reflection of the consumers’ personal socio-economic conditions and relations, and a choice only from what is on offer, which is not to say it is what they really want.
To this end, the extent consumers come into contact with different forms of cultural expression can be limited. The authors also explore the “interiorisation of consumer sovereignty” (2007: 58), the idea that viewers blame themselves when they can’t choose a program they like, and in doing so, they actively contribute to their own powerlessness, by actively reproducing the myth of consumer sovereignty.
According to Ferguson (2007: 182), the democratic ideals of access and participation are critically important in defending the existence of PSB in today's environment of endless programme choice and mediums. Particularly so in an era where governments are cutting back on PSB funding and commercial and pay television broadcasting are rapidly expanding.
Richards (2005) discusses this as a “gentle, gradual, evolving, historic act of liberation” for consumers. That is, the liberty to determine what they watch and what they listen to, on their own schedule.
So, what of the future for PSB, particularly in Australia? Curran (1981: 324) discusses the growing disparity in revenue between the commercial broadcasters and PSB which means outlets like the ABC will continue to be vulnerable to political pressure, as long as it relies on government funding. And Dempster (2000: 56) points to the ongoing accusations of bias against the ABC generated from both sides of politics.
One commentator gave a description of the failure of the PSB model in New Zealand, as an example for governments to avoid. Cocker (2008: 40) gives an insight into the several eras of bad policies from New Zealand governments, including the early restrictive regulation of television and an unwillingness to give public service broadcasters political independence or adequate funding. According to Cocker (2008: 42), the New Zealand model has never met public expectations and needs and has not measured up to the ideals of a public service broadcaster in a democracy.
The literature was reviewed in relation to the role, value and future of PSB. There is agreement among commentators that PSB should be judged on how it manages its role. One commentator highlights how public service broadcasters take measures to justify their existence, and there exists criticism over its lack of consumer sovereignty, whether it is any more relevant for society than commercial broadcasting, and the issue of bias and interference by the government. One commentator argues PSB can be viewed as an economic success, another warns of a PSB failure. Further, there is commentary regarding the future relevance of public service broadcasters in the new technological era of endless choice and mediums for consumers.
REFERENCE LIST
ABC Online (2008) ABC Charter 1983, About the ABC. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm Accessed 9 April 2009.
Burns (2008) Public Service Broadcasting meets the Internet at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22, 6, pp. 867-881.
Cocker, A. (2008) Broadcasting in New Zealand: A story of public policy failure. Australia Journal of Communication, 35, 2, pp. 39-55.
Cooper, C. (2007) Television on the Internet: Regulating News Ways of Viewing. Information & Communications Technology Law, 16, 1, pp. 1-16.
Curran, J. (1981) The Impact of Advertising on the British Mass Media. Media, Culture & Society, 3, 1, pp. 43-69.
Dempster, Q. (2000) Death Struggle. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, NSW.
Doyle, G. (2002) Understanding Media Economics, First Edition, Sage: University of Glasgow.
Ferguson (2007) Locking out the Mother Corp: Nationalism and Popular Imaginings of Public Service Broadcasting in the Print News Media, Canadian Journal of Communication, 32, 2, pp. 181-200.
Jacka, E. (Edited by Cunningham, S. & Turner, G.) (1997) The Media and Communications in Australia. Allen & Unwin: Sydney.
Krajina, Z. (2007) Democratic Potentials of Media Entertainment: Reading ‘The Pyramid’. Political Thought: Croatian Political Science Review, 16, 5, pp. 179-202.
Oesterlen, E. (2008) Lend me your 84 million ears: Exploring a special radio event – Shakespeare’s King Lear on BBC World Radio Service. The Radio Journal, 6, 1, pp. 33-44.
Pauwels, C. & Bauwens, J. (2007) ‘Power to the People’? The myth of television consumer sovereignty revisited. International Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 3, 2, pp. 149-165.
Richards, E. (2005) OFCOM Annual Lecture: Trends in Television, Radio and Telecoms, 20 July. Available online at: www.ofcom.org.uk/media/speeches/2005/07/
Williams, R. (1996) Normal Service won’t be resumed. Allen & Unwin: St Leonard’s , NSW.
