This is no surprise, because we're not stupid.
posted by susanna @ 10:02 am
the time always comes
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Monday, August 20, 2007
the time always comes
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Over to...
- Audrey and the Bad Apples
- The Galloping Skirt
- Do I Have To
- Path of Most Resistance
- Better than Cheesecake
- Blakkat Ruminations
- Bland Canyon
- Reasons You Will Hate Me
- Sublime-ation
- Bills and Moon
- A Wild Young Under-Whimsy
- Melbourne Dreaming
- Half Hearted Hack
- Tired But Generally Willing
- My Words Are Free
- Bent My Wookie
- Practically Perfect
- Can You Fly Like You Mean It
- Richard Watts
- Notes From Eleanor Bloom
- Hello You
- Secret Wombat
- Jabberwocky
Timewasters
Thinktanks
Previous Posts
- I am absolutely busting with excitement to see thi...
- Kaz Cooke Redux
- OOPS
- so... today the old fuckstick turns 68. let's hope...
- My new crush
- The web is currently flooded with people saying th...
- In defence of Rushdie
- My dear Chris is back in the bogs of Tassie for tw...
- I do declare there were times when I was so loneso...
- New Frontiers - and a once ONLY Big Brother round-up.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
7 Comments:
I don't know how I'd go answering the thesis that the ads made me "feel worse" about the laws.
I already feel pretty shit about them.
On the other hand, the ads HAVE reminded me to let loose with complicated "some people don't have a choice" arguments including references to contemporary research and international labour market trends.
I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or worse. At least I'm doing my bit to inform the electorate (those members of it that happen to be in my house).
i think what's cool about this story is that it's not about people like us [if you'll forgive me, gigglewick, for sweeping you into my generalisation]. it's saying that if people ["mainstream" australia] weren't worried before, they damn well are now.
so all of us, who were already enraged by it, couldn't have changed the minds of the average battler - we just let the government do it for us with these ads.
genius.
gigglewick - haha! i have a constituency of one in my electorate, and he's converted. mind you, it doesn't stop either of us preaching.
mskp - indeed. it was a brilliant way to drive the message home to 'ordinary' australians (that the laws are dodgy, that is).
most people, who might not give a rats about the laws themselves, bristle at political ads funded by their money. so the whole thing reeked for the libs from the start.
Yeah, really they've just brought them to people's attention.
That business one re unscrambling the egg is pretty bad too. I'm sure that hasn't helped any.
Businesses think: Let's scare the voters with an ad campaign.
Voters think: Wow. These big business owners must be pretty scared of losing these work laws. Obviously they're doing really well by it, keeping wages low, etc. Can't be good for us employees then...
All backfiring. Love it.
The thing is when you say "we", "we" are in the minority. Dont forget that "they" voted JWH in 4 (FOUR!) times.
I liked Keating. I thought he was the best. However, I'd have forgone that 1 term of Keating (ie. if Hewson had won instead) in exchange for not having 4 terms of JWH.
chai - what a sad either/or scenario to have to contemplate! how's about four straight terms of the wonderful keating and no hewson or howard hell (ooh, i like that aliteration right there) at all?
but i get your point. i think i'd rather be minus an earlobe than have ruddy lose this coming election.
I think Hewson would have been in for at least 2 terms, cos Keating would have retired and that spineless Beazley would have been next to useless.
And I speculate JWH would have retired too. Cos if he had stayed, min 2 terms of Hewson, + 1 min term in opposition.
But it's just useless theorising from me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home