Two posts in one day would seem to bode badly for my blog (I tend to get very excited about things and then drop them), but I actually wrote the previous one last week, so it's excusable.
Today a man called Anthony Coles came to lecture at Uni. He's excellent.
Besides being far and away the best lecturer/presenter I've seen in a while, he left us completely astounded...by what we can do. (See here for a small snippet of an amazing idea)
I'm fairly sure I'm the most internet (well, Web 2.0, which is what I'm really thinking about) savvy of my Media classes. We had a rough poll today of what online media the cohort is aware of and what gets used, and I think my raised hand was lonely fairly often. So when Anthony came in and explained to us the wealth of jobs out there that want an employee who knows what I do, I was left flabbergasted. I know about these jobs, about how the communications sector is expanding and about how our group is among the first to graduate into that. But to know it and to believe it are two entirely different things, and to hear it from someone with authority to put to the words is amazing. I left that lecture feeling so completely inspired. Another student, walking past, summed it up when she gasped to her friends about "The whole broadness of what we can do". I don't expect I'll stay a net expert among this group for long now.
This wealth of knowledge and ability that we have developed, in many cases without even cultivating it specifically, suddenly seems to rank among our top attractions as employees. While this is probably in part caused by the way we're feeling particularly inspired by the talk, it's still way more important to us than any of us seem to have realised. I awarded it a meagre line on my resume. My feelings about this were emphasised later when I went to negotiate some advertising work with a client. To show us his website, he wrestled with his computer for a while (the internet was being strangely incooperative through no fault of his), typed the URL in with two fingers, got frustrated because it wouldn't work, minimised the window, seemed to think he had fixed it by doing so, maximised the window again and so on. This was from a young professional who had shown a high level of acumen in everything he did (which made for a brilliant client!) And yet, until today I practically took these skills for granted!
It's not a lonely few media academics who are discovering this new world of Web 2.0 (well, the media academics worked it out a while ago, I guess. They've just been waiting for the rest of the world to catch up and give them more to study), either. Ruth Ostrow (my role model in many ways) wrote an article for the Weekend Australian August 11/12 2007 about her daughter's inability to interact or, to some extent, value anything non-interactive. Along similar lines, I found an article by Marc Prensky on the need for digitally engaging curriculum abandoned on a table in my classroom this morning. Educators, commentators and a wealth of others are finally coming to see the wonders - and scary dark alleyways - of Web 2.0 that academics and netizens have been talking about for a while now.
Currently, I'm excited, but exceedingly intimidated by the fact that I don't believe that I know that I can make the most of this opportunity. Here goes.
14 August 2007
Internet Illness
I wrote this article last week for the Adelaide Uni rag, On Dit, and felt the need to publish it here as well. Sigh.
I have a sickness. It’s not a physical disease, but a mental one. I lose hours of every day because of my condition. You see, I have a wholly unhealthy reliance on the internet.
16 July 2007
The opinions of a supermarket employee
Thoughts from a supermarket employee:
- Very few of us exist purely to make your life hell. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve worked with people who couldn’t give a shit about you as a customer. Some of them will be the friendliest people you talk to that day. They probably wish they’d never spoken with you. Most of us, on the other hand, are genuinely friendly and personable and would actually like to be able to help you. I find I get a smile for the next little while after I’ve talked to a friendly customer. Approaching me as though I’ll be friendly makes my day nicer; it’s possible it’ll do the same for yours.
- Yes, checkout operators make very routine conversation. That’s because they stand there for at least five hours each shift, talking to people who often just want to hurry home. These customers are the good ones. The annoying ones are those that comment on your name, your hair colour or your accent. It’s like asking a man called Wyatt to repeat his name: they’ve probably heard it.
- We have bad days. Sorry, but that’s how it is.
- Please tell us if you drop something. We won’t get mad, but we will be able to avoid grief from our higher-ups. Cleaning up mess is a part of our job. Sometimes it’s one of the better parts, if only for the variety.
- The toy aisle is not a crèche during school holidays. If you don’t want to take your children shopping, find a childcare centre or, even better, teach them to help. Most of the children I see with parents who involve them in the shopping come to enjoy the task and learn lots about numbers and words in the process.
- Whenever Mum changes her mind about things she’s put in her trolley to buy, she puts them back on the nearest shelf, with the justification that there’s people who are employed to clean up the shelves. There are. They’re called nightfillers, and their main job is to restock the shelves as fast as they can. Most supermarkets keep them as late as they need to before the job is done. When they start after the store closes at 9, work as late as they need to and generally have another job, uni classes or school in the daytime, that extra minute of sleep that they’d get if they didn’t have to put stray soup packets back where they came from is very valuable.
