What's going on with many of our nuclear families?
Both parents working and still falling behind financially; many using charity to supplement their income / lifestyle.
The gap between income and 'needs', at least for many, increasingly unbreachable.
[H]unger [sic] gnawing away at children and families of the working poor
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25693743-5012465,00.html
McMillan says charities as far away as Hervey Bay are sending someone south weekly to collect food, as a new "working poor" emerges in the long queues.
The "working poor" includes families, he says, where both parents have a job. But after clothing their children, paying a mortgage and filling the family car with fuel, the parents are often caught short on food.
(Do your own search if you like; find your own link/s.
The above is simply an apposite, contemporary report.)
I'm not a nostalgic: the post-War years through the 70s were far from ideal.
Many aspirational 'working-class' families (like mine) went without many 'basic' goods – TVs, certainly, but also appliances like vacuum cleaners and washing machines – we now take for granted;
women were in many ways second-class citizens;
domestic violence and sexual abuse were all too often trivialized or swept under the carpet;
many smart kids missed out on a university education because they couldn't afford it.
Et cetera.
So I'm not suggesting that Then was 'better' than Now.
Yet I'm really curious to find out Why – 30, 40, 50 years ago – most families could survive and pay off a mortgage on a single income when, these days, a combined income is often insufficient.
I've read that the ratio between household income and housing affordability has stretched to breaking point; i.e., property is way over-priced and mortgage repayments are in many cases unsustainable.
I've also read that society's idea of 'essentials' vs 'luxuries' has changed: that our collective addiction to consumption is the culprit, since 'too many' expect to own a McMansion, a widescreen plasma, an X-Box, a boat … three or four cars in the driveway!, the nett effect of which is a shrinking disposable income.
(Begs the question: when did FOOD become a 'luxury'? Well …)
There's also the fact that many parents are so 'time-poor' that they feel compelled to purchase take-away and / or prepare packaged, 'convenience meals' for the family. Quite aside from the health impacts – increasing obesity and diabetes in kids for example – these foods aren't cheap.
'Labour market reform' suggests many people – particularly the unskilled and semi-skilled – simply don't earn enough.
No doubt there is a host of other contributing factors.
I've tried to keep this post apolitical and honest: I really don't have any answers.
I'm starting to conclude that, in an increasingly secular society, consumerism has replaced religion as 'the opiate of the masses'.
And, being addicted to revenues, governments of all persuasions are pushing the 'production–consumption' mantra.
Yet that's only a symptom.
What's the disease?
You tell me.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Saturday, 27 June 2009
a letter to the editor; a letter to you
This is an open letter to those who want to support their community but 'don't have time'.
Just shop locally – as often as you can.
Every healthy community needs a healthy local economy.
Here's some context.
I'm convinced that Coles and Woolies/Safeway do indeed practise anti-competitive behaviour and that a grocery duopoly - often spawning local monopolies - is not healthy for the end-user nor for local communities.
The nature of capitalism being what it is, what else can we expect?
If, say, the local Safeway uses its purchasing power and economies of scale to start a price war against an independent supermarket OR greengrocer OR butcher OR service station, the attack can only succeed if consumers support them.
Many of us do indeed transfer our 'spend' away from locally-owned businesses: if these can't 'compete' (in what I consider to be unbalanced fight), they're gone.
Your average small independent greengrocer, for example, normally doesn't buy and sell (frequently export-subsidized) produce from Europe or North America, as the Big Two do.
Nor does your local independent refrigerate its stock for months and market itself as 'The Fresh Food People'.
Nor can a small business exert pressure on (often Australian) suppliers to force shelf prices down, or push a growing range of 'home (generic) brands' - keeping any (arguable) 'competition' within a single store.
That said, an increasing number of us don't jump ship.
We recognise that it's often worth paying an extra 10 or 15% for groceries if it means sustaining a business which, in turn, spends most its money - business inputs, sponsorships and profits - locally, rather than 'exporting' its spend to farmers and factories in Italy or China and profits to shareholders across the globe.
How many of us, driven by the savings, abandon their local hardware or nursery and scurry off to Bunnings every Saturday?
How many get their business stationery and equipment from Officeworks rather than 'the local bloke'?
