Hi All out there in Blogland,

I'm currently competing in a game called fixated where players buy and sell shares in celebrities and the value of the shares changes based on the number of hits the celebs get on live.com

There are weekly prizes as well as a shot at $1million at the end of the game in Feb.

Until Feb I'm going to keep this post at the top and update the names of the celebs that I need to make it to the top.  If you have a few moments after reading my other posts, please run a search on one or all of the celebs and remember to do it on live.

AJ

Today's Celebrities are:

*Tony Abbot
*Johnny Depp
*Queen Elizabeth II
*Rove
*Harrison Ford
*Ben Stiller
*Colin Farrell
*Kylie Minogue
*Brooke Satchwell

Quantum of Solace explodes onto the screen with an amazing car chase between Bond and an unknown pursuer, and from there launches into some of the most amazing action sequences Bond has experienced yet.  The new movie undeniably borrows it’s camera work and extreme action scenes from recent movies like the Bourne Ultimatum, and continues with the very physical and rough around the edges Bond that Daniel Craig introduced us to in Casino Royale.  Bond just keeps going and going and going in this one, adding an amazing boat chase and aerial cat fight to the usual high speed car chases.  The character also has a bit more depth than his usual character, playing on unfinished business from the last film.  Judy Dench also features quite prominently in this film as the buffer between MI-6 and the corridors of Parliament, a relationship made tense by the new bad guy Dominic Greene, who has far reaching power and “people everywhere.”  Green’s organization – the Quantum of Solace or perhaps a modern interpretation of Smersh/Shape – has infiltrated not only MI-6 itself but also many influencers in the major governments of the world.  Because of this Bond does not know who he can trust and who he can not.  And caught up Greene, the CIA becomes something of an adversary as well.  Much of the action centres on Bolivia, where Greene controls a very precious resource and is artificially causing a shortage.  The character also spends much time campaigning in favour of environmentalism, but at the same time is happy to be an agitator as far as environmental catastrophes go.  The character is strange and intense, paranoid and brutal, and makes a very devious villain for Bond, he also is not taken out in usual Bond style, but I will leave that for you to discover.  Maithas features once again to help Bond along his way, along with charmingly named Strawberry Fields (her parents must have been rock stars).  Bond is accompanied along his way by Camille Montes, a revenge drivine ex-Bolivian secret service agent.  As mentioned in other reviews, she is a little bit wooden and does not have the charm of other Bond girls.  It is also strange to have a Russian play a Bolivian character (there are more than enough Latina actresses that could have been cast in the part!)  The only other down point was the opening credits.  Usually this sequence is an opportunity for the directors to show off in spectacular cinematic style with surreal but tantalising sequences set to a popular track.  The film utterly fails on this front.  The track by Alicia Keys and Jack White (of the White Stripes) is poorly crafted and annoying, not setting the scene or even being pleasant to listen to.  The opening sequence is also all done in vector graphics with very little real camerawork or images.  I am completely over vector graphics, in fact if I could figure out how to use Gimp I’d do some for you now just to show how any mug can create them.  MK12 disappointed with this, however I did think that the user graphical interface that they designed for the sequences in MI-6 HQ was quite impressive – I want the system!

Disappointingly there were no tricky gadgets and no Q in this movie, however it would have spoiled the plot somewhat.  This James Bond is gritty and physical rather than techy and suave.  And unlike other Bond films there is very little time for womanising, and the martini becomes something of a crutch rather than a cue for the usual “shaken but not stirred” cliché.

All in all this was a wonderful film and well worth seeing!

For years and years I have tried to not get on the “porn is bad and immoral” bandwagon.  My reasoning being that whilst I would never (and have never) look at the stuff, and it would be inappropriate for someone with Christian beliefs to do so, others did not hold the same beliefs as me and are free to do as they wish.  Although in this situation I’d make the proviso that they would have to be adults.  Today I have to say that I am on the verge of changing my opinion.

Recently it’s been revealed that Queensland has a lowering crime rate.  Except for sexual assault that is.  That is on the increase.  (The report in question also noted that drug offences are on the increase, but that’s probably not as sensational).  And anyone who watches the news knows about the increasing frequency that sexual assault and more disturbingly child abuse seems to be reported more often.  I don’t think that it is insignificant that a survey of young Australians has revealed that more and more boys and young men think that domestic violence is okay and that even rape can be justified in some circumstances.

As long-term readers of my blog will know, domestic violence is an issue that I am pretty passionate about.  It is never okay and never acceptable and that message does not get out often enough.  The sad thing about it as well is that whilst most of us would generally associate it with the lower echelons of society, it can affect any one.  And having a certain lifestyle makes it more difficult to speak up and get out.  Additionally abuse is cyclical and only stops when one partner ends up dead (the abusive partner when the victim retaliates, or the victim as the abuse becomes worse).

Rape and domestic violence have one thing in common and that is that they are acts of violence that are primarily about power.  The perpetrator  feels the need to assert their authority and for what ever reason does this in the most violent dysfunctional way.  The big question is why do more and more men use violence to assert their authority around women?  What is it in society that is making this more and more acceptable? 

In the case of the boys thought it was acceptable to have sex with a girl just because she was flirting, it does make me wonder why so many young men are completely socially dysfunctional.  Flirting does not indicate a desire to sleep with someone.  Flirting is just wordplay designed to stroke the ego.  And why should it stop because someone not only doesn’t understand the rules, but is willing to commit a brutal act because they are completely ignorant?  The other disturbing thing is how young the kids surveyed seem to be when they are starting to have sex.  A 15 year old is not emotionally mature and they are also not completely physically mature either – they’re still in the process of maturing – it’s not really the best time to be engaging in an activity that can be confusing and in some instances distressing for adults at the best of times.