While government intervention into PSB can be seen as an economic success, one commentator highlights the need for governments to take care to avoid PSB failures, and there is call for PSB to adapt to the new technological era of endless choice for the consumer to avoid becoming irrelevant. PSB includes television and radio that receive funding direct from the government, from a specific tax (eg. a television licence fee) or from public donations.
There is mostly agreement in the literature I read of the role that public service broadcasting should play. According to Burns (2008: 868), a public service broadcaster should be universally available, have universal appeal, have provisions for minorities, should educate the public, should remain distant from vested interests and have freedom from the programme maker.
Jacka (2006: 344) discusses the vision of the BBC’s founder, Lord John Reith, to see public broadcasting as a new way of forming public opinion; a ‘public service’ that would act as a “moral and educative force”. The Reithian ideals can be summarised as the access to fine culture for all and the key role it should play in informing the public, reaffirming that high quality content continues to be a defence for the existence of PSB.
According to Oesterlen (2008: 34) public service broadcasters assert their value and cultural credentials by broadcasting high culture to prove they are still culturally relevant and beneficial to the taxpayer. Oesterlen (2008) discusses BBC's global broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear as an attempt to assert power in determining cultural content in the new competitive media landscape of the twenty-first century.
The ABC Charter (ABC Online) maintains the ABC is valuable to society. Its core functions include keeping the public informed through programs that contribute to a sense of national identity, that educate and entertain and that reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Also, to transmit internationally to encourage an awareness of Australia and enable expatriate or travelling Australians to be aware of what's going on at home. The Charter also says the ABC has an awareness of the multicultural nature of the Australian community, and has an understanding of its responsibility to provide a balance of popular programs with those of special interest.
But what about what happens to the taxpayer’s dollars? According to Doyle (2002: 61), PSB is valuable to society from an economic perspective. The author discusses this value in terms of its ‘public good’ characteristics; which are its non-excludability, meaning the consumption of the good by a viewer does not reduce its availability for anyone else, and its non-exhaustibility, meaning no-one is excluded from accessing the good.
But Doyle (2002: 64) also explores public broadcasting as a market failure, due to the fact the price and quantity of the goods are not determined by supply and demand, so there is no mechanism for direct revenue from the consumer. This is relevant because PSB is funded by the public. The author (2002: 66) discusses the idea that governments produce PSB because it is thought the market does not supply the values that are need to maintain a civil society, and the people are not capable of judging what is in their own best interests. Cooper (2007: 2) says governments know that television is engrained in modern life, and will seek to control what may be broadcast, as a form of social control.
But according to Williams (1996: 103), public service broadcasters are “running smack” into television’s basic law, which is “give people more choice, they use it”. Williams (1996) also found that the public don’t really want to be educated by television. In a study, the author looked at the most popular television programs in 1995, even before the internet had really caught on, and found consumers want popular, commercial television, not specialised PSB. The top programs from the ABC didn’t even rate in the top 100.
Other literature says commercial television is just as relevant as PSB in terms of keeping the public informed on important issues. Krajina (2007: 198) thinks popular commercial television is as useful as PSB, and should not be condemned as “mere profit-motivated irrational pleasures”; because consumers are involved in “rational deliberation” as active citizens. The author (2007: 199) looked at the power of “democratic entertainment”, through an assessment of a game/talk show “The Pyramid”, which involved informed discussions on important national issues with an audience, celebrities and politicians.
There is agreement in the literature that consumer sovereignty is important to viewers; they like to engage and have some say in a medium they are paying for. According to some commentators, PSB consumers do not get to dictate what is produced, so there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Doyle (2002) argues that in a normal market, public service broadcasters would need to meet the preferences of their consumers if they wished to remain in business.
Others argue consumer sovereignty is a myth that is perpetuated by the media to defend its programming (Pauwels & Bauwens, 2007, 149). Pauwels & Bauwens (2007) argue TV viewers have a choice of programmes, but it is merely a reflection of the consumers’ personal socio-economic conditions and relations, and a choice only from what is on offer, which is not to say it is what they really want.
