This is obviously government policy.
For some reason, the media has gone very easy on the government for its at first mystifying decision to bar Singapore Airlines from flying the Sydney-LA route. QANTAS are in the news this week for planning to offload its heavy maintenance into Asia but the government claim that to allow Singapore (or Emirates) to fly that route will cost Australian jobs. Apparently allowing Air Canada to do the same is neither here nor there.
Um...won't it all be the same? I mean, QANTAS will move 2500 jobs offshore in any event (any way they can) so Singapore Airlines, who will have to create a maintenance operation here to service the aircraft after that long flight, will obviously have to employ people to do so. So that's one furphy the media swallowed without a hint of discussion.
The Age (www.theage.com.au) ran a straight-faced story about the decision and towards the end of the article that mentioned Government back-bencher and close friend to Geoff Dixon Bruce Baird, also runs the Government party's Friends of Tourism committee. My my my. This was the same Bruce Baird who tried to link Singapore Airlines' bid to the execution of convicted drug-runner Van Nguyen. Right. He said that a barbaric act should be punished by barring SIA from the Sydney-LA route. Again, the media let this one pass with barely a blip.
SIA are obviously getting upset and have blamed protectionism on the decision. Well, that one takes the PKB (Pot, Kettle, Black) award for February. Singapore's government-owned airline talking about protectionism after its frankly shameful treatment of JetStar Asia's applications.
Geoff Dixon should shut his mouth. He's got what he wants and now he's gloating. Well, punk, as a long-suffering QANTAS customer, I think you ought to sit down and review the last couple of weeks. QANTAS is seeding the media and Coalition politicians with the 'jobs will go' story while at the same time engaging the unions in a battle over dumping 2500 jobs into Asia in the name of cost-cutting! You've still got your poor-man's duopoly of QANTAS-United with cute little Air Canada thrown in. You've still got your outrageous margins, excuse for poor, self-interested scheduling and a government telling you to merge with SIA even though you're wildly profitable and doing well. All of which affects us as customers because you continue to pursue cost-cutting by dumping staff and pissing off the ones you have left.
Here endeth the lesson.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Video Game Banned...
...because you could paint some graffiti!
The following is a story that appears on Australian gaming website www.gamepower.com.au. I'll leave it to them.
It was sort of coming. There had been some chatter of the Mark Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure being refused classification for the Australian market. There have been a number of frankly questionable and downright stupid decisions in recent times but this one has to be the one that takes the cake.
Consider, if you will, games that got through without drama. Manhunt, which is a game that I couldn't finish. It just made me ill. The OFLC allowed it to breeze through, stating that it fell within the boundaries laid out by the OFLC. After the traditional sales cycle of the game was over, in fact, nearly a year after its release, the OFLC revisited the MA15+ classification, and withdrew it. By then sales had dribbled down to a few units every now and again and the 'damage' was done. The question is, what the hell are these people on?
In a perfect world, nothing would need banning because the people who use violent or sexual images to excuse their dreadful behaviour wouldn't exist. Because it's not a perfect world and there is some nasty stuff out there, we have a rating system to inform our choices. The problem is, that rating system is inconsistently applied across different media. Games are by far the most poorly treated because there is no R18+ because of the incredibly naive assertion that games are just for kids. Are you a kid? Thought not.
In a country like Australia, you can sell a book that says the Holocaust was invented, you can pollute people's minds with all sorts of trash (Australian Idol, X Factor, Hot Dogs from Big Brother) but if a game contains images of people creating graffiti, or worse, a female nipple (gasp!), you're out.
Australia is a free country and probably the best country in the world to live in (and I've been around), but boy do we have a government that is trying to nanny us into submission. Governments have dug themselves an insanely deep hole where they refuse to introduce an R18+ rating for games. If they were serious about restricting games that are not good for impressionable young minds, there would be an R18+ rating to push many MA15+ games up to and the protection would be there. As it stands, banning the game just does what prohibition of most things does - makes people want it more. All this will do is help companies like Amazon as they deliver planeloads of the games to Australian customers. That is incredibly difficult to control.