One thing that came to mind whilst contemplating this was an article a friend recently posted on Facebook recently.  It was a movie review for a couple of films that explored teenage sexuality.  The review had some interesting comments from an Australian write (I haven’t found out enough about her to call her an academic, especially as she’s been compared to Kinsey who is not always known for his academic rigour).  She has done a survey of 300 teens and found that most of them were getting most of their information about sex, not from parents, educators or other members of the community, but from porn.  Not being someone who indulges in the stuff I could be wrong, but I hardly see porn as being a positive role model for how men and women should interact.  Generally speaking I’ve always understood it to be the stuff of fantasy and reduces interaction between lovers and the opposite sex to very little other than just the sex.  It needs to be taken with other texts about social interaction, not by itself.  And perhaps that is where the issue is coming from.  If internet texts are the ones that an individual is most exposed to, then their view of the world would be obscured.  And there would be huge gaps in social knowledge with regards to men and women interacting and also courtship.  Internet texts would give rise to being exposed to more de-contextualised sex (ie sex not played out in the realm of a normal relationship), violence and a dysfunctional behaviour.  For the first time I am starting to think that just maybe there is a connection between the high exposure to porn at younger than previously normal ages could perhaps be contributing to the attitude of boys and men towards women.  Especially if this is where most boys and young men are now gaining their sexual values.

This is a huge backward step for a lot of the work that women have done addressing the generally raw deal that they have had in the past.  Whilst women have often been treated well socially and even been leaders and opinion makers in this field, they were denied legal rights and the ability to enter many positions in society, especially with regards to vocation.  Much has been done to address this – women have greater access to education and vocational opportunities than ever before.  They can vote and they can even run for parliament – foreign concepts to our ancestors 150 years ago.  There is still a long way to go before we can progress to equity in many spheres, the glass ceiling well and truly still exists.  The sad thing that I think this situation actually reflects a backward step in the way women are treated socially.  More and more men seem to throw away social niceties as old fashioned, quaint or irrelevant due to the incorrect perception of women having the upper hand.  It would also seem that reducing women to the role of worker or passive sexual vessel is an unwanted side effect of this as well.  I'm not sure.

All I can say it I am starting to see the side of those who want restrictions on pornography.  I'm not about to throw away my libertarian views and start embracing K Rudd's ISP filtering.  But I am definitely more passionate about things like educating parents to monitor their kids internet usage and to spend more time with children to transfer positive functional values to them.

The articles and some extracts:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24662361-953,00.html

ONE in every three boys believes it is acceptable to hit girls and many children are routinely exposed to domestic violence, according to a disturbing survey.

The unprecedented survey of violence and attitudes shows one third of boys believe "it's not a big deal to hit a girl". One in seven thought "it's OK to make a girl have sex with you if she was flirting".

The survey also shows one in four teenagers lives with violence at home, prompting calls for domestic violence education programs in schools.

The study, which reviewed data from the past seven years, including a survey of 5000 12 to 20-year-olds, found up to 350,000 girls aged between 12 and 20 – one in seven – had experienced sexual assault or rape.

Almost one third of girls in Year 10 had experienced unwanted sex.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/13/2419230.htm

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson says he is concerned by a rise in sexual assaults.

The annual police statistics report tabled in State Parliament shows overall crime fell by 5 per cent last year, but rape and attempted rape is up by 21 per cent

Commissioner Atkinson says the rise may be partly due to more people reporting sexual crimes.

"Whilst we are concerned, we do think that the situation is currently not at alarmist by any means proportions, and we obviously want to closely monitor it from year to year," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/we-live-in-a-sexual-twilight-zone/2008/10/12/1223749846512.html

This is not as aberrant as one might assume. Sex Lives Of Australian Women, by Joan Sauers, published this year by Random House, based on a survey completed by 1806 women, finds that two-thirds of women said they masturbated regularly and "the most common scenario in our sexual fantasies, described by hundreds of women, was having sex with multiple partners".

Another recurring theme was "imagining themselves as sex workers, strippers, and lap dancers . . . A lot of women fantasise about sex with strangers . . . Bondage and discipline fantasies are very common".

Exhibitionism is also booming. Twenty-two per cent of the surveyed women aged between 20 and 29 had been filmed or taped while having sex.

Again, Sauers is useful. In Sex Lives Of Australian Teenagers (Random House, 2007), based on a survey of 300 teenagers, which found children were getting most of their information about sex from internet porn sites rather than their parents or sex education programs. Sauers found that 97 per cent of girls, and 100 per cent of boys, had seen porn by the time they turned 15. A third of girls had had a sexual experience by the age of 13.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/17/2421195.htm

I don’t for one minute think that this detracts from the neighbourhood at all, in fact I embrace these people being here.  My area affords easy access to transport allowing access to a variety of facilities and services.  It also means that if willing to work or engage in community activities it’s really easy.  I have to say most of these characters are pretty friendly and don’t cause any trouble – they are after all people with physical and intellectual disabilities, not nut cases or recovering drug addicts.  And all of the people that I’ve come across are engaged with groups that support and care for people with disabilities.  Often the live in units with one or two other housemates, making it more efficient for people working in disability support to help out (ie they can help three people at once rather than driving around to different locations to help the same number of people.)  And whilst it’s not a life that you’d choose to have, it’s not a bad one at all.  No one else in the neighbourhood gives every one a big smile and a greeting when you see them in the street.

My other exposure to people with disabilities comes through the work experience I did when studying Education.  I did most of my pracs in special schools.  After these pracs I was amazed a how wonderful most of these children were.  Their ability to learn as a normal child was impaired and their hope of a normal life was limited, but their lives were no less wonderful for not being normal.

Given this experience I am amazed to hear that the government has set up a committee to see if it’s appropriate to abort unborn children if they will have a disability.  My personal views aside, I can’t believe that the government or anyone else is even asking this question.  What makes a child who may have a disability any less entitled to being born than a normal healthy child?  Aren’t we all meant to be equal?  I also don’t like that people seriously debate this issue as if it is a legitimate question, especially as the answer in favour is based on huge assumptions about the quality of the child’s life to determine it’s value.  I don’t consider someone with a disability to have any lower changes of a happy, healthy, fulfilling life.  In fact I’d probably rate it higher.  Education and support services are so geared towards looking after people with disabilities that it means that unlike your healthy “normal” children they won’t end up drug addicts, are unlikely to end up in jail, are more likely to have an occupation (even if it’s not an income earning one).  People with disabilities that are purely physical also have just as much chance of completing their education and having a career – they may just require a little more help and support to do so.  However arguements about quality of life just don't wash with me.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that it is hard to have a family member with a disability, especially a severe one, and that if parents do proceed with the birth but give the child up for adoption they may never have a loving happy home to be raised in, but that’s more about us than the child in question.

