TheGeoffRe(y)port

OK, some of you will have seen the story, but for those of you who haven’t, I’ve got a quiz for you. Take a good long look at this photo above. After pressure from “critics”, this advertisement apparently got pulled from the “Dunkin’ Donuts” website. So the question is: why?

1. The woman in the photo has been found to be in a lesbian relationship and it was thought that this wasn’t in keeping with Dunkin’ Donuts “family-values” image.
2. The term “dunkin’ perks” was taken to be an inappropriate euphemism.
3. People thought that the “arab-like” motif on the lady’s scarf could be seen as supporting terrorism.
4. This was the first time inside America that an “outside photo” has been shown from somewhere other than Dunkin’ Donut’s “spiritual home” - Canton, Massacusetts - the location of the Dunkin’ Donuts headquarters.

It’s ridiculous, right? None of those could possibly be true. But scroll down a little, and I’ll let you in on the secret…

Read the rest of this entry »

Had to laugh at reading this one. So there’s a global food crisis going on, and President Bush recently put out a statement attributing a bunch of the problem to developing nations like China and India experiencing economic growth, and basically finding themselves with a middle class:

During a news conference in Missouri, Bush mentioned India’s growing middle class, and said “when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.” This came on the heels of a similar statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that had already upset many in India. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

So the Indians got a little bit peturbed at being blamed for the global crisis, and told George exactly what they think is going on:

“George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics,” Jairam Ramesh, the minister of state for commerce, told The Press Trust of India after Bush’s remarks, which he said proved again how “comprehensively wrong” Bush is.

“To say that demand for food in India is causing increase in global food prices is completely wrong,” Ramesh said.

Politicians and academics in India cite various other reasons: diversion of arable land in the United States and Europe into ethanol production; trade subsidies by the United States and Europe; and the dollar’s decline. (Source: International Herald Tribune)

Issues like this are the reason it’s impossible not to wince when you hear comments from politicians (American or Australian) that talk about the importance of “protecting the American/Australian way of life”. Because while there’s a bunch of values tied up in our “way of life”, and probably some values that are worth keeping, it also encompasses a presumption of standard of living which is completely unsustainable if applied to the global population. We’ve got to recognise that the standard of living we have taken for granted in countries like our own are way beyond the resources of the world, and that any effort to “make poverty history” requires a violent reduction in western affluence).

So well done to India for telling the Yanks where they can shove it.

This is one of the most amusing attempts at gathering sympathy that I’ve heard in a long time:

“The motor vehicle industry has slammed a budget plan to increase the tax on luxury cars, saying it will hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel and could force makers to drop safety features.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has confirmed that tomorrow’s budget will increase the tax on cars of more than $57,000 from 25% to 33% and will affect about 105,000 car purchases a year.

The plan is part of budget cuts aimed at the wealthy.

Mr Swan said the changes would mainly affect imported cars such the S-Type Jaguar, and increase its price by $2600.” (Source: The Age - Squeals over plan for luxury car tax)

Let me just be certain that I have this correct: an extra 2 and a half thousand on cars over $57,000 is going to “hurt families struggling with the higher cost of fuel”. If families are hurt by how much it costs to fill up with petrol, maybe they should be considering a slightly more affordable vehicle. It makes me sick; this deeply embedded sense of entitlement for excessively luxurious items that has been bred through this consumer culture of ours. Because that quote there my friends would make me vomit, if I wasn’t so busy laughing.

photo credit: Howie_Berlin

Immediately after Heath Ledger died, especially for the time that it looked more likely that it was a suicide rather than accidental death, the reactions were remarkably interesting. There was the standard fan response - tributes and the like, but there was another response that I found to be remarkably interesting. It came in letters to the editor and blog comments and went roughly along these lines:

• “Why would he do this to himself?”
• “This guy had everything, and yet he’d kill himself”
• “How dare he do this?”

It wasn’t just disbelief - this was an angry response. The very same comments could be heard about Britney Spears’ latest breakdown, or whichever celebrity it is who has been caught drink-driving or checked into rehab. There is a real anger that these people would have everything - and “everything” is the word that gets used to describe it - and yet that’s not enough for them.

It seems to me that this anger doesn’t look much different to the sort of righteous indignation we get from fundamentalists at having their nicely boxed theologies challenged. Celebrity, and with it the concept that fame and fortune are somehow the pinnacle of human endeavour, is the state religion. So it doesn’t go well when someone’s actions come along and challenge that. 

Purple-hearted Mark will love me for picking a fight with his arch-enemies the wee-girls, but when I read this on The Age (stolen from the West Australian) I couldn’t let it pass without comment:

“WEST COAST chief executive Trevor Nisbett has accepted responsibility for the scandals that have rocked the club but defended his job and said calls for his sacking were naive because no single person could change the player culture at a football club.”

So it’s naive to suggest that you should remove a significant part of any problem, because it doesn’t make up the whole problem. Nisbett is right though - no one person is able to change the culture of the football club, and so as a result the entire management of the club should resign if they are serious about changing the culture.

“This is not about taking a “black armband” view of history. It is not about dwelling on the past for its own sake. This history is not someone else’s history. Today’s apology is about healing and reconciliation for the benefit of us all.” - Professor Mick Dodson, “Hands across the nation“

Our country has today chosen to move forward, after years of denial and downplaying. This country can heal. The full text of the Australian Parliament’s apology is pasted below.

Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

Brandt Snedeker is not only a difficult name to pronounce, but it’s not a name I’ve ever heard of before. But today, he deserves to be applauded, because he stared a whole bunch of money, career development and possibly a really great kick start to getting a little bit of fame, but instead knocked it back for the sake of sportsmanship and honesty.

Snedeker will be able to look himself in the mirror the morning and see an honest man. Golf is the only game of self- regulation and yesterday on the 14th hole he called a penalty on himself for something no one else saw. Had he said nothing, he would have shot 11-under and gone into a play-off with Parry.

The American was in the rough just short of the green on the 510-metre par five, and removed a leaf from behind his ball prior to playing his shot. The ball moved ever so slightly, and Snedeker immediately conferred with O’Hern, his playing partner, and a rules official then confirmed the one-shot penalty. It resulted in a bogey six on the hole. (The Age)

So today, I wanted to applaud Brandt Snedeker - difficult name to say, and might never hear from him again, but he chose to take the high road.

(Edit - Oh yeah, this is about golf, in case that made NO sense at all. The Australian Open, specifically) 

Well, that should earn some click-throughs! But a fascinating article over at Online Opinion on the link between gender and voting intentions. From the post:

“The final way that gender can affect elections is perhaps the most surprising of all. It turns out that the sex of your children can change the way you vote. In studies looking at Germany and the United Kingdom, Andrew Oswald and Nick Powdthavee have shown that parents with daughters are more likely to be left-wing, while parents with sons are more likely to be right-wing. What is particularly interesting about these studies is that the sex of your child is entirely random, so we know that the association is truly causal. Moreover, the effects are more than trivial. Oswald and Powdthavee estimate that every additional daughter makes you two percentage points more likely to vote for a left-wing party.” - Your sex can drive the way you vote, Online Opinion

So Gerry and Melinda, if you’re reading - I guess you’ll be voting extremist left wing then

From the BBC:

” A study of the world’s power stations has shown the extent to which developed countries produce more carbon dioxide per head than emerging economies.

Australians were found to be the world’s worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much carbon from generating power as China.”

But we’ll still have an election based on who will keep interest rates lower and give the biggest tax cuts.