The Health Services Union & Canberra:
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Will Thomson probe cause the HSU to implode?” (yesterday, item 1). Andrew Crook’s article only demonstrates that the Dobell trouble is grist to the mill for anyone with an axe to grind against leaders of the Health Services Union.
The idea that a NSW police investigation of misuse of Craig Thomson’s credit card would turn into a Royal Commission into the union’s accounts, extend to Victoria, and lead to the HSU’s “total wind-up” is a fantasy.
Crikey‘s coverage is redolent of anti-union prejudice, as if wrongdoing by one unionist extends to the whole.
As a former member, I think what’s scandalous about the union’s leadership is its sudden outrage about a problem that has long been public and that, since it was blatant and well-documented, they should have known about from the start!
Andrew Haughton writes: Re. “High-speed hypocrisy all round in the pursuit of Thomson” (yesterday, item 2). Our federal politicians continue to demonstrate that they are driven by personal ambition and personal rancour. The well-being of Australia comes a very distant second. They all deserve our contempt and I believe that increasingly they have it.
Apple:
Kythé Mackenzie writes: Re. “iQuit, says Jobs, leaving Apple in the hands of an unknown” (yesterday, item 6). I’d like to hope that Apple’s success was due to good design in the true sense of the word. True, good design should be incredibly saleable as there are very few modern properly designed objects. There is a huge amount of “stuff” made and very little is “designed”.
The word design is often misused and/or misunderstood. Good design covers function, efficiency, cost, looks. As soon as I used an Apple computer in the early ’90s, I knew that it would be huge, provided the management could match the product.
Apple should be applauded for building and selling something really valuable in stark contrast to Microsoft’s legacy. Good luck to Jobs if he has become rich, he really deserves it and is a true visionary.
Here’s to good design.
Gillard:
Zachary King writes: I can assure you, Linda Ethell (yesterday, comments), that my objections to Gillard are based on two things, neither of which have got anything to do with her gender:
- Her shocking incompetence (a trait shared by about 95% of federal pollies, on all sides);
- That noise she makes when she communicates.
With all due respect to our Prime Minister, she sounds like an pelican with a sinus infection struggling to swallow a barramundi. And it’s getting worse.
In the house she used to tear her opponents to shreds but now she is in charge and has obviously been coached to slow down, it’s like the patronising dial goes all the way up to 11. I think this is real reason no one understands the carbon tax — every time the PM tries to explain it to me, I just want to put a metal pot on my head and smash it with a wooden spoon until she stops. As the job requires momentous amounts of communication, it’s a serious concern.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a fair whack of misogyny rolling around as well, but it’s not like the two issues are mutually exclusive.
Zachary King, speak for yourself when you spout that “no one understands the carbon tax”. If you mean that you can’t understand why we need a carbon tax (when we are all deniers and think climate change is crap) then just say so. Clearly you don’t want a carbon tax and nothing the Prime Minister says will “explain” that to you – just like nothing John Howard said about invading Iraq explained anything to me.
Therefore your objections, “shocking incompetence” and “that noise she makes”, are baseless and probably contain a fair whack of misogyny. I got you wrong, that’s my prerogative, thanks all the same.
To me the most of-putting thing bout Gillard is her growing resemblance to Maggie Thatcher, as she tends to lecture the school.
(“Abbott”? He’s George Bush.)
Niall Clugston, as a former member, why didn’t you do and your fellow members do something about “a problem that has long been public”? A Trade Union is supposed to be a workers collective, isn’t it?
Charlie McColl,
I’m perfectly happy about the carbon tax but, like Zachary King, there’s no way I will be subjected to listening to Gillard explain or justify it.
Klewso (above) has likened Gillard’s delivery to Thatcher’s and I have to agree – it’s slow, too evenly-paced, monotone, repetitive and lacks any light and shade. The old favourites such as ‘moving forward’ and ‘Australian working families’ are trite and hackneyed. Gillard lacks animation – these days we see it occasionally in Question Time but, otherwise, she’s robotic.
Zut Alors, that’s the point. Don’t bother to listen to stuff you don’t need to hear. If we have to hang on every word the Prime Minister says we are stuck in the 24 hour news cycle. Julia Gillard will get the carbon tax legislation through (just like the tobacco plain packaging) and everyone, including Zachary King, will ‘move forward’ – some robotically in lock step, others just casually checking the scene as they go.