The other thing that we need to remember about this is that things can always go wrong in utero and also during the birthing process.  So a child that may appear normal after gene screening and ultrasounds (or whatever those imaging things they do now are called), may still be affected by conditions caused by the birth process – some of these conditions such as Cerebra Palsy can cause quite severe disability.  There is absolutely no way to guarantee a child is free of disability when born and so we probably shouldn’t even consider intervening as we have not guarantee of success.  Whilst I believe that abortion can be appropriate if the mother’s life is at risk or if the child is at risk of dying or is already dead in utero, but this is extreme and perverse and I can not believe that our government needs a group of people to decide if it’s right or wrong.

Once again, I want to encourage you to support Movember!

I’m over the US election, I will say that.  After all the hoohar for their preselection (or what ever they call the process) and now the actual campaign, I’m kind of sick of hearing about it.  And it’s not so much the campaign we hear about here, it’s just Obama and it’s mostly just pictures of him with adoring crowds.  I consider myself lucky to have picked up on the fact that he wants to increase tax and McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush.

One message I seem to hear time and time again is from people who don’t like Sarah Palin, although what they seem to say is, “she scares me.”  WFT?  What kind of political argument is that?  It’s emotive, unjustified nonsense.  Public speaking scares most people but it doesn’t mean we’re about to eradicate it from the political process.  The Greens scare me, but I’m not ever going to propose or interfere with people’s right to vote for the loonies.  I know she’s made a few gaffes, but there doesn’t seem to be anything outside the realm of normal human fallibility (politicians are human as well btw, not robots and not lower-simian type beings).  There is a lot I don’t know about her, our media seems to have a very left-wing filter when it comes to the US, but the question I’ve been asking is when will it be okay for a woman to be in the top job in the US?  And when will it be okay in Australia?  I think that this election is showing that Americans are actually more discriminating towards women than they are people’s race.

This problem was first highlighted by Hillary Clinton’s preselection campaign.  No one seemed to like her.  Why?  Hillary is a bitch.  That was pretty much it.  No problems with her ideology or policies, it was just a personal complaint.  And whilst it was always touch and go as to who would win the right to run for the Democrats, Clinton was never that far ahead when she was ahead.  I think Palin is a victim of the same mindset.  She is at the opposite end of the spectrum to Clinton as far personalities go – she’s more homey and ditzy than a hardened career woman – and yet they get the same treatment, they seem to be hated an maligned.  Other than discrimination it seems hard to come to terms with why this is.  And it also begs the question as to what ‘type’ of woman would actually make it in the top job?

England, which I perceive as much more conservative, has had a woman in the top job and for the conservative party.  China, Germany, France, the Philippines, India and  Canada have all had women elected to the top job in politics or as their head of state.  If New Zealand reelects Helen Clarke, she will be Prime Minister for 10 years next year.  (I will also note that NZ has an upcoming election that has had almost no coverage here in Australia and they are much closer to home for us than the US).  Many of these countries are not as modern, progressive and intent on appearing to treat women as equals as the US and Australia.

I have to say Australia has made progress somewhat with both out Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Opposition Leader being women.  However neither receive the outstanding publicity that their male counterparts do.  The thought of Julia Gillard being Prime Minister scares me, but I wouldn’t use that in an attempt to persuade people to vote Liberal-National.  I’m sure Julie Bishop scares socialists (at least I hope she does) although I have to say occasionally – not very often – she falls into the category of politicians that are annoying because they can’t go outside their brief.  But it does beg the question, what woman would we be comfortable with as Prime Minister?

This is actually an important issue for us to think about as I have read recently that there are now less women on company boards than there was 5 or 10 years ago.  It seems like Western society is becoming liberal in terms of racial inclusiveness, but taking leaps and bounds backwards in terms of the liberation of women.

The next sate election will be a tough battle, and we by no means face poor opposition.  The ALP is better funded, has a very sophisticated election machine and a volunteer workforce bolstered by the unions (actually rumour has it they actually pay people to do their campaigning, but I don’t see how they could afford that!)  There are also still many people out there who support the ALP through thick and thin – some of the comment on my blog from time to time – but I think that there is a change in the air for the people of Qld.

Today I felt so outraged about something that I've written to my federal MP about it.  He's a very busy and important person, so I doubt I'll hear back.

ISP filtering is something that does not protect the members of our society, it only serves to meet a political end.  It is one of the most objectionable aspects about the controlling dictatorships of China, Korea and Cuba (amongst other countries) and has no place in Australia.  If the government really is concerned about kids accessing porn, then there are other ways to do it.

I know the Christian Lobby has come out in support of it, which I think is a very dumb idea.  The fact of the matter is any laws that you can use to restrict alternative points of view, can be used against you.  ISP filtering could block Christian content as much as it block porn or the Anarchists Handbook.

I'd encourage you to write to your local MP and also Steven Conroy, the Minster for this issue.  If you do borrow anything from my letter, please change the words so they are said the way you would write (otherwise it will seem suspicous and be plagarism).

PO Box xxx

C------

Queensland 4xxx

29 October 2008

Kevin Rudd

Electorate Office

PO Box 476

Morningside

Queensland 4170

Dear Mr Rudd,

I want to write to you, as my local federal member, to let you know that I do not support ISP filtering and believe that the government needs to listen to the people and stop this initiative from proceeding.

Prior to the election, this was an issue raised during the ALP campaign, however the proposed form was to have the filtering to be optional.  I am disappointed to read in recent press that the government has no intention of making the filtering optional and there are also no clear statements of exactly what will be allowed and what will not.

The Federal Government has already run an extensive campaign aimed at making the internet safer for children, including offering net filters that parents can install on computers that children use.  This course of action has not proven to be unsuccessful and is the only course of action to continue with to ensure that all Australians are entitled to the freedom they deserve.

At present there is no guaranteed way to filter internet contents via ISPs that will not slow the speed of internet connections for all users, regardless of the content they access.  This means that filtering will mean that we have some of the worst internet access in the world.  In addition to punishing all users with slow internet, there is no assurance that the cost of filtering will not be passed back to users, meaning that access will become further out of the reach of low income earners and those in full time education such as university students who have very limited incomes.  It hardly seems reasonable for the government to take steps that will prevent Australians from receiving the best and broadest education possible.