Similarly, fast food from the corporates? Clothing from Target or DFO? Books from Amazon?
At the end of the day, it's our choice - and that's capitalism; that's 'democracy'.
But we shouldn't complain about the consequences unless we, as consumers, are prepared to do something about it.
Just shop locally – as often as you can.
Every healthy community needs a healthy local economy.
Here's some context.
I'm convinced that Coles and Woolies/Safeway do indeed practise anti-competitive behaviour and that a grocery duopoly - often spawning local monopolies - is not healthy for the end-user nor for local communities.
The nature of capitalism being what it is, what else can we expect?
If, say, the local Safeway uses its purchasing power and economies of scale to start a price war against an independent supermarket OR greengrocer OR butcher OR service station, the attack can only succeed if consumers support them.
Many of us do indeed transfer our 'spend' away from locally-owned businesses: if these can't 'compete' (in what I consider to be unbalanced fight), they're gone.
Your average small independent greengrocer, for example, normally doesn't buy and sell (frequently export-subsidized) produce from Europe or North America, as the Big Two do.
Nor does your local independent refrigerate its stock for months and market itself as 'The Fresh Food People'.
Nor can a small business exert pressure on (often Australian) suppliers to force shelf prices down, or push a growing range of 'home (generic) brands' - keeping any (arguable) 'competition' within a single store.
That said, an increasing number of us don't jump ship.
We recognise that it's often worth paying an extra 10 or 15% for groceries if it means sustaining a business which, in turn, spends most its money - business inputs, sponsorships and profits - locally, rather than 'exporting' its spend to farmers and factories in Italy or China and profits to shareholders across the globe.
How many of us, driven by the savings, abandon their local hardware or nursery and scurry off to Bunnings every Saturday?
How many get their business stationery and equipment from Officeworks rather than 'the local bloke'?
Similarly, fast food from the corporates? Clothing from Target or DFO? Books from Amazon?
At the end of the day, it's our choice - and that's capitalism; that's 'democracy'.
But we shouldn't complain about the consequences unless we, as consumers, are prepared to do something about it.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
'the paradox of choice'
We are spoilt, aren't we?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Why does the multi-billion-dollar 'self-improvement' (self-satisfaction, self-fulfilment … self-gratification!) industry exist?
A few thoughts I recorded earlier this year.
…
To quote the synopsis from the above clip: choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Stretching the topic to a higher level (or lower, depending on your POV) I believe that values transcend choice – or, ideally at least, should.
Why?
Barry made his point very well: a surfeit of choices doesn't necessarily improve our satisfaction levels; indeed, they somehow? frequently increase our dissatisfaction.
Again, why?
Choices in what or how we consume don't essentially improve who we are; that is, our character … OR what we in reality need to lead a contented life.
… So, what's the missing link?
Learned values enable us to judge what really matters.
All too often, the self-styled (all-too-often affluent) 'victims' of our market-driven Western society are increasingly obsessed by (what I consider to be) superficial matters – from 'the burden of choice' and 'the cult of celebrity' to tax-brackets to 'download limits!' – and then all too often piss and moan about what's Missing in their Lives.
WTF? Life-coach, anyone?
I think Barry slipped in the magic word ('values') once or twice but it slipped through the cracks.
Perhaps that's the real missing link in this suitably-named paradox?
Moreover, he also made the point that the 'curse' of choice is - indeed - a product of affluence.
Around three-quarters of the world's population probably crave this affliction!
I think people need to simplify their lives and get a grip on what's really important.
Or at least start thinking about it.
As I mentioned a few days ago, do we - en bloc - really want Freedom any more?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Why does the multi-billion-dollar 'self-improvement' (self-satisfaction, self-fulfilment … self-gratification!) industry exist?
A few thoughts I recorded earlier this year.
…
To quote the synopsis from the above clip: choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Stretching the topic to a higher level (or lower, depending on your POV) I believe that values transcend choice – or, ideally at least, should.
Why?
Barry made his point very well: a surfeit of choices doesn't necessarily improve our satisfaction levels; indeed, they somehow? frequently increase our dissatisfaction.
Again, why?
Choices in what or how we consume don't essentially improve who we are; that is, our character … OR what we in reality need to lead a contented life.
… So, what's the missing link?
