Blogger: Term used to describe anyone with enough time or narcissism to document every tedious bit of minutia filling their uneventful lives. Possibly the most annoying thing about bloggers is the sense of self-importance they get after even the most modest of publicity. Sometimes it takes as little as a referral on a more popular blogger's website to set the lesser blogger's ego into orbit.
Then God forbid a blogger gets mentioned on CNN. If you thought it was impossible for a certain blogger to get more pious than he was, wait until you see the s*** storm of self-righteous save-the-world b******t after a network plug. Suddenly the boring, mild-mannered blogger you once knew will turn into Mother Theresa, and will single handedly take it upon himself to end world hunger with his stupid links to band websites and other smug blogger dips***s.
- Maddox
2006-01-16
Left-wing obfuscation in Abramoff affair
One of the big points that left-wing bloggers and Democratic leaders have been pushing in the last few weeks is that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. So while the mainstream media have been speaking about how "both sides" are affected by the scandal, the left has been adamant that it is clearly a Republican problem.
But today, John Aravosis at AMERICABlog, one of the more popular and influential lefty blogs, is incensed that the Democrats have appointed an "ethically challenged Democrat to lead (the) ethics reform fight". The Democrat in question, James Clyburn (SC), is apparently linked to a 1997 trip to the Marianas, paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff - an event that is being investigated by the legal team that is prosecuting Abramoff.
Of course, many are now complaining in the comments thread at Americablog that this revelation essentially contradicts the left-wing chorus that Democrats are not involved in the Abramoff scandal. The replies to this are quite disheartening - well, the explanation goes, we weren't saying that Democrats weren't involved, all we were saying was that no Democrat recieved campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff.
This is clearly obfuscation, and it will hit left-bloggers hard. Why is it obfuscation? The idea that has been presented for the past few weeks is that the Democrats are clean, the Republicans are dirty, and the only evidence showing some level of monetary exchange is from an Indian tribe to a Democrat or two - which is obviously not clearly from Abramoff.
To say that I'm disappointed is obvious. No doubt I believe that the Republicans are caught in this net to a large extent, but to deliberately mislead the public and attack the mainstream media for arguing that the Abramoff scandal is not linked to the Democrats at all is exceptionally unhelpful.
I'm likely to get people commenting or disagreeing with me here and there is obviously a great chance that my conclusions are, in fact, wrong. If I am wrong, please show me where and I will publically recant - that is not some turn-of-phrase but a real and genuine promise.
At issue here is the impression left upon me and many others who have trusted left-wing blogs and the various talking points that the Democrats are quite clean in this scandal. This is not about specifics, it is about generalities. I suppose if I did examine the minute detail of the pronouncements I may well discover that when people said "The Democrats are clean" they actually meant "The Democrats did not receive campaign contributions", a qualification that opens the door to Democrats being implicated in other corrupt activity that Jack Abramoff was involved in - which is now clear with James Clyburn.
Let me try to be clearer - the intention of the "Democrats are clean" campaign was to argue generally that Democrats were not involved at all. It was not intended to be a specific argument. Intention is the key here. And because that was the intended message, now that James Clyburn has appeared and is being touted as a Democrat who is being investigated for his involvement with Jack Abramoff, people who now complain are now discovering the "fine print" of the "Democrats are clean" campaign, which essentially puts the blame back on the readers for not realising that it was about campaign funding only.
Left-leaning blogs and Democrats should be clear and totally unambiguous. When the Abramoff scandal broke, members of the left should have made it clear that at least one Democrat was being investigated, rather than attempting to cover it up with the obfuscation of the "Democrats are clean" campaign.
As a political leftist myself I am angry that this has happened. The campaign sacrified long-term respectability for short-term political gain. Truthfulness, accountability and transparency are things that we should fight for, not things we should be trying to avoid for the sake of political gain.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
But today, John Aravosis at AMERICABlog, one of the more popular and influential lefty blogs, is incensed that the Democrats have appointed an "ethically challenged Democrat to lead (the) ethics reform fight". The Democrat in question, James Clyburn (SC), is apparently linked to a 1997 trip to the Marianas, paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff - an event that is being investigated by the legal team that is prosecuting Abramoff.
Of course, many are now complaining in the comments thread at Americablog that this revelation essentially contradicts the left-wing chorus that Democrats are not involved in the Abramoff scandal. The replies to this are quite disheartening - well, the explanation goes, we weren't saying that Democrats weren't involved, all we were saying was that no Democrat recieved campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff.
This is clearly obfuscation, and it will hit left-bloggers hard. Why is it obfuscation? The idea that has been presented for the past few weeks is that the Democrats are clean, the Republicans are dirty, and the only evidence showing some level of monetary exchange is from an Indian tribe to a Democrat or two - which is obviously not clearly from Abramoff.
To say that I'm disappointed is obvious. No doubt I believe that the Republicans are caught in this net to a large extent, but to deliberately mislead the public and attack the mainstream media for arguing that the Abramoff scandal is not linked to the Democrats at all is exceptionally unhelpful.
I'm likely to get people commenting or disagreeing with me here and there is obviously a great chance that my conclusions are, in fact, wrong. If I am wrong, please show me where and I will publically recant - that is not some turn-of-phrase but a real and genuine promise.