- Working at a supermarket doesn’t make us stupid. Well, maybe it does. But some of us are smart enough in the first place that it just dumbs us down a little, idiocy’s too far to go. My supermarket has people studying law, media, music, commerce, international politics and a number of students doing engineering. Between us, we can do pretty much anything, including good customer service if you give us a reason.
I expect most people have little things like these that make their days at work special, annoying or just generally interesting. Most people are very respectful about things like these, but at times supermarket employees seem to appear so pedestrian that they slip in under the radar and become more automaton than human to some eyes. Despite this, I actually enjoy my job most of the time. Most of that is because of the customers that make me smile, laugh or, occasionally, sing, giving me a reason to love what I do.
03 July 2007
My candle
I was given a beautiful candle holder last week by my partner and bought a beautiful candle to go in it. Today I decided to use it, lest it end up abandoned on my shelf like so many other similar posessions.
There's something strangely wonderful about doing my computer work by candle light.
What Women Want. Well, what some family-oriented women and their families want. Well,...
So. The What Women Want (Australia) Party.
I was disturbed when I first read that an (apparently single issue) party was forming, assumedly in time for the Federal election at the end of the year and representing the women of Australia in all their diversity. Since then, I've decided that in fact, the party is probably the best way to achieve the ends of its founders, though they've gone about it in a rather clumsy and divisive manner that is unlikely to help them. (Although if they avoided this to a great extent they would become apologist and achieve very little anyway. Win some, lose some.)
My first impression was that the party over-represented itself to no end. 'What Women Want (Australia)' infers that the party represents the political desires of all women - that's approximately 50.6% of the population (2006 Census - this number is extrapolated from the percentage of females of all ages in Australia on census night). Neither major party achieves this sort of support. The latest Galaxy poll puts Labor at 46% and the Coalition at 41% (from the Galaxy report at Poll Bludger), both of which fall well short. They also automatically rule out the other 49.4% of the population, a not inconsiderable number of whom, especially those with families and broadly socialist views, could potentially find representation in this party in a way that no other party offers. Admittedly, the confusingly named Conservative Christian party has already put paid to the ability of any party to call themselves a family party, which makes the question of names a tricky one.
More important to the question of representation than the name is the fact that many, if not most, of the female-specific policies are aimed at women who have children - generally children under five years of age - or those who intend to have children. This does not take into account the needs and wants of women who do not want or plan to have children, who are too old to have children or who gave birth to children in years long past. Not all women want children or want to encourage others to have children, be it for reasons of population control or because small people are a nuisance.
The other problem I had was that WWW appeared to be a single-issue party. A single issue minor party that holds the balance of power is a very dangerous thing. A party, any party, should be expected to be able to present a raft of viable policy platforms in a whole range of areas by the time that they register as a party, otherwise they lose all credibility and claim to political authority, at least in my eyes. Instead, they would better serve the country as a lobby group, putting forward the needs of the people they represent to all the groups that stood to make changes based on the information they received.
As I said earlier, despite the problems I have with this party, after researching it more, I've come to support it for a number of reasons.
Firstly, this is the best way for this interest group to have their needs acted upon. The Women's Electoral Lobby was established in 1972, and has spoken on many women's issues, but has by and large been drowned out by other, more interesting, groups and news makers. A political party that can have a direct effect on electoral outcomes is a far more effective form of representation, and appears far more likely to produce results.
In addition, the party does, in a way, represent far more people than just the mothers of Australia. It also bears great relevance to nearly all future citizens of Australia, male or female. Issues like childcare, preschool education and financial support for one's family as they grow up has an enormous effect on the well-being of the child.
To my mind, most of their policies appear reasonable and considered, covering a far wider range of ideas than I expected from the media reports. They are 'position statements' rather than specific policies, but they suggest well-considered approaches to most issues, although this approach is far more shallow as the party moves away from matters of motherhood.
Health - This section contained policies on maternity care (provision of more midwives) and a woman's right to chose in respect to abortion, as one might expect. However, there is also specific reference to mental health and indigenous health priorities, which were less predictable. The position platforms refer to post-natal depression and infant mortality respectively, but they also cover issues with no specific link to 'women's issues'.
Work and Family - This is definitely the most specifically feminist section. It puts forward a specific, considered policy proposal for maternity leave, (which I found surprisingly understated - 6 months paid at the minimum award wage or higher for the mother, another 6 months unpaid for either parent) a plea for better child-care services (preferably with the support of federal funding or tax incentives) and the need for more recognition and support for carers (who are mostly women). However, it also covers ideas such as a 'living wage' for all members of society, the need for financial security for disability pensioners and the rights of homosexual couples (under the heading of 'gender equity'. Not entirely sure how that's applicable). More considered and general than the 'feminazi' approach I was expecting. No references to enforced gender equality in the workplace or the like.