Learned values enable us to judge what really matters.
All too often, the self-styled (all-too-often affluent) 'victims' of our market-driven Western society are increasingly obsessed by (what I consider to be) superficial matters – from 'the burden of choice' and 'the cult of celebrity' to tax-brackets to 'download limits!' – and then all too often piss and moan about what's Missing in their Lives.
WTF? Life-coach, anyone?
I think Barry slipped in the magic word ('values') once or twice but it slipped through the cracks.
Perhaps that's the real missing link in this suitably-named paradox?
Moreover, he also made the point that the 'curse' of choice is - indeed - a product of affluence.
Around three-quarters of the world's population probably crave this affliction!
I think people need to simplify their lives and get a grip on what's really important.
Or at least start thinking about it.
As I mentioned a few days ago, do we - en bloc - really want Freedom any more?
Saturday, 13 June 2009
a vignette on the politics of education …
Information is power. Education is power.
(I'll apologise in advance for the forthcoming series of generalisations.)
It's an increasing sign of the times that we proles, collectively, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
'We' don't want power any more. Too much responsibility. ;)
'Hey, Big Bro, I'm an honest citizen!: absorb all my personal information and stick it on a 'smart'-card; feel free to 'stuff up' (wooops) occasionally and leak it; scrutinise all my financial transactions; monitor me with videocams in every public place.
Because, since I've been so comprehensively pimped, I really don't need to know your agenda.'
In return?
'I just want cheap consumables and plasma bonuses and 10GB downloads; 'economic stimulus' handouts and cheap air-fares and pretend news featuring Brittney and Gordon Ramsay.
But I want 'em NOW, goddamnit!'
(The grandkids? Stuff 'em.)
Inevitably, the ascendancy of 'wants' over 'needs' impacts on the quality of information which is delivered to us.
In the media?
Competition: 'bottom-line'-obsessed shareholders: cost-cutting: shortage of (educated) true professionals who know how to source and write up real news: sectional, dollar-corrupted lobbyists increasingly in control of the public information-stream.
Consequentially, shoddy writing and dubious material rulez.
(The Truth? like whatever, dude.)
A priori, in the classroom? Same deal!
Market economics, craving drones but cloaked in the garb of Political Correctness, for example.
Due to budgetary pressures and inadequate ('flexible' & borderline arbitrary) 'outcomes benchmarks', too few students are allowed to 'Fail' any more.
Hence, in this (education / empowerment) resources void, there is little pressure on students to learn from one's mistakes and get it right next time.
No, the real pressure is on the institution - on the teachers - to achieve (frakkin) 'outcomes' ahead of imparting genuine, lifelong knowledge.
Kids are too often rated 'Competent' with little or no genuine actual proof, then pushed ahead into the next grade.
(Should it prove more expedient to the school, they're simply abandoned: I work with an organization which tries to rescue some of these.)
Those who survive school end up, poorly-equipped, in the workforce (even in tertiary institutions) with their various bits of paper which, quite simply, lie about their accomplishments.
Inevitably, many turn out as reporters and school-teachers. (Most dangerous of all, parents!)
Almost every working day I deal with with 'professionals' holding at least one tertiary qualification who haven't achieved Year 12 literacy standards, who can't do Year 10 maths, who can't sustain a coherent argument, who believe in the 'powers' of 'crystals' … who can't drive a car properly (some even don't know how to lift the bonnet).
And so the wheel keeps turning.
The culture, as I see it, is badly broken.
Without a solid grounding English standards, for example, are mutable … or don't exist at all.
A believer in a truly inclusive society, I can live with (and even accept) the consequences of a widespread decline into vacuity - but that doesn't make it all right.
As a body, Western society has apparently taken the position that the individual's propensity to consume is more important than their personal empowerment – more important, for that matter, than the welfare of future generations.)
This will continue until we collectively cry 'Enough!'
Meanwhile, bullshit rules.
And I'll guarantee it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.
(I'll apologise in advance for the forthcoming series of generalisations.)
It's an increasing sign of the times that we proles, collectively, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
'We' don't want power any more. Too much responsibility. ;)
'Hey, Big Bro, I'm an honest citizen!: absorb all my personal information and stick it on a 'smart'-card; feel free to 'stuff up' (wooops) occasionally and leak it; scrutinise all my financial transactions; monitor me with videocams in every public place.