Australian gamers should draw the line here and now. We should contact our state attorneys general and write them a letter. Write a letter to your local member of parliament. Write letters to the OFLC. Be cool, be calm, be collected. Express your support to Atari Australia who are taking the OFLC to court. Tell all of these people why you play games and that banning them is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. The banning of this game is politically driven and clinically insane. And the people who did it should hear about it, loud and clear.
(Source: http://www.gamepower.com.au/, used by permission)
The following is a story that appears on Australian gaming website www.gamepower.com.au. I'll leave it to them.
It was sort of coming. There had been some chatter of the Mark Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure being refused classification for the Australian market. There have been a number of frankly questionable and downright stupid decisions in recent times but this one has to be the one that takes the cake.
Consider, if you will, games that got through without drama. Manhunt, which is a game that I couldn't finish. It just made me ill. The OFLC allowed it to breeze through, stating that it fell within the boundaries laid out by the OFLC. After the traditional sales cycle of the game was over, in fact, nearly a year after its release, the OFLC revisited the MA15+ classification, and withdrew it. By then sales had dribbled down to a few units every now and again and the 'damage' was done. The question is, what the hell are these people on?
In a perfect world, nothing would need banning because the people who use violent or sexual images to excuse their dreadful behaviour wouldn't exist. Because it's not a perfect world and there is some nasty stuff out there, we have a rating system to inform our choices. The problem is, that rating system is inconsistently applied across different media. Games are by far the most poorly treated because there is no R18+ because of the incredibly naive assertion that games are just for kids. Are you a kid? Thought not.
In a country like Australia, you can sell a book that says the Holocaust was invented, you can pollute people's minds with all sorts of trash (Australian Idol, X Factor, Hot Dogs from Big Brother) but if a game contains images of people creating graffiti, or worse, a female nipple (gasp!), you're out.
Australia is a free country and probably the best country in the world to live in (and I've been around), but boy do we have a government that is trying to nanny us into submission. Governments have dug themselves an insanely deep hole where they refuse to introduce an R18+ rating for games. If they were serious about restricting games that are not good for impressionable young minds, there would be an R18+ rating to push many MA15+ games up to and the protection would be there. As it stands, banning the game just does what prohibition of most things does - makes people want it more. All this will do is help companies like Amazon as they deliver planeloads of the games to Australian customers. That is incredibly difficult to control.
Australian gamers should draw the line here and now. We should contact our state attorneys general and write them a letter. Write a letter to your local member of parliament. Write letters to the OFLC. Be cool, be calm, be collected. Express your support to Atari Australia who are taking the OFLC to court. Tell all of these people why you play games and that banning them is a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. The banning of this game is politically driven and clinically insane. And the people who did it should hear about it, loud and clear.
(Source: http://www.gamepower.com.au/, used by permission)
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Keep Your Ignorance Off Your Shirt
The usual circus that surrounds anything to do with abortion in Australia (and every other Western nation it has to be said) was dragged to new lows this week when Kerry Nettle paraded in front of the cameras at Canberra's Parliament House wearing a shirt with the the idiotic slogan 'Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries.'
Can't stand Kerry Nettle. She's an oaf, a classic reactionary leftie who isn't particularly interested in issues that interest most Australians. Granted, everyone has something to say about abortion and that is informed by a number of things - upbringing, religion, political leaning, whatever.
I support her right to say what she likes but it was offensive. Just because you're Catholic does not automatically place you in the same group as Tony Abbott. This constant ignorance by atheists such as Nettle (actually, I'm not sure what Nettle is, but atheist is probably pretty close) about the way Christians think is classic. Every Christian dresses badly, every Christian bible bashes, every Christian...and so on. She's being as judgemental as any cliched Christian.
Whether he likes it or not, Abbott's decision is informed by his religion. His stance on abortion is on the harder side and is not supportable or sustainable. He has no idea that some women have no choice but to abort, whether for health, social or economic reasons. He has no right to make the decision for anyone about a drug as important as RU486. This concept that Howard has been pushing stating that elected leaders are somehow able to make that choice anymore than a non-elected leader is mystifying to say the least.