The government has made no guarantees as to what content will and will not be filtered, and the experience of other countries that have filtered their internet has shown that some quite innocuous sites have been prohibited and those who want to access content that is illegal are still able to do so if they have the right skill set to bypass filtering.  All in all ISP filtering has never proven to meet it’s intended purpose.

Finally the purpose of ISP filtering is not to catch those engaged in illegal activity.  It seems that it is purely moral in intention.  Australia is a multi-cultural, pluralistic society.  There is a wide range of moral and ethical views that exist in the country and it is not the place of the government to enforce one view over the other.  Even if this is not the original intention of ISP filtering, it could very easily become that way.  Furthermore, many of the sites that have been touted as potentially being blocked – euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites – may actually be accessed for legitimate reasons and could also potentially lead to legitimate sites designed for informational purposes to be blocked.  Even if such sites are accessed for the wrong reasons, it is not illegal activity, it is only immoral, and it is not the place or even the right of the government to condone or maintain a moral point of view.  Additionally I wish to make the point that though I am a Christian, and I do not agree with people using the internet to access pornography, I do not think that I am in any way entitled to advocate taking away their right to access it.  The only exception for this is illegal material.

I am absolutely outraged that the government is not only considering, but making moves to go ahead with this plan.  I am also ashamed to see our country compared to societies that do not embrace freedom and respect for human rights and choice such as China, Iran and North Korea in this matter.  I love my country and I support it being a multicultural country that supports freedom and choice for every individual, so I ask that the government do the right and democratic thing and listen to the people on this issue.

Yours Sincerely,

Angela James

One thing that has come out of the financial crisis is the questioning of executive pay packages.  It seems that they were excessive, which is probably true, however the government thinks that they need to do something about it for some strange reason.  Whilst the government does and probably should determine minimum and award wages (and sets them far too low in my opinion) most salaries are market determined and up to employers an employees to negotiate – sometimes with some help from unions.  The focus has always been on making sure wages are not too low, rather than too high.  Essentially the market will determine what is too high.  Until now.

The US is looking at introducing a salary cap and I have heard (but not been able to verify) that the UK has actually done the same for some years.  Apparently all these corporate fat cats can not be trusted to determine their own salaries and the government needs to interfere.  Australia is not following suit entirely, but trying something more subtle – a so called ‘fat cat tax.’  And for some reason all of these things seem like a good idea.  Especially to Australians.  I feel the term ‘tall poppy syndrome’ coming on in this discussion.

Lately looking at the rhetoric surrounding new tax increases – such as changes in the luxury car tax, insurance premiums on bank deposits over $1million, increased income tax – the discourse is largely moral and I think that it’s wrong.  In an attempt to justify why people should have their money and assets taken from them, there seems to be a lot of name calling – fat cats, corporate greed, elite, rich, luxury, high income earner.  None of them are meant to have good connotation, and have an element of moral judgment.  It seems, that if you have amassed wealth for yourself, you must be corrupt, dishonest and greedy, because no normal person would want to do well for themselves, would they?  And if you’re corrupt, dishonest and greedy, you deserve your money taken off you.  Heck, they’re lucky we don’t throw them in jail.

I find it somewhat disturbing.  I also find it quite Marxian, but I’ll leave that for now.  The fact of the matter is, we actually do want people to head up companies, start companies and grow their wealth.  The reason for this is that it provides jobs for the rest of us (me included, especially as one of those other evil people – a consultant) and that what is given back to the community by way of taxation and benevolent donations actually benefits every one.  What we don’t want to do is discourage enterprise and people making money, or create a legislative and tax environment where people are actually more inclined to send money and make investments abroad.

On top of that the assumption that wealthy people or high income earners are corrupt is probably not a valid one.  There are plenty of benevolent people with money, and there are, I’m sure, many business owners and leaders who are actually good people when you can get them away from their office for more than 5 minutes.  By the same token there are plenty of morally corrupt people without a dollar to their name.  But we’re not about to put a tax on people for being bastards.  This whole rich = evil, poor = honest discourse really needs to be challenged, especially as it’s increasingly becoming the basis for government decisions.  Moreover, despite running our government and taxation systems on this basis for decades, it still really hasn’t addressed any inequalities in circumstance.

Here’s my answer:

Professionally

• Member of FINSIA
• Member of the IIA and on the committee as one of the social coordinators for the Young Members Network
• President (dictator) of the office Social Club
• Mentor students at QUT

Formally

• Involved in politics (but not as much as I use to be)
• Active member of a church (but not as actively involved in ministry as in the past)
• Gym member and devoted to my Saturday morning Body Balance

Generally

• I spend time with my parents and brothers (including job coaching, tutoring and generally keeping the peace)
• Catch up with ex-colleagues from previous work places
• Catch up with old uni and school friends
• Catch up with friends from churches I use to go to
• Play the occasional poker game
• Manage a movie once every week or two
• Blog
• Have been attempting to write a novel for the last 18 years (am up to 23 attempts in 4 years)
• Cross stitch, paint and draw
• Shop
• Shop lots
• Play golf and go to the driving range
• Spend way too much time catching up with people on Facebook and trading assets in a fictional game
• Occasionally plan what assets I would trade irl  (soon to be a reality – come on market, drop another 500 points!)
• Hoard books and occasionally read them (and possibly starting a book club soon)
• Get a good handle on where the good places to eat and drink are in Brisbane (and occasionally Sydney and Perth)

…no wonder I don’t go to the gym more often.  But what I really want to know is, why on earth do I get bored so often?

My brother is a struggling artist – a cartoonist to be exact.  His work is somewhere between skateboard/graffiti art and the guys that do Tank Girl.  It’s amazingly detailed and completely subversive at the same time.  That being said he recently landed a contract doing cartoons for a workshop conducted by a government agency to illustrate the descriptions of coworker stereotypes that workers had come up with as part of an HR exercise.  I got a giggle out of most of them, as well as the descriptions that the government workers had come up with.  They were submitted recently and some of the work had come back as being discriminatory and needed to be reworked.  One of the stereotypes had been of a metrosexual guy who had been rejected on the basis of being homophobic and there was some mention of racism as well – I’m not sure if the group he’d drawn was not ethnically diverse enough or I think there may have been one or two stereotypes he had drawn as being Asian.  It raises the question, were the cartoons or the descriptions discriminatory and are there some forms of discrimination that are subtle and almost acceptable?