Because, since I've been so comprehensively pimped, I really don't need to know your agenda.'
In return?
'I just want cheap consumables and plasma bonuses and 10GB downloads; 'economic stimulus' handouts and cheap air-fares and pretend news featuring Brittney and Gordon Ramsay.
But I want 'em NOW, goddamnit!'
(The grandkids? Stuff 'em.)
Inevitably, the ascendancy of 'wants' over 'needs' impacts on the quality of information which is delivered to us.
In the media?
Competition: 'bottom-line'-obsessed shareholders: cost-cutting: shortage of (educated) true professionals who know how to source and write up real news: sectional, dollar-corrupted lobbyists increasingly in control of the public information-stream.
Consequentially, shoddy writing and dubious material rulez.
(The Truth? like whatever, dude.)
A priori, in the classroom? Same deal!
Market economics, craving drones but cloaked in the garb of Political Correctness, for example.
Due to budgetary pressures and inadequate ('flexible' & borderline arbitrary) 'outcomes benchmarks', too few students are allowed to 'Fail' any more.
Hence, in this (education / empowerment) resources void, there is little pressure on students to learn from one's mistakes and get it right next time.
No, the real pressure is on the institution - on the teachers - to achieve (frakkin) 'outcomes' ahead of imparting genuine, lifelong knowledge.
Kids are too often rated 'Competent' with little or no genuine actual proof, then pushed ahead into the next grade.
(Should it prove more expedient to the school, they're simply abandoned: I work with an organization which tries to rescue some of these.)
Those who survive school end up, poorly-equipped, in the workforce (even in tertiary institutions) with their various bits of paper which, quite simply, lie about their accomplishments.
Inevitably, many turn out as reporters and school-teachers. (Most dangerous of all, parents!)
Almost every working day I deal with with 'professionals' holding at least one tertiary qualification who haven't achieved Year 12 literacy standards, who can't do Year 10 maths, who can't sustain a coherent argument, who believe in the 'powers' of 'crystals' … who can't drive a car properly (some even don't know how to lift the bonnet).
And so the wheel keeps turning.
The culture, as I see it, is badly broken.
Without a solid grounding English standards, for example, are mutable … or don't exist at all.
A believer in a truly inclusive society, I can live with (and even accept) the consequences of a widespread decline into vacuity - but that doesn't make it all right.
As a body, Western society has apparently taken the position that the individual's propensity to consume is more important than their personal empowerment – more important, for that matter, than the welfare of future generations.)
This will continue until we collectively cry 'Enough!'
Meanwhile, bullshit rules.
And I'll guarantee it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Bob Brown vs the turds
Gunns have an ongoing 'special relationship' with a series of Tassie governments …
/Jed waits for a knock on the door/ ;)
… and nothing the Feds do would surprise me.
I've always been in favour of a sustainable forestry industry - and have earned a living from it.
The way I see this issue, sustainable forestry and Gunns' philosophy - and methodology - are worlds apart.
But, before anyone discounts me as yet another hippie (some of my best friends are damn hippies!), please read this through.
In my experience, a true 'green' has plenty of common sense and knows what s/he's talking about.
Where 'the environment' is concerned, passion is a bonus - not a foundation.
Many, on both sides of the 'debate', really need to do some homework.
(Yeah, I know, you can get a pheromone buzz from hysteria.)
Simply, Bob Brown is an absolute legend.
Australia owes him bigtime: even though half the country still don't realise it, history will provide the proof.
Sooner than most think.
No wonder the bastards at Gunns are trying to ruin him: that's the way they operate.
They're mafiosi; knee-cappers; profit-whores.
Some context for my point of view.
(My experience is exclusively within Victoria but the issue is surely a global one.)
I've worked in two owner-operated sawmills and done marketing work for one.
I lived in a dedicated Timber Town for several years and talked to a few independent millers who lost their allocations (some to corporates) and closed down, due to circumstances beyond their control.
'That's progress,' you might say. Fair enough.
The writing was on the wall for unsustainable logging - in Victoria, at least - well over half a century ago when a future plan was mapped out. This has already expired.