Abbott is clearly part of the population who thinks that the only reason a woman aborts is because she couldn't be bothered wth contraception. I oppose that style of abortion - it seems like the long way around for a start and only puts the woman in more danger in the first place. But apart from that, every abortion is a tragedy because it just isn't an easy decision. I know. We had to make that decision very recently and it was absolutely no fun. If you doubt that, come back to me when we've shaken off the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Anyway.
Nettle should think before she prints her stupid shirts. It doesn't become a member of Parliament to be so spectacularly ignorant but it also makes her look as dumb as the people who stand out the front of abortion clinics harrassing people - she's making an assumption that just isn't true.
Can't stand Kerry Nettle. She's an oaf, a classic reactionary leftie who isn't particularly interested in issues that interest most Australians. Granted, everyone has something to say about abortion and that is informed by a number of things - upbringing, religion, political leaning, whatever.
I support her right to say what she likes but it was offensive. Just because you're Catholic does not automatically place you in the same group as Tony Abbott. This constant ignorance by atheists such as Nettle (actually, I'm not sure what Nettle is, but atheist is probably pretty close) about the way Christians think is classic. Every Christian dresses badly, every Christian bible bashes, every Christian...and so on. She's being as judgemental as any cliched Christian.
Whether he likes it or not, Abbott's decision is informed by his religion. His stance on abortion is on the harder side and is not supportable or sustainable. He has no idea that some women have no choice but to abort, whether for health, social or economic reasons. He has no right to make the decision for anyone about a drug as important as RU486. This concept that Howard has been pushing stating that elected leaders are somehow able to make that choice anymore than a non-elected leader is mystifying to say the least.
Abbott is clearly part of the population who thinks that the only reason a woman aborts is because she couldn't be bothered wth contraception. I oppose that style of abortion - it seems like the long way around for a start and only puts the woman in more danger in the first place. But apart from that, every abortion is a tragedy because it just isn't an easy decision. I know. We had to make that decision very recently and it was absolutely no fun. If you doubt that, come back to me when we've shaken off the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Anyway.
Nettle should think before she prints her stupid shirts. It doesn't become a member of Parliament to be so spectacularly ignorant but it also makes her look as dumb as the people who stand out the front of abortion clinics harrassing people - she's making an assumption that just isn't true.
Monday, February 06, 2006
When Attention-Seeking Behaviour Goes Bad
You have to laugh at this.
Peta Bull, 36, mother of two from Mackay in North Queensland, was forced by the crew of a Jetstar flight to wear a jacket over a tattoo that depicted a naked (presumably adult) couple in recline. The tattoo is on her right shoulder and was exposed by dint of a strappy singlet-ey type top.
Now, before I get stuck in, let me say that I think everyone behaved poorly in this situation.
You would think that at some point, if you have naked people tattooed on your back, someone is going to say something. Tattoos that are clearly visible when normally clothed, as Ms Bull was, are attention-seeking devices. If you want one, fine, have one, but when you put nude reclining people on your back, you have to live with the consequences.
It's like the goose who drew those cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. If there's one thing you don't do, it's annoy people in a religion not known for its tolerance of blasphemy (intended or otherwise).
In this case, a woman in a public place with a tattoo of naked people on her back got an adverse reaction. And she never saw it coming! She's either spectacularly naive, spectacularly stupid, or wants even more attention for her tattoo which personally I reckon is ugly and tasteless.
Nudity in itself is not offensive but you know what people are like. So the Jetstar crew, in an effort to avoid dramas from people like my Aunty Betty, they asked her to put a crew jacket on (Aunty Betty called my father one Sunday morning to complain about the Pizza Hut stuffed crust campaign which was amusingly titled 'Get Stuffed' and asked him to preach against it in his next sermon).
Except, they did it all the wrong way. In my many years of travelling, I have discovered that QANTAS and QANTAS-related companies foster a particularly narky type of flight attendant and it appears that Little Ms Nark was unable to tactfully handle the situation. So she didn't even try. She stuffed the whole thing up and embarrassed Ms Bull.
Ms Bull, however, went screaming to the media about it. I reckon she's making herself look like an idiot with statements like:
"It was humiliating. I couldn't see the problem. [Because of the straps] nobody could have worked out what the picture was. I was very embarrassed." Well, they did work it out, sweetheart.