To this end, the extent consumers come into contact with different forms of cultural expression can be limited. The authors also explore the “interiorisation of consumer sovereignty” (2007: 58), the idea that viewers blame themselves when they can’t choose a program they like, and in doing so, they actively contribute to their own powerlessness, by actively reproducing the myth of consumer sovereignty.
According to Ferguson (2007: 182), the democratic ideals of access and participation are critically important in defending the existence of PSB in today's environment of endless programme choice and mediums. Particularly so in an era where governments are cutting back on PSB funding and commercial and pay television broadcasting are rapidly expanding.
Richards (2005) discusses this as a “gentle, gradual, evolving, historic act of liberation” for consumers. That is, the liberty to determine what they watch and what they listen to, on their own schedule.
So, what of the future for PSB, particularly in Australia? Curran (1981: 324) discusses the growing disparity in revenue between the commercial broadcasters and PSB which means outlets like the ABC will continue to be vulnerable to political pressure, as long as it relies on government funding. And Dempster (2000: 56) points to the ongoing accusations of bias against the ABC generated from both sides of politics.
One commentator gave a description of the failure of the PSB model in New Zealand, as an example for governments to avoid. Cocker (2008: 40) gives an insight into the several eras of bad policies from New Zealand governments, including the early restrictive regulation of television and an unwillingness to give public service broadcasters political independence or adequate funding. According to Cocker (2008: 42), the New Zealand model has never met public expectations and needs and has not measured up to the ideals of a public service broadcaster in a democracy.
The literature was reviewed in relation to the role, value and future of PSB. There is agreement among commentators that PSB should be judged on how it manages its role. One commentator highlights how public service broadcasters take measures to justify their existence, and there exists criticism over its lack of consumer sovereignty, whether it is any more relevant for society than commercial broadcasting, and the issue of bias and interference by the government. One commentator argues PSB can be viewed as an economic success, another warns of a PSB failure. Further, there is commentary regarding the future relevance of public service broadcasters in the new technological era of endless choice and mediums for consumers.
REFERENCE LIST
ABC Online (2008) ABC Charter 1983, About the ABC. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm Accessed 9 April 2009.
Burns (2008) Public Service Broadcasting meets the Internet at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22, 6, pp. 867-881.
Cocker, A. (2008) Broadcasting in New Zealand: A story of public policy failure. Australia Journal of Communication, 35, 2, pp. 39-55.
Cooper, C. (2007) Television on the Internet: Regulating News Ways of Viewing. Information & Communications Technology Law, 16, 1, pp. 1-16.
Curran, J. (1981) The Impact of Advertising on the British Mass Media. Media, Culture & Society, 3, 1, pp. 43-69.
Dempster, Q. (2000) Death Struggle. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, NSW.
Doyle, G. (2002) Understanding Media Economics, First Edition, Sage: University of Glasgow.
Ferguson (2007) Locking out the Mother Corp: Nationalism and Popular Imaginings of Public Service Broadcasting in the Print News Media, Canadian Journal of Communication, 32, 2, pp. 181-200.
Jacka, E. (Edited by Cunningham, S. & Turner, G.) (1997) The Media and Communications in Australia. Allen & Unwin: Sydney.
Krajina, Z. (2007) Democratic Potentials of Media Entertainment: Reading ‘The Pyramid’. Political Thought: Croatian Political Science Review, 16, 5, pp. 179-202.
Oesterlen, E. (2008) Lend me your 84 million ears: Exploring a special radio event – Shakespeare’s King Lear on BBC World Radio Service. The Radio Journal, 6, 1, pp. 33-44.
Pauwels, C. & Bauwens, J. (2007) ‘Power to the People’? The myth of television consumer sovereignty revisited. International Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 3, 2, pp. 149-165.
Richards, E. (2005) OFCOM Annual Lecture: Trends in Television, Radio and Telecoms, 20 July. Available online at: www.ofcom.org.uk/media/speeches/2005/07/
Williams, R. (1996) Normal Service won’t be resumed. Allen & Unwin: St Leonard’s , NSW.
Friday, 9 June 2006
Why is sport so important in Australia?
Sport is an important social institution in Australia and the values that are deemed most important in Australian society are reflected in sport in Australia. Any meaning and value that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed, and reflect the core societal values, which are generally linked to what it means to be Australian. Power is a feature of all social relations, and the dominant group will use the values that are important in society, as a way of maintaining their hegemony. The dominant group will change as society changes.