(Joan Kirner explained this to me in 1985 during an extended discussion while she was the responsible minister. Smart woman.)
The savage irony of this 'progress', however, is that these independents largely focussed on value-adding and extracting the maximum from every log. And the few survivors still do.
Sawn F-rated / structural timber for houses. Dressed and moulded timber for architraves, etc. Kiln-dried boutique timbers for furniture, sculpting, woodcraft.
And so forth.
One mill actually specialised in redeeming low-grade logs as fence palings and tomato stakes.
All the legitimate residue became firewood … woodchips … even sawdust, which sustained other small local businesses.
I learnt how they did it. I helped them do it.
Being relatively low-tech, they also employed a lot of people 'per log' (and, incidentally, supported any number of community efforts).
In about 1993 I spent a loooong day walking three coupes (in separate locations) with a contractor as a guide, who explained his practices and accountability in detail - and showed me how these principles were applied.
One of his coupes was adjacent to a property owned by a State MP (at the time) who had flouted any number of codes - without penalty - in clear-felling his 250 hectares within a local catchment.
The wood pulp and woodchip industries have never been about value-adding. They've never been about a sustainable environment. They've never been about empowering communities. (That's us, BTW.)
So, what are they about?
The way I see it: high-volume inputs (regardless of quality);
high volume (low-quality) outputs;
minimum employment;
fat profits (subsidised as required);
'special' favours from their suckhole mates in government;
bashing up their opponents (whom, in due course, will prove to be genuine heroes).
I could go on - about the CFMEU repeatedly betraying its membership base (and the ALP its constituents); about the deliberate downgrading of sawlog for chipping in Gippsland during the 80s (which may still continue) - but I'll pull my head in for now.
Bob Brown. Legend. GO YOU GOOD THING.
[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]
/Jed waits for a knock on the door/ ;)
… and nothing the Feds do would surprise me.
I've always been in favour of a sustainable forestry industry - and have earned a living from it.
The way I see this issue, sustainable forestry and Gunns' philosophy - and methodology - are worlds apart.
But, before anyone discounts me as yet another hippie (some of my best friends are damn hippies!), please read this through.
In my experience, a true 'green' has plenty of common sense and knows what s/he's talking about.
Where 'the environment' is concerned, passion is a bonus - not a foundation.
Many, on both sides of the 'debate', really need to do some homework.
(Yeah, I know, you can get a pheromone buzz from hysteria.)
Simply, Bob Brown is an absolute legend.
Australia owes him bigtime: even though half the country still don't realise it, history will provide the proof.
Sooner than most think.
No wonder the bastards at Gunns are trying to ruin him: that's the way they operate.
They're mafiosi; knee-cappers; profit-whores.
Some context for my point of view.
(My experience is exclusively within Victoria but the issue is surely a global one.)
I've worked in two owner-operated sawmills and done marketing work for one.
I lived in a dedicated Timber Town for several years and talked to a few independent millers who lost their allocations (some to corporates) and closed down, due to circumstances beyond their control.
'That's progress,' you might say. Fair enough.
The writing was on the wall for unsustainable logging - in Victoria, at least - well over half a century ago when a future plan was mapped out. This has already expired.
(Joan Kirner explained this to me in 1985 during an extended discussion while she was the responsible minister. Smart woman.)
The savage irony of this 'progress', however, is that these independents largely focussed on value-adding and extracting the maximum from every log. And the few survivors still do.
Sawn F-rated / structural timber for houses. Dressed and moulded timber for architraves, etc. Kiln-dried boutique timbers for furniture, sculpting, woodcraft.
And so forth.
One mill actually specialised in redeeming low-grade logs as fence palings and tomato stakes.
All the legitimate residue became firewood … woodchips … even sawdust, which sustained other small local businesses.
I learnt how they did it. I helped them do it.
Being relatively low-tech, they also employed a lot of people 'per log' (and, incidentally, supported any number of community efforts).
In about 1993 I spent a loooong day walking three coupes (in separate locations) with a contractor as a guide, who explained his practices and accountability in detail - and showed me how these principles were applied.
One of his coupes was adjacent to a property owned by a State MP (at the time) who had flouted any number of codes - without penalty - in clear-felling his 250 hectares within a local catchment.