The metrosexual stereotype, does to some extent, play on our cultural insecurity with appearance conscious men.  This is actually more predominant in Australia than other western countries (for example Italy or Japan) as generally speaking most men are a bit rough and ready, suiting up only for work and special occasions (if at all).  Our gender stereotypes are so entrenched that it seems unusual to many Australians that a man should be concerned about his hair style, the cut of his shirt or his willingness to wear pink that when we see men that contravene this stereotype is irks us somewhat.  The metrosexual is something of a soft target in this area, and often the source or ridicule by many who are less comfortable with having what they consider to be the norm contravened.  For some reason, as well,  it seems to be more acceptable to pick on straight men who choose to be appearance and status conscious because to pick on a homosexual man for being that way is very much discriminatory.  But is the stereotype of the image-conscious straight man discriminatory or is it just bordering on homophobia?  This is actually a difficult one for me to answer because whilst it is normal to form stereotypes, ridiculing a stereotype or an individual based on the stereotype is actual bullying.

This brings me to my second point that some stereotypes do actually have a racial element in them.  Living in Australia today any one who does not dwell under a rock knows that every one from the same cultural or ethnic background is not the same, but we know that some particular stereotypes exist within particular groups.  As someone who works in auditing and with accounting staff, I find the majority of people in the industry are shy retiring, attentive to detail and neatly dressed.  Quite a lot of them are also Asian.  But I also know that not all auditors or all Asians are like that.  The bogan stereotype is almost categorically white lower class trash, the CEO is stereotypically white, over 55 and university educated.  When you think of taxi drivers there are two stereotypes – the crusty old retired guy who will complain to you like you’re a talkback radio host and the clueless younger guy who can’t get by without the GPS and who has been in the job (and the country) for all of two months.  Whilst being true to life, these ‘types’ are also like the metrosexual, they border on the discriminatory.  Unlike the metrosexual they do not exist because they grate against our cultural sensibilities, but because we find them often and they help individuals to understand who they are dealing with.  Stereotypes help us anticipate and make some assumptions.  Without them we could not function and we would be constantly finding ourselves making social faux pas and naively establishing potentially damaging relationships.  Social stereotypes, however also need to be coupled by some degree of flexibility, where we are happy to take people out of boxes or we think twice before putting them in one, especially when the association with the stereotype is unpleasant.  Also stereotypes are cultural.  When watching moves or reading stories we look for certain literary and visual clues to tell us what to expect of a particular character.  This saves the author (or director) time in explaining to us what a particular character is like or how we can anticipate their reactions.

So potentially discriminatory and damaging stereotypes are all around us and are even enshrined in cultural texts.  It is part of our culture so we can not blame an individual for adopting a culturally codified way of interpreting the world.  But can we censor them because of it?

Also stereotypes can actually be regarded as a form of pattern recognition.  Most of people know that when they see the series 1,1,2,3,5,8…   that the next number is 13.   The Fibonacci series is fairly common place, and even so the pattern is recognizable.  It is the same with people.  It is unwise to base our assumptions about a type of person on just one experience, but when it occurs multiple times, the intelligent person knows when to jump to the conclusion that a particular person fits in to a particular subset of characteristics.  This I think is important as well that these patterns are made based individual experience and a broad range of experiences.  We should not for one minute take media representations or the experiences of friends and relatives as true and correct for one minute.  And also individuals should always be willing to reshape the boxes they have formed for particular types of people.

On a more personal note I want to add that I am not one of these people that thinks that it is helpful or even possible to eliminate all forms of discrimination and stereotyping in society.  Imran Khan (who I actually rather like as a public figure) recently said in a post-Ramadan speech that to most Australians terrorism is synonymous with Islam (or was it vice versa?) and this echoed a study I recently read that most Australians do have negative stereotypes of people in the Middle East.  I don’t think that this is any accident, but based on people’s very real experiences of Islam.  We have seen, even in our own country, Islamic men discriminate against all women, and sometimes even prevent women from leaving their own home.  Those of us who have looked into the religion know that this attitude verging on hatred is enshrined in the Quran.  The Quran is also extremely anti-Semitic.  Generally I don’t associate with people that are sexist and racist, however I also know that there are some exceptions to this in Islam.  Khan himself married a Jewish woman (Jemima Goldsmith) and there are also some Middle Eastern countries that are more liberal in their attitudes towards women.  However until I find out that someone is one of the exceptions, I go with the rule.  This is to protect myself (eg from discrimination or harassment) and also because I don’t have the time or the energy to find every little thing out about every person that I meet.  There are also positive stereotypes that we all hold as well, but we also need to remember that there are exceptions to these positive types.

To be perfectly honest, I think that this is one for the legal field as that is where most actual discrimination is sorted out.  However there is some food for thought in where and when stereotypes are appropriate and helpful – which ones can and should be challenged and which ones are here to stay, why we have them, when they are acceptable and when they are less acceptable.

One thing I look forward to every year is my birthday.  Not that I relish being a year older, or even expect presents, but I enjoy getting as many of my friends as possible together and catching up.  Being generally friendly, I do have many friends from a variety of walks of life.  I invited over 120 people to my 21^st (although only about 40 actually turned up), I don’t think I invite quite so many these days – university offered more social opportunities than I have experienced since.  One thing I will say about my parties is that it is completely unpredictable as to who will turn up, how they will get along and what will happen at the end of the evening.

A few years ago I remember one of my friends at my birthday dinner going on a rant, that was supposed to be funny, about how she thinks that euthanasia should not only be available, but enforced, particularly on some of the people we knew.  I did giggle, until I realized listening across the table was one of my lovely lovely compassionate friends working as a nurse.  As someone who does all she can to ensure people live and live as comfortably as possible in their conditions, she was obviously not amused.  That was also the party where one girl I kind of tolerated came along unannounced with one of her friends I secretly hated and spent the whole evening flirting with a guy I was not quite over and had only broken up with a few weeks since.  Fortunately some friend from work came out with me after and helped me do my own flirting in a club that is now notorious for being a ground for some of the Broncos more lewd escapades. 