Sport is an important social institution in Australia that permeates through all sectors of Australian society. In any sport interactions, when there is engagement with other individuals, there will be a degree of regulation or authority, a controlling structure or body that determines the rules of the game, so to speak. In this way, sport can be considered to be like any other social institution.
And like other social or cultural practices, it should be placed into the context of the society in which it occurs (Mewett, 2003: 446). If sport can be said to mirror society, then it will provide a means of understanding the core values in society, and in turn, the core values placed on sport.
The sociologist Max Weber said that societies are constructed by the human beings living in that society (Weber 1938 cited in Sage: 4-5), meaning any value that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed. Weber’s theory rests on the assumption that there are no ideas independent of human existence (Sage, 1990: 4).
The importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed and articulated by the dominant group in society to represent their version of ‘social reality’, thereby expressing it as part of the national identity (Sage, 1990: 21).
Thus, allowing the dominant group in society to legitimise their hegemony. While the dominant group in society will change as society changes (McGregor, 2003: 144), those at the top of the power structure will generally have more power, wealth, possessions, opportunities and more control over their lives than those at the bottom” (McGregor, 2003: 144).
The importance placed on sport during the First World War was class divided, and was a mirror of the class divisions in society at the time. In 1914, there were two distinct views toward what importance should be placed on sport. The dominant group was the middle class, reflecting the hegemony of the middle class in society at the time (McKernan, 1979: 3)
The middle class wanted Australians to stop playing sport until the war was over, with the view that sport was a recreational pursuit and merely a good grounding for the more important things in life, an excellent moral and physical training ground for the “greater game”, which of course meant the war (McKernan, 1979: 2). To this end, they argued that sport was distracting Australians from the war. In their view, sport served a higher, rational purpose than mere entertainment (McKernan. 1979: 2).
The alternate view came from the working class, who held the view that sport was a profession that was primarily a form of entertainment and should not be taken too seriously. They rejected the suggestion that a few hours spent watching a game of football meant that it “induced apathy or indifference to higher struggles or duties” (McKernan,1979: 18). The implication by the middle class being that men who spent time watching sport should instead be fighting the war.
While the level of importance that each class placed on sport was determined by social and economical factors (Horne et al, 1999: 61) (and was also a reflection of the amateur/professional divide of sport at the time).
By 1917, the class conflict was breaking down social cohesiveness necessary for a civil society so, not unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister, W.M. Hughes, intervened and attempted to resolve the issue. In his May 1917 Budget, he said sporting matches should be halted during the war “in order to concentrate the minds of the people on the more serious aspect of war.” (McKernan, 1979: 15).
After waiting for the football finals to be completed, the Government placed restrictions on sport for the duration of the war, particularly the professional codes where large crowds of men would gather, in the hope of encouraging more men to enlist (McKernan, 1979: 14-15).
They didn’t enlist in great numbers, but the restrictions did promote a more cohesive social environment that kept society in check and so legitimated the government intervention. An important point is that the restrictions were delayed until after the football finals, which contradicted the governments’ reason for intervening in the first place.
During the years of the First World War, different class structures in Australia placed varying levels of importance on sport. And through legitimate government intervention, the dominant group in society maintained their hegemony through the restrictions that were placed on certain sports, those which entertained the masses.
In Australian society today, the dominant group has changed, reflecting the changes in society. Class is still an issue, but when it comes to the importance that is placed on sport, the government are the dominant group and are able to influence the importance of sport in Australian society, or at least use the significance of sport to maintain their hegemony.
In October 2005, the Minister for Small Business in Victoria issued a press release that stated the Victorian Government had decided to “delay” the end of day-light savings to coincide with the end of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne (Haermeyer, 2005). The decision “makes things easier for businesses as it minimises any disruption or change during this exciting international event”. The government created certain conditions to benefit the state economically, the Games bringing in more tourists to the State.
By stating the delay of the end of daylight savings will accommodate international viewers and allow Australia to receive maximum international attention, this created a perceived importance around the Games and legitimised the Victorian Government’s desire to generate money into the Victorian economy, which is one of the features of a dominant group, to “preserve the basis of privilege and dominance” (Horne et al, 1999: 123).