Education - Brief, but largely practical within the socialist bounds that appear to be the starting point of the party. Covers the provision of government funded preschool places for all and the social benefits of such, the need for better funding for private education without disadvantaging public schools, vocational training (to the extent of 'it is needed'. No changes suggested or shortfalls highlighted here) and a fairer tertiary education system with reference to universities.
Environment - I am not impressed. A single, reasonable water policy is proposed amongst a short lecture to the current parliament about how this should be above partisan politics. The position on climate change, however, is atrocious. The call to research alternative energy sources and educate citizens about how to reduce their footprint (apart from being somewhat cryptic if you don't know much about the area) is relatively reasonable, if exceedingly shallow. Their call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is behind the times and suggests that this issue - one of paramount importance both environmentally and politically - has barely been considered, and is in no way a priority. The power position simply reheats the call for more investigation into clean, green energy.
Peace - This section appears to be less about peace overall than a catch all category. If one is prepared to think flexibly, the call for an end to war in Iraq, Indigenous self-determination, humane treatment of refugees and fair trade may all be considered matters of peace. However, welfare and public services, young people and economic policy should not really be in this category. While I am impressed that all these topics are proclaimed as matters of importance to the party, I think many are under considered. The position on youth is a completely rhetorical statement of 'young people are important', the welfare category simply re-states the need for security for all Australian citizens, and the positions on the Iraq war, fair trade and refugees are empty rhetoric, staking claim to a position with no suggestions on policy direction to achieve the stated ends. Worst of all the position statements, however, is the economic policy. A meagre eight lines describe the entire economic ideas of the party - that the widening income gap and increased levels of poverty are a shame, and that a strong public sector are essential. This is grossly neglected.
Although I may have done a good job of suggesting the opposite, I believe that the WWW party is a positive creation, although I think its members need to put far more work into the party's policies before it becomes a politically viable minor party alternative, rather than a single-issue vote siphon. If its creators are wise, the policy development process will be thorough, deep and as swift as possible.
I was disturbed when I first read that an (apparently single issue) party was forming, assumedly in time for the Federal election at the end of the year and representing the women of Australia in all their diversity. Since then, I've decided that in fact, the party is probably the best way to achieve the ends of its founders, though they've gone about it in a rather clumsy and divisive manner that is unlikely to help them. (Although if they avoided this to a great extent they would become apologist and achieve very little anyway. Win some, lose some.)
My first impression was that the party over-represented itself to no end. 'What Women Want (Australia)' infers that the party represents the political desires of all women - that's approximately 50.6% of the population (2006 Census - this number is extrapolated from the percentage of females of all ages in Australia on census night). Neither major party achieves this sort of support. The latest Galaxy poll puts Labor at 46% and the Coalition at 41% (from the Galaxy report at Poll Bludger), both of which fall well short. They also automatically rule out the other 49.4% of the population, a not inconsiderable number of whom, especially those with families and broadly socialist views, could potentially find representation in this party in a way that no other party offers. Admittedly, the confusingly named Conservative Christian party has already put paid to the ability of any party to call themselves a family party, which makes the question of names a tricky one.
More important to the question of representation than the name is the fact that many, if not most, of the female-specific policies are aimed at women who have children - generally children under five years of age - or those who intend to have children. This does not take into account the needs and wants of women who do not want or plan to have children, who are too old to have children or who gave birth to children in years long past. Not all women want children or want to encourage others to have children, be it for reasons of population control or because small people are a nuisance.
The other problem I had was that WWW appeared to be a single-issue party. A single issue minor party that holds the balance of power is a very dangerous thing. A party, any party, should be expected to be able to present a raft of viable policy platforms in a whole range of areas by the time that they register as a party, otherwise they lose all credibility and claim to political authority, at least in my eyes. Instead, they would better serve the country as a lobby group, putting forward the needs of the people they represent to all the groups that stood to make changes based on the information they received.
As I said earlier, despite the problems I have with this party, after researching it more, I've come to support it for a number of reasons.
Firstly, this is the best way for this interest group to have their needs acted upon. The Women's Electoral Lobby was established in 1972, and has spoken on many women's issues, but has by and large been drowned out by other, more interesting, groups and news makers. A political party that can have a direct effect on electoral outcomes is a far more effective form of representation, and appears far more likely to produce results.