"I felt like I had been singled out. I have never experienced anything like that before." Well, as I said earlier, you have an attention-seeking drawing on your body. You got the attention you want. It's on your back, by the way, so you can't see it, so it's obviously for others.
"It's not sexual." This one is debatable, I suppose. Like I said, nudity itself is not offensive and it has only become so because of irritating puritans like Aunty Betty. But what little could be seen of it certainly looked it, even if on very close inspection it wasn't. The question 'but why?' screams loudly, however.
The lunatic from the Council of Civil Liberties weighed in.
"Cameron Murphy, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said it was a censorship issue. He said staff should be encouraging people to fly rather than policing body art.
"I think the operators of Jetstar should be more sensible," he said. "It's really an issue of freedom of expression. There's no particular reason why something like that could cause any problem for people."
(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Again, he's right, but he's wrong. Freedom of expression, speech, whatever, brings responsibility. You have to wear the consequences of your expression (like the cartoonist) as long as those consequences are in line with community standards (riots, clearly, are not). Community standards currently do not allow public nudity or public display of nudity. Hell, if a female nipple is depicted in a video game it is refused classification on the grounds it contravenes these same standards (that's another argument for another day).
The Jetstar crew handled the situation appallingly, citing children and other passengers may be offended rather than stating it was part of their job and they were just trying to avoid hassles, both for Ms Bull's and their own sake. Simon Westaway, Jetstar's pugnacious and aggravating spokesman, summed it up for the airline:
"Our cabin crew aren't the social police," Mr Westaway said. "[But] at the end of the day the comfort of all the passengers needs to be taken into consideration. Our cabin crew clearly felt that they needed to ask her to cover up a little bit."
(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Ms Bull sparked the media interest because a complaint call was batted away with the standard 'send a letter.' She sent the letter on Friday but didn't get her public apology by Monday night so off she went. Jetstar reckon they haven't got the letter.
What a bunch of idiots, the lot of them.
But what started it was an example of attention-seeking behaviour. People get these tattoos to gain some attention - 'Oh, what a cool tattoo.' 'Oh, wow, that's a bit risque...'
She got the attention she didn't want and kicked up a stink. I have spiky hair and wear weird sunglasses. People poke fun at me and I take it with good humour because I have made that choice to look a little different to most people. I don't go crying to the media when I get a reaction contrary to what I want.
Peta Bull, 36, mother of two from Mackay in North Queensland, was forced by the crew of a Jetstar flight to wear a jacket over a tattoo that depicted a naked (presumably adult) couple in recline. The tattoo is on her right shoulder and was exposed by dint of a strappy singlet-ey type top.
Now, before I get stuck in, let me say that I think everyone behaved poorly in this situation.
You would think that at some point, if you have naked people tattooed on your back, someone is going to say something. Tattoos that are clearly visible when normally clothed, as Ms Bull was, are attention-seeking devices. If you want one, fine, have one, but when you put nude reclining people on your back, you have to live with the consequences.
It's like the goose who drew those cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. If there's one thing you don't do, it's annoy people in a religion not known for its tolerance of blasphemy (intended or otherwise).
In this case, a woman in a public place with a tattoo of naked people on her back got an adverse reaction. And she never saw it coming! She's either spectacularly naive, spectacularly stupid, or wants even more attention for her tattoo which personally I reckon is ugly and tasteless.
Nudity in itself is not offensive but you know what people are like. So the Jetstar crew, in an effort to avoid dramas from people like my Aunty Betty, they asked her to put a crew jacket on (Aunty Betty called my father one Sunday morning to complain about the Pizza Hut stuffed crust campaign which was amusingly titled 'Get Stuffed' and asked him to preach against it in his next sermon).
Except, they did it all the wrong way. In my many years of travelling, I have discovered that QANTAS and QANTAS-related companies foster a particularly narky type of flight attendant and it appears that Little Ms Nark was unable to tactfully handle the situation. So she didn't even try. She stuffed the whole thing up and embarrassed Ms Bull.
Ms Bull, however, went screaming to the media about it. I reckon she's making herself look like an idiot with statements like:
"It was humiliating. I couldn't see the problem. [Because of the straps] nobody could have worked out what the picture was. I was very embarrassed." Well, they did work it out, sweetheart.