Through placing a high level of importance onto sport, the dominant group are able to manipulate the values held in society to maintain their hegemony
Australians learn to conform to the social norms (Horne et al, 1999: 133) to fit into Australian society. They will adhere to the values they are told are distinctly Australian because they are so closely associated with what it means to be Australian; qualities like mateship, courage, teamwork, loyalty, leadership and physical prowess (Australian War Memorial, 2006) are part of Australia’s history. Therefore, the core values of Australian society are expected to be displayed during events of national significance like the Olympic Games by Australian athletes, and anything that does not fit this mould will be rejected as ‘un-Australian’.
In the 2004 Athens Olympics, rower Sally Robbins ‘stopped’ rowing during the final, ‘denying’ the Australian team a chance at a medal. She said her collapse was due to the extreme heat but she was vilified by much of the media and the public (Radcliffe, 2004). BBC Sport called her action “very un-Australian” and that she had disappointed her “sport-mad country” (Radcliffe, 2004). The Australian newspaper compared her to the Australian ‘hero’ Grant Hackett saying “his was the definitive demonstration of heroism - he did everything it took to reach his goal” (Radcliffe, 2004).
The Melbourne Sun headline read “It's eight, mate, pull your weight” (Radcliffe, 2004) and the Sydney Morning Telegraph used the headline "Just Oarful" to demonstrate their views and ran a poll asking readers to vote on whether she had cost the team a medal (Radcliffe, 2004). The response from Australia’s Olympic chief John Coates was that "there have been breaches of our team guidelines which say team members shouldn't talk disparagingly about other team members” (Radcliffe, 2004).
Importantly, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard said “I wasn't there and I can understand the passion and the emotion and the effort that goes into these things and the sense of disappointment people feel - but I'm not taking sides” (Radcliffe, 2004). It is normal for a politician to distance themselves from a controversy that does not involve the government, but his comment can be compared to the situation in 1917, where the Government of the day will intervene as little as possible, particularly when the controversy involves the matter of sport.
This example highlights sport reflecting the wider community, where Australians will judge other Australians by their actions on the sporting field. To this end, many in the Australian community placed more importance on Australian winning another medal than on the welfare of a fellow Australian, with a poll in the Sydney Morning Herald revealing that only 27% of respondents though that she was treated unfairly (Sydney Morning Herald, 2004).
Sport is an important social institution in Australia and the values that are deemed most important in Australian society are reflected in sport in Australia. The value and importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed, and reflect the core societal values, which are generally linked to what it means to be Australian. They are linked with Australian history, and any move away from these values will be rejected by society. While the dominant group in Australian society has changed as society changes, power remains a feature of all social relations; and the dominant group in society will use these values of Australians is a means of maintaining their hegemony.
Bibliography
Haermeyer, André (2005) Media Releases, Victorian Government, The Minister for Small Business, Daylight Savings Shines on Commonwealth Games, 27/10/05
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/955cbeae7df9460dca256c8c00152d2b/1e1c9b49ed5429e8ca2570a800047eb6!OpenDocument
Horne, John; Tomlinson, Alan & Whannel, Garry (1999) Understanding Sport – An Introduction to the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport, London: E & FN Spon.
McGregor, Craig (2003) Class in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 141-157.
McKernan, Michael (1979) Sport, War and Society: Australia 1914-18.In Cashman Richard & McKernan Michael (Eds). Sport in History: The Making of Modern Sporting History. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press
Mewett, Peter (2003) Sport in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 443-467.
Radcliffe, Paula (2004) BBC Sport online, Olympics 2004, Rower Suffers Aussie Backlash, 25/8/04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/rowing/3597914.stm
Sage, George (1990) Power and Ideology in American Sport -A Critical Perspective, United States: Human Kinetics Books:
Sydney Morning Herald (2004) Athens 2004 Polls, Rowing controversy : Has Sally Robbins been treated unfairly? http://www.smh.com.au/polls/athens/form.html
Australian War Memorial (2006) Special Exhibitions Gallery, Sport and War. http://www.awm.gov.au/
Sport is an important social institution in Australia that permeates through all sectors of Australian society. In any sport interactions, when there is engagement with other individuals, there will be a degree of regulation or authority, a controlling structure or body that determines the rules of the game, so to speak. In this way, sport can be considered to be like any other social institution.