Last year one of my friends from church hit it off with one of my friends from uni and we all had our fingers crossed that when he offered her a lift home something would come of it…  …sadly it didn’t.  But we lived in hope and it kept us occupied for the evening.  They were both so lovely and it should have been a good match!

This year I was over the moon with those who did come to dinner and drinks, (along with some disappointment over those handing in their apologies).  There were so many people I hadn’t seen for such a long time and there were no huge clashes at all.  One of my friends from my previous job and her fiancé who has been overseas for ages had come back and came out with us as did one of my buddies who I lived in Japan with.  Fortunately one of my other political friend had lived in Japan so they were had that in common and the partner of one of the girls from work and one of my other friends from church were both in horticulture (that is actual horticulture, not the illegal activity that is sometimes called that as an euphemism).  A couple of other political friend turned up and kept R company and I was fortunate enough to have a few of my trusty old friends that stayed out with me until the wee hours of the morning but well before club curfews.  As I’m getting very old and decrepit it wasn’t very late and fortunately not too boozy.  The worst faux pas was one of my friend mentioning a desire to go “toy” shopping in front of one of my church friends, which is something I’m sure we’ll all live down and hopefully laugh about. 

I’m tempted to list every one who sat round the table sharing dinner together and say how wonderful they are, but I’m sure it will bore whoever is reading this.  The other thing that amazed one of my friends was at the end of the night we had enough money to pay the bill, give a tip and get another drink – every one was not just honest but had chipped in more than their share.  The friend who was amazed wanted to borrow my friends for her party as she wasn’t sure the same thing would happen.

Birthday aside, I’ve been thinking this week about how great most of my friends are (I’ve also caught up with a friend who moved out to Perth this week whilst I’ve been out here for work).  I am pretty lucky.  Over time I’ve also learned to be a bit more emotionally mature and stopped worrying about, or in some cases stopped including, people who are emotionally draining, high maintenance, unbalanced or just nasty.  Talking to my friend last night we were reflecting on how when we were both quite involved in politics (coupled with other things that were going on) life was a bit like a soap.  My friend’s life has had some other ups and downs and is only just settling down – mine is quite settled and stable for now.  (That being said I also had my fair share of drama in Japan, living in a small expat community).  The thing about soap operas, and real operas, is that they’re fun to watch.  Not so much fun to actually live through.  I’ve got a great group of people in my network at the moment, who give and expect support, can voice a variety of opinions and walk vastly different paths.  I treasure them all – whether they made it on Saturday or not J

I recently attended a function where Julie Bishop observed that one of the ministers she shadows did not know the difference between government debt and government spending.  This was based on the person in question responding to a question about government spending in the financial sector by observing that the government had issued bonds.  I’m still trying to get my head around how this person has not been moved to another portfolio – as an Arts graduate I know that we’d be more suited to ministries like Foreign Affairs or even Deputy Leader.  Yet still, Rudd persists in having Swann as his Treasurer.

Actually just to show how open I am to giving the guy a chance, I will state for the record that I am paying to hear him speak – at FINSIA.  I was initially worried that I would miss out on registration for this function as it might fill up quickly, however as it turns out I didn’t need to worry.  There’s still two weeks until registrations close.  I’m sure people will turn up…

I am wondering, however, what he will have to say that will impress a bunch of finance professionals as that is something he has failed to do so far (I’m also a Finance graduate for those not in the know).  Even the journalists in at the Australian have commented that he gives the impression that he is madly swotting through Economics for Dummies in the back room before he delivers speeches.

But for all that we could (and do) say about Swann, the one thing I don’t get is how he thinks that lowering the official cash rate will be passed on or even help at the moment.  The reason for this is simple.  Due to problems faced by banks in the US, Europe and the UK, there is a liquidity crisis.  That means that there is not a lot of cash available for borrowing and lending in the market.  When there is not a lot of something, the price goes up.  So the cost of borrowing and lending on the international market will go up – if you can convince someone to take your counterpoint in the contract, which is getting harder – we also see this with the US Dollar.  Even though the US economy could be diplomatically described as stuffed at present, their dollar is going up against ours.  This again stems from the fact that every one is holding on to what cash they have and not exchanging or lending it.  The way Australian banks get money to give to people in loans is through this international money market.  The rate that banks get is passed on to consumers with an added margin (so they can make some money, their share price goes up and my super fund looks healthy – not that anyone’s super looks very good at the moment).  Even though the official rate may be set by the RBA, there is also a margin added on when the Australian banks borrow and lend based on their credit rating and various other factors.  As these credit ratings have changed due to the International economic turmoil, the official rates for borrowing and lending could quite conceivably go down, but the rate at which money is exchanged is not.  If the banks can’t borrow at a cheaper rate to cover what they have lent to customers, then they can not pass on a cut in the official cash rate as the impact of the rate cut is zero.

An aside for those who are wondering why the rate is not fixed at the start of the loan for the whole 20 or 30 years.  Money Market borrowing and lending and the execution of interest rate derivatives is done in large quantities, but for short periods – from a day to a couple of months being most usual to a maximum of 3-5 years.  Also people working in the money markets tend not to like to borrow or lend for long periods as the more time elapses, the more one party may loose out (ie they could get a better rate elsewhere) and the risk that they will not pay or close the contract early increases.

So all of this seems fairly straight forward to me.  And I’ve only worked at a low level in a bank, finished a finance degree and done some consulting work for a few different corporate treasuries.  Which does put me a bit ahead of most other Arts graduates*, but is should not put me ahead of the Federal Treasurer.  I will also say that I am not knocking Swann just because he’s a member of a party I don’t support (but that is a good reason), if our current government wants to be seen as having any credibility at all, it does need to put good and appropriate people into ministry positions.  Just doing a quick survey of the biographies of the current front bench – the Ministers Rudd have chosen overwhelmingly hold Arts and Law degrees (in most cases both, including, to my surprise, Peter Garrett) however Joel Fitzgibbon holds a Grad Cert in Business Administration, not quite the full MBA, but a start, Jenny Macklin has a Bachelor in Commerce, which is really just a fancy way to say a qualified accountant, but again a solid financial background, and Anthony Albanese, Stephen Conroy and Martin Furguson all hold Bachelors of Economics.  Obviously ministerial positions are not being chosen based on experience or qualifications.  We could do better, we could even have someone who knows the difference between debt and spending.