In addition, the party does, in a way, represent far more people than just the mothers of Australia. It also bears great relevance to nearly all future citizens of Australia, male or female. Issues like childcare, preschool education and financial support for one's family as they grow up has an enormous effect on the well-being of the child.
To my mind, most of their policies appear reasonable and considered, covering a far wider range of ideas than I expected from the media reports. They are 'position statements' rather than specific policies, but they suggest well-considered approaches to most issues, although this approach is far more shallow as the party moves away from matters of motherhood.
Health - This section contained policies on maternity care (provision of more midwives) and a woman's right to chose in respect to abortion, as one might expect. However, there is also specific reference to mental health and indigenous health priorities, which were less predictable. The position platforms refer to post-natal depression and infant mortality respectively, but they also cover issues with no specific link to 'women's issues'.
Work and Family - This is definitely the most specifically feminist section. It puts forward a specific, considered policy proposal for maternity leave, (which I found surprisingly understated - 6 months paid at the minimum award wage or higher for the mother, another 6 months unpaid for either parent) a plea for better child-care services (preferably with the support of federal funding or tax incentives) and the need for more recognition and support for carers (who are mostly women). However, it also covers ideas such as a 'living wage' for all members of society, the need for financial security for disability pensioners and the rights of homosexual couples (under the heading of 'gender equity'. Not entirely sure how that's applicable). More considered and general than the 'feminazi' approach I was expecting. No references to enforced gender equality in the workplace or the like.
Education - Brief, but largely practical within the socialist bounds that appear to be the starting point of the party. Covers the provision of government funded preschool places for all and the social benefits of such, the need for better funding for private education without disadvantaging public schools, vocational training (to the extent of 'it is needed'. No changes suggested or shortfalls highlighted here) and a fairer tertiary education system with reference to universities.
Environment - I am not impressed. A single, reasonable water policy is proposed amongst a short lecture to the current parliament about how this should be above partisan politics. The position on climate change, however, is atrocious. The call to research alternative energy sources and educate citizens about how to reduce their footprint (apart from being somewhat cryptic if you don't know much about the area) is relatively reasonable, if exceedingly shallow. Their call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is behind the times and suggests that this issue - one of paramount importance both environmentally and politically - has barely been considered, and is in no way a priority. The power position simply reheats the call for more investigation into clean, green energy.
Peace - This section appears to be less about peace overall than a catch all category. If one is prepared to think flexibly, the call for an end to war in Iraq, Indigenous self-determination, humane treatment of refugees and fair trade may all be considered matters of peace. However, welfare and public services, young people and economic policy should not really be in this category. While I am impressed that all these topics are proclaimed as matters of importance to the party, I think many are under considered. The position on youth is a completely rhetorical statement of 'young people are important', the welfare category simply re-states the need for security for all Australian citizens, and the positions on the Iraq war, fair trade and refugees are empty rhetoric, staking claim to a position with no suggestions on policy direction to achieve the stated ends. Worst of all the position statements, however, is the economic policy. A meagre eight lines describe the entire economic ideas of the party - that the widening income gap and increased levels of poverty are a shame, and that a strong public sector are essential. This is grossly neglected.
Although I may have done a good job of suggesting the opposite, I believe that the WWW party is a positive creation, although I think its members need to put far more work into the party's policies before it becomes a politically viable minor party alternative, rather than a single-issue vote siphon. If its creators are wise, the policy development process will be thorough, deep and as swift as possible.
15 June 2007
Compliments
I got a compliment recently. I still smile just thinking about it. Every day, I am told that I am smart, that I am loved and that I am beautiful. The repetition goes a long way to convincing me that I am all of these things, but sadly it also robs the words of some of their power. They come to sound clichéd and worn to my sceptical ear.
A unique compliment, on the other hand, rarely fails to give me that special glow of warmth within. It shows that the person who says it has considered their compliment, and taken time to frame it within, acknowledging the individuality I want to feel I have. While I can recognise the special qualities of these considered personal comments, I find it very hard to give these sorts of compliments to others. They make me feel awkward and fumbling, unable to find words that don't sound ridiculous or cliche.
In part, this journal is here so that I can work on how I word things, brushing up on my pacing and the flow of my ideas. Too often I resort to clichés or brusque approximations that fail to communicate how I really feel about the person. Too often my real feelings, including love, admiration and gratitude, are expressed by tears instead of by thoughtful words. I’ll think of this as a June-and-beyond resolution to try to change that.
In contrast, some compliments gain force by way of their simplicity. The compliment I received last night was simply ‘you are a good friend’. It’s one of the best compliments I could ever get. I hope to earn it more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