And like other social or cultural practices, it should be placed into the context of the society in which it occurs (Mewett, 2003: 446). If sport can be said to mirror society, then it will provide a means of understanding the core values in society, and in turn, the core values placed on sport.
The sociologist Max Weber said that societies are constructed by the human beings living in that society (Weber 1938 cited in Sage: 4-5), meaning any value that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed. Weber’s theory rests on the assumption that there are no ideas independent of human existence (Sage, 1990: 4).
The importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed and articulated by the dominant group in society to represent their version of ‘social reality’, thereby expressing it as part of the national identity (Sage, 1990: 21).
Thus, allowing the dominant group in society to legitimise their hegemony. While the dominant group in society will change as society changes (McGregor, 2003: 144), those at the top of the power structure will generally have more power, wealth, possessions, opportunities and more control over their lives than those at the bottom” (McGregor, 2003: 144).
The importance placed on sport during the First World War was class divided, and was a mirror of the class divisions in society at the time. In 1914, there were two distinct views toward what importance should be placed on sport. The dominant group was the middle class, reflecting the hegemony of the middle class in society at the time (McKernan, 1979: 3)
The middle class wanted Australians to stop playing sport until the war was over, with the view that sport was a recreational pursuit and merely a good grounding for the more important things in life, an excellent moral and physical training ground for the “greater game”, which of course meant the war (McKernan, 1979: 2). To this end, they argued that sport was distracting Australians from the war. In their view, sport served a higher, rational purpose than mere entertainment (McKernan. 1979: 2).
The alternate view came from the working class, who held the view that sport was a profession that was primarily a form of entertainment and should not be taken too seriously. They rejected the suggestion that a few hours spent watching a game of football meant that it “induced apathy or indifference to higher struggles or duties” (McKernan,1979: 18). The implication by the middle class being that men who spent time watching sport should instead be fighting the war.
While the level of importance that each class placed on sport was determined by social and economical factors (Horne et al, 1999: 61) (and was also a reflection of the amateur/professional divide of sport at the time).
By 1917, the class conflict was breaking down social cohesiveness necessary for a civil society so, not unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister, W.M. Hughes, intervened and attempted to resolve the issue. In his May 1917 Budget, he said sporting matches should be halted during the war “in order to concentrate the minds of the people on the more serious aspect of war.” (McKernan, 1979: 15).
After waiting for the football finals to be completed, the Government placed restrictions on sport for the duration of the war, particularly the professional codes where large crowds of men would gather, in the hope of encouraging more men to enlist (McKernan, 1979: 14-15).
They didn’t enlist in great numbers, but the restrictions did promote a more cohesive social environment that kept society in check and so legitimated the government intervention. An important point is that the restrictions were delayed until after the football finals, which contradicted the governments’ reason for intervening in the first place.
During the years of the First World War, different class structures in Australia placed varying levels of importance on sport. And through legitimate government intervention, the dominant group in society maintained their hegemony through the restrictions that were placed on certain sports, those which entertained the masses.
In Australian society today, the dominant group has changed, reflecting the changes in society. Class is still an issue, but when it comes to the importance that is placed on sport, the government are the dominant group and are able to influence the importance of sport in Australian society, or at least use the significance of sport to maintain their hegemony.
In October 2005, the Minister for Small Business in Victoria issued a press release that stated the Victorian Government had decided to “delay” the end of day-light savings to coincide with the end of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne (Haermeyer, 2005). The decision “makes things easier for businesses as it minimises any disruption or change during this exciting international event”. The government created certain conditions to benefit the state economically, the Games bringing in more tourists to the State.
By stating the delay of the end of daylight savings will accommodate international viewers and allow Australia to receive maximum international attention, this created a perceived importance around the Games and legitimised the Victorian Government’s desire to generate money into the Victorian economy, which is one of the features of a dominant group, to “preserve the basis of privilege and dominance” (Horne et al, 1999: 123).