"I felt like I had been singled out. I have never experienced anything like that before." Well, as I said earlier, you have an attention-seeking drawing on your body. You got the attention you want. It's on your back, by the way, so you can't see it, so it's obviously for others.
"It's not sexual." This one is debatable, I suppose. Like I said, nudity itself is not offensive and it has only become so because of irritating puritans like Aunty Betty. But what little could be seen of it certainly looked it, even if on very close inspection it wasn't. The question 'but why?' screams loudly, however.
The lunatic from the Council of Civil Liberties weighed in.
"Cameron Murphy, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said it was a censorship issue. He said staff should be encouraging people to fly rather than policing body art.
"I think the operators of Jetstar should be more sensible," he said. "It's really an issue of freedom of expression. There's no particular reason why something like that could cause any problem for people."
(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Again, he's right, but he's wrong. Freedom of expression, speech, whatever, brings responsibility. You have to wear the consequences of your expression (like the cartoonist) as long as those consequences are in line with community standards (riots, clearly, are not). Community standards currently do not allow public nudity or public display of nudity. Hell, if a female nipple is depicted in a video game it is refused classification on the grounds it contravenes these same standards (that's another argument for another day).
The Jetstar crew handled the situation appallingly, citing children and other passengers may be offended rather than stating it was part of their job and they were just trying to avoid hassles, both for Ms Bull's and their own sake. Simon Westaway, Jetstar's pugnacious and aggravating spokesman, summed it up for the airline:
"Our cabin crew aren't the social police," Mr Westaway said. "[But] at the end of the day the comfort of all the passengers needs to be taken into consideration. Our cabin crew clearly felt that they needed to ask her to cover up a little bit."
(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Ms Bull sparked the media interest because a complaint call was batted away with the standard 'send a letter.' She sent the letter on Friday but didn't get her public apology by Monday night so off she went. Jetstar reckon they haven't got the letter.
What a bunch of idiots, the lot of them.
But what started it was an example of attention-seeking behaviour. People get these tattoos to gain some attention - 'Oh, what a cool tattoo.' 'Oh, wow, that's a bit risque...'
She got the attention she didn't want and kicked up a stink. I have spiky hair and wear weird sunglasses. People poke fun at me and I take it with good humour because I have made that choice to look a little different to most people. I don't go crying to the media when I get a reaction contrary to what I want.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
I Love It When A Plan Works Out
Democracy. Funny word, funnier concept.
You see, the Americans love it. Except when it delivers the 'wrong' verdict. I speak of Palestine, well, the bits that the Israelis haven't unilaterally annexed/invaded without fear of recrimination or backlash.
Anyway, you may have heard they had an election and the hardline nutcases won. Hamas.
Now, I don't know a heap about Middle East politics really, but I know that nobody, apart from the Palestinian people, wanted Hamas in charge. Since Arafat's untimely death Fatah have gone nowhere. By Middle East standards, Fatah were moderates and were at least chatting peacefully with the Israelis despite turning down deals from the likes of Ehud Barak which may just have brought a semblance of peace - by dint of a good slice of Jerusalem - and some stability for the area.
And stacks of tourist bucks into the bargain.
Anyway, the West have now stepped back and said that there was to be no more cash for the Palestinian Authority as a result of Hamas' fairly unpleasant view of Israel (wipe 'em out) and generally fundamentalist Islamic overtones. Oh, and they keep sending kids strapped with bombs into crowded buses and markets. Allegedly.
The new right-wing German Chancellor has told the EU not to fund them, the Americans via Conaleeza Rice have backed off and pretty much anyone is in a flap. At least for Westerners, this is a no-brainer. They're Islamic, a bit naughty so we can't fund them.
Here's a tricky one - What if you're Egypt?
The Egyptians have been pretty patient with the Palestinian Authority for reasons known only to themselves. Egypt, while Islamic, is a pretty easygoing kind of place but have stuck up for the Authority. This might have something to do with the Israelis inflicting a pretty humiliating defeat in their Barak-led invasion, but that's probably only part of the story. Basically, the Egyptians aren't going to put up with Hamas' crap.