The wood pulp and woodchip industries have never been about value-adding. They've never been about a sustainable environment. They've never been about empowering communities. (That's us, BTW.)
So, what are they about?
The way I see it: high-volume inputs (regardless of quality);
high volume (low-quality) outputs;
minimum employment;
fat profits (subsidised as required);
'special' favours from their suckhole mates in government;
bashing up their opponents (whom, in due course, will prove to be genuine heroes).
I could go on - about the CFMEU repeatedly betraying its membership base (and the ALP its constituents); about the deliberate downgrading of sawlog for chipping in Gippsland during the 80s (which may still continue) - but I'll pull my head in for now.
Bob Brown. Legend. GO YOU GOOD THING.
[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]
Monday, 8 June 2009
Chasers vs mediocrity and bloody hypocrites
I'm a Chasers' War on Everything fan.
I believe it generally offers leading edge comedy during an age of mediocrity, soft targets and cheap laughs.
Indeed, the humour is frequently crude and they fail from time to time - but at least they take risks.
At the same time, I accept that many don't like it.
And choose not to watch it.
(?)Maybe not!
I also realise that the 'Make a Realistic Wish' sketch (broadcast on ABC1 here in Australia last week) was hurtful to many people and, in retrospect, I wish it hadn't been screened.
For their sake, not for mine.
I have a couple of friends who have lost children in heart-breaking circumstances and my own brother died before his time from an incurable disease.
Without defending the skit itself I'm seriously pissed off, however, at the double standards employed by the self-righteous hacks in the commercial media.
And, for that matter, by that terminally righteous arbiter of public conscience, the great rudd hisself.
Like maggots, ACA and TT prey on human frailty (as do the gutter press and the paid fascists of talkback radio).
Always have. Always will.
'Funniest Home Videos' exploits real injury to real people. No, seriously folks, it's a hoot.
Ratings whores, anyone?
Now 7 and 9, plus any number of filthy, bottom-(bogan?)-feeding commercial radio stations, plus the parasitical scum of tabloid 'journalism' (heh: spot the irony) are riding this controversy bandwagon for all it's worth.
Playing both sides as usual.
Re-cycling the less tasteful parts of the sketch for society's vicarious outrage.
Or pain.
Bloody hypocrites!
The great rudd hisself is an admitted sinophile.
Does anyone else find it sickeningly ironic that the little nonce is on the warpath against Chasers just as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?
Hundreds - if not thousands - died on that day.
As far as I know, none died during this marginally infamous comedy sketch that so outraged the community.
[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]
I believe it generally offers leading edge comedy during an age of mediocrity, soft targets and cheap laughs.
Indeed, the humour is frequently crude and they fail from time to time - but at least they take risks.
At the same time, I accept that many don't like it.
And choose not to watch it.
(?)Maybe not!
I also realise that the 'Make a Realistic Wish' sketch (broadcast on ABC1 here in Australia last week) was hurtful to many people and, in retrospect, I wish it hadn't been screened.
For their sake, not for mine.
I have a couple of friends who have lost children in heart-breaking circumstances and my own brother died before his time from an incurable disease.
Without defending the skit itself I'm seriously pissed off, however, at the double standards employed by the self-righteous hacks in the commercial media.
And, for that matter, by that terminally righteous arbiter of public conscience, the great rudd hisself.
Like maggots, ACA and TT prey on human frailty (as do the gutter press and the paid fascists of talkback radio).
Always have. Always will.
'Funniest Home Videos' exploits real injury to real people. No, seriously folks, it's a hoot.
Ratings whores, anyone?
Now 7 and 9, plus any number of filthy, bottom-(bogan?)-feeding commercial radio stations, plus the parasitical scum of tabloid 'journalism' (heh: spot the irony) are riding this controversy bandwagon for all it's worth.
Playing both sides as usual.
Re-cycling the less tasteful parts of the sketch for society's vicarious outrage.
Or pain.
Bloody hypocrites!
The great rudd hisself is an admitted sinophile.
Does anyone else find it sickeningly ironic that the little nonce is on the warpath against Chasers just as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?
Hundreds - if not thousands - died on that day.
As far as I know, none died during this marginally infamous comedy sketch that so outraged the community.
[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