Through placing a high level of importance onto sport, the dominant group are able to manipulate the values held in society to maintain their hegemony
Australians learn to conform to the social norms (Horne et al, 1999: 133) to fit into Australian society. They will adhere to the values they are told are distinctly Australian because they are so closely associated with what it means to be Australian; qualities like mateship, courage, teamwork, loyalty, leadership and physical prowess (Australian War Memorial, 2006) are part of Australia’s history. Therefore, the core values of Australian society are expected to be displayed during events of national significance like the Olympic Games by Australian athletes, and anything that does not fit this mould will be rejected as ‘un-Australian’.
In the 2004 Athens Olympics, rower Sally Robbins ‘stopped’ rowing during the final, ‘denying’ the Australian team a chance at a medal. She said her collapse was due to the extreme heat but she was vilified by much of the media and the public (Radcliffe, 2004). BBC Sport called her action “very un-Australian” and that she had disappointed her “sport-mad country” (Radcliffe, 2004). The Australian newspaper compared her to the Australian ‘hero’ Grant Hackett saying “his was the definitive demonstration of heroism - he did everything it took to reach his goal” (Radcliffe, 2004).
The Melbourne Sun headline read “It's eight, mate, pull your weight” (Radcliffe, 2004) and the Sydney Morning Telegraph used the headline "Just Oarful" to demonstrate their views and ran a poll asking readers to vote on whether she had cost the team a medal (Radcliffe, 2004). The response from Australia’s Olympic chief John Coates was that "there have been breaches of our team guidelines which say team members shouldn't talk disparagingly about other team members” (Radcliffe, 2004).
Importantly, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard said “I wasn't there and I can understand the passion and the emotion and the effort that goes into these things and the sense of disappointment people feel - but I'm not taking sides” (Radcliffe, 2004). It is normal for a politician to distance themselves from a controversy that does not involve the government, but his comment can be compared to the situation in 1917, where the Government of the day will intervene as little as possible, particularly when the controversy involves the matter of sport.
This example highlights sport reflecting the wider community, where Australians will judge other Australians by their actions on the sporting field. To this end, many in the Australian community placed more importance on Australian winning another medal than on the welfare of a fellow Australian, with a poll in the Sydney Morning Herald revealing that only 27% of respondents though that she was treated unfairly (Sydney Morning Herald, 2004).
Sport is an important social institution in Australia and the values that are deemed most important in Australian society are reflected in sport in Australia. The value and importance that is placed on sport in Australia is socially constructed, and reflect the core societal values, which are generally linked to what it means to be Australian. They are linked with Australian history, and any move away from these values will be rejected by society. While the dominant group in Australian society has changed as society changes, power remains a feature of all social relations; and the dominant group in society will use these values of Australians is a means of maintaining their hegemony.
Bibliography
Haermeyer, André (2005) Media Releases, Victorian Government, The Minister for Small Business, Daylight Savings Shines on Commonwealth Games, 27/10/05
http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/955cbeae7df9460dca256c8c00152d2b/1e1c9b49ed5429e8ca2570a800047eb6!OpenDocument
Horne, John; Tomlinson, Alan & Whannel, Garry (1999) Understanding Sport – An Introduction to the Sociological and Cultural Analysis of Sport, London: E & FN Spon.
McGregor, Craig (2003) Class in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 141-157.
McKernan, Michael (1979) Sport, War and Society: Australia 1914-18.In Cashman Richard & McKernan Michael (Eds). Sport in History: The Making of Modern Sporting History. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press
Mewett, Peter (2003) Sport in Ray Jureidini & Marilyn Poole (eds), Sociology: Australian Connections, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, pp 443-467.
Radcliffe, Paula (2004) BBC Sport online, Olympics 2004, Rower Suffers Aussie Backlash, 25/8/04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/rowing/3597914.stm
Sage, George (1990) Power and Ideology in American Sport -A Critical Perspective, United States: Human Kinetics Books:
Sydney Morning Herald (2004) Athens 2004 Polls, Rowing controversy : Has Sally Robbins been treated unfairly? http://www.smh.com.au/polls/athens/form.html
Australian War Memorial (2006) Special Exhibitions Gallery, Sport and War. http://www.awm.gov.au/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)