*I will say that I went to UQ for my Arts Degree, and the university offered 52 different majors (only 49 now) including Mathematics (which I studied) and Economics.  So it is possible that it is a suitable qualification for an economist.

I have to say I am a very bad Liberal supporter and must admit I have mixed feelings about Malcolm Turnbull. And it’s not just the Republic thing, although that irks me more than a bit.  What I comes down to, I think, is that he’s smug.  And I hate smugness almost as much as I hate people with overblown egos.  In fact the two are often closely related.

The unfortunate thing is that it’s getting harder and harder to hate him as he may just stand a chance against Rudd and I have to say putting more women in senior positions is endearing.

Actually upon reflection he is actually close to my ideal party leader – economically to the right, has had a successful career before going into politics, able to fund his own and others campaigns, articulate, not overly showy.  It’s really just the republic thing (and the smugness) that is getting in the way.  Well that and his unabated quest for power.  If there’s one thing he seems serious about it’s being in power, although that could also work in his favour as if he does anything too unpopular he’ll loose it.

At the end of the day, I will support any one working to get Rudd out of office.  So he can’t be all that bad, however I am also relishing the idea that it may be a woman that is next in line for the leadership.  Julie Bishop is becoming more and more the woman of the moment (but not quite in the same way that Sarah Palin has overshadowed John McCain) and you know what, I don’t care that she didn’t know the official interest rate this week, because when he first go in Wayne Swann didn’t either.  (That and it’s the RBA that sets the rate not the government).  I think that if the UK and NZ can have a female PM, Japan was considering it, and Sarah Palin will probably take over from McCain as he's almost at his use by date, then we are more than ready for a woman at the helm of government.

Four Corners recently aired a report showing footage of Cornelia Rau’s apprehension under the Mental Health Act (possibly before she was assumed to be an illegal immigrant?) and it reminds me again of why the government should not be in charge of people’s lives.  Whilst being no bleeding heart in favour of getting rid of detention centres, I do think the case points to two issues and also my argument against government intervention.  The report I just watched highlighted very poor treatment of the mentally ill when detained by private facility operators who were little more than thugs.  It also went on to show how many guards in the facility (it was unclear if it was Baxter or a mental health facility) actually ended up on work cover and unable to work because of the mental issues that the facility produced in people working there.  It shows that there is still a very poor understanding of mental illness, not only in the community, but amongst policy makers and those they have put in place to enact their policies.  Rau, for example, when detained was strapped down and hand cuffed when taken away and the way her apprehension was set up, this would have happened to her even if she had come willingly rather than showing some resistance as she did.  This surprised me as whilst she was obviously at risk – her doctor having made the referral to the mental health authorities perhaps because she wasn’t taking her medication – she did not seem violent or at risk of harming herself or others.  Although I do say this not fully understanding her diagnosis.  The other thing that studies have shown is that people locked up and treated poorly in prison and mental health facilities, even if completely normal, will actually start acting out and in some cases show signs of mental illness such as depression.  Which I believe is argument for better facilities and also processes for apprehension.  In Queensland we don’t even have rent-a-thugs or men in white coats to take people away.  The police are left to take care of the mentally ill, which is arguably even more traumatic.

My biggest beef with immigration detention, which comes into the Rau case, is that people are in these facilities for a long time.  It’s not unusual to hear of people being held from 18 months – 2 years.  But his report was saying it can also be something like 5 years.  5 years is too long to have some one detained.  In that time people’s social and job skills deteriorate, they become completely out of touch with the outside world and reality and I would argue in many cases would not be able to participate in society upon release.  I fail to understand how it is considered acceptable to detain someone waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy to function for years and years with no end in sight.  As far as I’m concerned there should be limits to how long it takes to process someone’s asylum application after which point the application process is terminated.  I know it begs the question of what happens to people whose identities can’t be established and there are also mental health issues, although I’ve blogged about them before and will spare you reading the details again.

The big point that this really highlights is why the government should not be called upon to interfere or control people’s lives.  Politicians and bureaucrats are ordinary people like you and me, and in some cases they are not as well educated, informed or as intelligent.  They can not make better decisions than most ordinary individuals.  As such we should default to individual decision making as only one person knows all of the particulars relating to persons situation – the individual in question.  Whilst there are some extreme cases where people can not decide for themselves, this is a tiny minority, which does not justify impinging on the majority of people.  The other issue that shows how governments miserably fail in their interfering is the way that they measure what is acceptable when it comes to decisions that have major impacts on people’s lives.  A reasonable person knows it’s not acceptable to take two years to process a visa whilst the person is held in detention.  A reasonable person knows that you do not keep people waiting for emergency medical treatment for hours and hours or in some cases day and in other cases until they keel over dead whilst lying on a hospital trolley.  A reasonable person knows that some one who is on a low income and can’t pay their rent should not be kept waiting for 2 years for emergency department of housing accommodation.  A reasonable person knows that you should not be expected to live on under $200 a week, even if you are elderly.  However all of these things are acceptable to the government, policy makers and politicians.  And that really does beg the question of why we want them so involved in decision making for our lives and why we find it acceptable that they continue to exert more and more control over our decisions?

I recently read about an author who seems to be on an anti-internet campaign.  The phrase “rise of the mediocre” or something similar seemed to be a central theme.  He may have read this blog as part of his research to form that conclusion.  As time goes on I agree with him more and more.