Except the Islamic countries are banding together with each other no matter how nutty some of their members are. The foot-stomping Western rhetoric that greeted the Iranian President's absurd utterances about wiping out Israel was not really accompanied by the more moderate Muslim countries either taking him aside and giving him a swift kick in the pants or a public, 'Well, er, his comments have been taken out of context'-type utterance. They said 'ooh-eer' but that was about it.
They just kept quiet. It's unlikely they agree with him because the Americans will preserve Israel seeing they had a big hand in starting this whole mess (albeit via the UN) and they also let Israel get away with routine murder and pillage. I can't see the Egyptians subscribing to either the Iranians' or the Hamas view of the world.
They're being backed into a corner now because if Hamas get a bit funky with the Israelis (and they'll get funky back) there is going to be a huge battle. And the Islamic countries will have no choice but to join in, at least in a supportive sense and make the American countries cranky. Think about it - American troops might be having to blast Egyptians, Indonesians, Afghanis and Malaysians. Unlikely, but possible.
The Americans and the Egyptians are surely going to have to get themselves into a room and start to talk about this. Hamas are unlikely to talk to the Americans and the Americans themselves will have to break their own 'We don't negotiate with terrorists' rule.
This one is going to get interesting...
You see, the Americans love it. Except when it delivers the 'wrong' verdict. I speak of Palestine, well, the bits that the Israelis haven't unilaterally annexed/invaded without fear of recrimination or backlash.
Anyway, you may have heard they had an election and the hardline nutcases won. Hamas.
Now, I don't know a heap about Middle East politics really, but I know that nobody, apart from the Palestinian people, wanted Hamas in charge. Since Arafat's untimely death Fatah have gone nowhere. By Middle East standards, Fatah were moderates and were at least chatting peacefully with the Israelis despite turning down deals from the likes of Ehud Barak which may just have brought a semblance of peace - by dint of a good slice of Jerusalem - and some stability for the area.
And stacks of tourist bucks into the bargain.
Anyway, the West have now stepped back and said that there was to be no more cash for the Palestinian Authority as a result of Hamas' fairly unpleasant view of Israel (wipe 'em out) and generally fundamentalist Islamic overtones. Oh, and they keep sending kids strapped with bombs into crowded buses and markets. Allegedly.
The new right-wing German Chancellor has told the EU not to fund them, the Americans via Conaleeza Rice have backed off and pretty much anyone is in a flap. At least for Westerners, this is a no-brainer. They're Islamic, a bit naughty so we can't fund them.
Here's a tricky one - What if you're Egypt?
The Egyptians have been pretty patient with the Palestinian Authority for reasons known only to themselves. Egypt, while Islamic, is a pretty easygoing kind of place but have stuck up for the Authority. This might have something to do with the Israelis inflicting a pretty humiliating defeat in their Barak-led invasion, but that's probably only part of the story. Basically, the Egyptians aren't going to put up with Hamas' crap.
Except the Islamic countries are banding together with each other no matter how nutty some of their members are. The foot-stomping Western rhetoric that greeted the Iranian President's absurd utterances about wiping out Israel was not really accompanied by the more moderate Muslim countries either taking him aside and giving him a swift kick in the pants or a public, 'Well, er, his comments have been taken out of context'-type utterance. They said 'ooh-eer' but that was about it.
They just kept quiet. It's unlikely they agree with him because the Americans will preserve Israel seeing they had a big hand in starting this whole mess (albeit via the UN) and they also let Israel get away with routine murder and pillage. I can't see the Egyptians subscribing to either the Iranians' or the Hamas view of the world.
They're being backed into a corner now because if Hamas get a bit funky with the Israelis (and they'll get funky back) there is going to be a huge battle. And the Islamic countries will have no choice but to join in, at least in a supportive sense and make the American countries cranky. Think about it - American troops might be having to blast Egyptians, Indonesians, Afghanis and Malaysians. Unlikely, but possible.
The Americans and the Egyptians are surely going to have to get themselves into a room and start to talk about this. Hamas are unlikely to talk to the Americans and the Americans themselves will have to break their own 'We don't negotiate with terrorists' rule.
This one is going to get interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)