There are quite a few good blogs on this site, and there are some that we have unfortunately lost to Vox.  All the ones that I have read and enjoyed with varying degrees of consistency are fairly articulate and accurate, make good points and give readers insights into the lives, minds or beliefs of the authors.  Lately, however, I haven’t found as many interesting new blogs.  I’ve mostly found advertising sites or blogs offering mediocre advice or incomprehensible or illogical diatribes on obscure topics.  It’s been something of a disappointment, although I hardly rate myself as being the producer of a top notch quality blog.  My greatest disappointment lately has been that if and when I’ve had comments they’ve hardly had any critical content at all.  It’s as if personal preference and insults are the order of the day in place of   enlightened rational thought.  Although why I’m concerned about that is beyond me.  All in all I think, sadly, our good blogs are becoming overwhelmed by rubbish.  (And this should be of concern for environmentalists – even more moderate ones like myself - as well as the server space needed to house all this dribble would have quite a considerable carbon footprint).

Facebook also has me convinced that the world is drowning in the ordinary.  Photography more than content convinces me of this.  My parents have about 3 wedding photographs, we would have had a roll or two of film photographs taken of the family each year at most and when I got my own camera for the first time I know that I went out of my way to make each shot special.  The advent of digital photography means that we take shots of anything and everything.  I’m actually getting quite tired of trying to trawl through the endless photos of people either drunk on the weekend or making the same pose with the same friends in a slightly different location and a different dress.  I know that I have heaps of friend abroad photographing fascinating places I’ll never visit, taking shots of their children as the grow up and documenting some really special moments and people.  They’re just impossible to find amongst the rest of the stuff on there.  Actually the number of people willing to post some really ordinary or unflattering shots of themselves is astounding.

A recent episode of South Park also further convinced me of this when they were poking fun of “internet celebrities” such as the ‘leave Brittany alone’ emo kid, tron guy, the ‘Chocolate rain’ singer and various animal videos.  It’s stuff that’s mildly amusing at best.  It doesn’t really deserve more notoriety than real artistic performance by people with actual talent.  I guess seeing as it’s amusement for free I shouldn’t complain.  But I do think that the number of people going out there doing what they do online is just feeding into the same culture that produces really mediocre reality TV.  We almost expect rubbish entertainment.

The logical conclusion of all this would seem to be that we should just all stop blogging, posting photos on FB and filming ourselves failing at doing dumb ninja stunts, but it’s not.  It all represents the struggle we all have to come to grips with new media, cheaper media and global mass communications.  Other forms of media are not so freely available and as such have rigid guidelines to select what will be produced.  They’re not cheap to manufacture and they’re hard to make money on.  The internet is free.  Your blog sites, email sites and networking sites are paid for by advertising.  If you’re not worried about being compensated for your time you can put absolutely anything up there regardless of the content, grammar or value to society.  We can not have the same expectations of online content that we do of printed or recorded matter.

I have to beg the forgiveness of my readers as I have been a little under the weather lately and have not had the energy to blog.  But in a few weeks when I get back from interstate I should be back better than ever!

AJ

I wanted to include this extract from the last article in my last blog, but I’ll do a separate short entry.

The music played at raves is usually non-vocal and computer generated. It includes a variety of different subgenres such as techno, house, acid ambient or trance (Hitzler 2002). For instance, “trance” is based on a 4x4 drum beat with repetitive structure and with many layers making up the melody in a rhythmical fashion. This subgenre became the leading category within electronic music during the mid-1990s and, as a “trance” raver described, this music creates some form of a meditative state: “Dance is like an active meditation. You stop thinking. You just become one with your body…” Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the synergy effect of the drugs, music (especially the drums) and dancing in a hot environment may produce an altered state of consciousness (Nencini 2002). Goa Gill, a rave DJ, describes trance as “the concept of redefining the ancient tribal rituals for the 21st Century… It’s nothing new, every tribal group since the beginning of time has been practising these things [music and dance]”. The comparison of primitive and modern settings of intoxication, such as religious shamanic rituals and rave parties, has also been made by Nencini (2002).

I wanted to comment that as someone who refuses to take drugs, but enjoys electronic dance music, you don’t need to be in an altered state of mind to enjoy yourself.  Actually just dancing to this sort of music can actually induce an altered state of mind.  I hark back to one of my SummerFieldayze experiences in the Hard core dance music area, where I’d been dancing the whole time and I did really feel like I could see the music and felt absolutely elated and happy like I hadn’t before.  So whilst it may be put down to the drugs, sometimes it’s the music!

I’ve been surprised by the recent comments in the news from Professor Jake Najman, claiming that it is safer for people to use ecstasy than alcohol.  Whilst I am fiercely biased towards not using drugs, this is one that I have tried to look at objectively.  I’ve done a bit of a search online and found a few websties that describe the actual effects of both alcohol and ecstasy.  Both are disturbing, but I’m not about to stop drinking socially or start taking illicit drugs.  I’ve pasted some good extracts from some of the articles and also included the urls for those who wish to investigate for themselves.  It is an interesting and complex issue, but I have concluded that the opinions of Jake Najman published in the press are dangerous and irresponsible.

For a long time I have been opposed to the idea of harm minimisation with drugs, but also alcohol, as the approaches just do not work.  My opinions regarding drugs are stronger for the simple fact that most drugs used in these discussions actually fundamentally alter the way the brain works in the immediate short term.  Whilst alcohol does affect the brain during consumption and extensive long-term used literally turns your brain to mush (as well as damaging the liver and other organs), it’s worst effects are not immediate.  It can also alter the brain structure of adolescents, which is one of the many reasons we restrict it’s sale and consumption to those over the age of 18.  The effects of drugs on the brain seem to be quite different. They don’t merely slow everything down the way alcohol does, but actually messes with the way that your brain sends and receives signals from your body.  Ecstasy is no different – as you’ll see below.  The other thing to bear in mind as well is that on first taking drugs your brain does change when it starts to use receptors that it has not done previously.  The effects of drugs, including ecstasy are unpredictable, and in some cases extreme.  It’s the extreme biological and social reactions of people on drugs that makes the case for criminalising them compelling.  Also there’s part of me that thinks that there is more going for more naturally occurring compounds rather than something chemical and artificial is more beneficial (kind of like the argument in favour of organic food).  The other consideration is that drugs can also have immediate damaging psychological effects, such as psychotic or schizophrenic episodes and almost always causes some form of mental illness in the long term.  Ecstasy is a “young” drug as well, coming into being in the late 80’s so the long term impact to people’s health and well being has not been determined.  In fact, when you read some of the studies the impact of short term effects after the drug is no longer used is also yet to be determined.