At issue here is the impression left upon me and many others who have trusted left-wing blogs and the various talking points that the Democrats are quite clean in this scandal. This is not about specifics, it is about generalities. I suppose if I did examine the minute detail of the pronouncements I may well discover that when people said "The Democrats are clean" they actually meant "The Democrats did not receive campaign contributions", a qualification that opens the door to Democrats being implicated in other corrupt activity that Jack Abramoff was involved in - which is now clear with James Clyburn.
Let me try to be clearer - the intention of the "Democrats are clean" campaign was to argue generally that Democrats were not involved at all. It was not intended to be a specific argument. Intention is the key here. And because that was the intended message, now that James Clyburn has appeared and is being touted as a Democrat who is being investigated for his involvement with Jack Abramoff, people who now complain are now discovering the "fine print" of the "Democrats are clean" campaign, which essentially puts the blame back on the readers for not realising that it was about campaign funding only.
Left-leaning blogs and Democrats should be clear and totally unambiguous. When the Abramoff scandal broke, members of the left should have made it clear that at least one Democrat was being investigated, rather than attempting to cover it up with the obfuscation of the "Democrats are clean" campaign.
As a political leftist myself I am angry that this has happened. The campaign sacrified long-term respectability for short-term political gain. Truthfulness, accountability and transparency are things that we should fight for, not things we should be trying to avoid for the sake of political gain.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-15
Majority of Americans want Bush Impeached
What a great title to a blog! It could convey all sorts of information that, without thinking, could lead the casual reader to think that the majority of Americans want Bush out of the White House.
Certainly there is a growing number of Americans who want this, but remember that when I say "Impeached" I mean that a formal investigation is undertaken by congress, the outcome of which is to determine whether the president should be removed from office. Only two presidents in US history (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) have been impeached, and both survived. The fact that Bush gets impeached does not mean that he will be removed from office - that's for congress to decide.
As far as I know, impeachment consists firstly of members of the house deciding whether or not the Senate should impeach the president. This is done by a simple majority. Once a majority of house reps say "yes" to impeachment, then it goes up to the Senate. Once it reaches the Senate, and after lengthy debate, a two-thirds majority is needed to remove the president. With Clinton, the simple majority (228-206) of the House got the Senate to do their stuff, but the Senate did not have a two-thirds majority (it was 55-45 in favour of Clinton). So while Clinton was "impeached", he was not removed.
So what does this mean for George Bush?
It means that the majority of Americans want his wiretapping to be investigated. While many obviously think that the wiretapping deserves removal, many more are obviously concerned enough to demand some form of investigation - one that will either indict or exonerate the President.
The poll was done by Zogby, and there are two downloads you can examine for yourself:
Zogby (results that cover American adults) - pdf file, 20.8kb
Zogby (results that cover those who intend to vote at the next election) - pdf file, 25.2kb
While the two results may give the impression that two polls were taken, the fact is that only one poll was taken and it was broken into two results - one that covers the general population (American adults) and one that covers those who intend to vote. Obviously there is a considerable overlap between them.
The question asked was:
The summary of the results are: 1216 polled, 51.7% want congress to consider impeachment, 42.8% don't want congress to consider impeachment, and 5.5% don't know.
But there's some rather telling and/or surprising results:
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Certainly there is a growing number of Americans who want this, but remember that when I say "Impeached" I mean that a formal investigation is undertaken by congress, the outcome of which is to determine whether the president should be removed from office. Only two presidents in US history (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998) have been impeached, and both survived. The fact that Bush gets impeached does not mean that he will be removed from office - that's for congress to decide.
As far as I know, impeachment consists firstly of members of the house deciding whether or not the Senate should impeach the president. This is done by a simple majority. Once a majority of house reps say "yes" to impeachment, then it goes up to the Senate. Once it reaches the Senate, and after lengthy debate, a two-thirds majority is needed to remove the president. With Clinton, the simple majority (228-206) of the House got the Senate to do their stuff, but the Senate did not have a two-thirds majority (it was 55-45 in favour of Clinton). So while Clinton was "impeached", he was not removed.
So what does this mean for George Bush?
It means that the majority of Americans want his wiretapping to be investigated. While many obviously think that the wiretapping deserves removal, many more are obviously concerned enough to demand some form of investigation - one that will either indict or exonerate the President.
The poll was done by Zogby, and there are two downloads you can examine for yourself:
Zogby (results that cover American adults) - pdf file, 20.8kb
Zogby (results that cover those who intend to vote at the next election) - pdf file, 25.2kb
While the two results may give the impression that two polls were taken, the fact is that only one poll was taken and it was broken into two results - one that covers the general population (American adults) and one that covers those who intend to vote. Obviously there is a considerable overlap between them.
The question asked was:
If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?
The summary of the results are: 1216 polled, 51.7% want congress to consider impeachment, 42.8% don't want congress to consider impeachment, and 5.5% don't know.
But there's some rather telling and/or surprising results:
- The greatest amount of "don't knows" come from the South (9.1%)
- While all regions have a majority desiring impeachment, the slimmest margin is in the Midwest / Great Lakes region (49.4% want impeachment, 45.7% do not)
- The region with the biggest margin in support of impeachment is in the South. (52.6% want impeachment, 38.3% do not)
- Support for impeachment is greatest among those aged 18-24 (89.7%), followed by 25-34 (52.9%). Support is then equally balanced among 35-54 year olds (46.9% agree, 46.9% disagree), and is directed more towards Bush among 54-69 year olds (49.3% disagree, 46.7% agree) and is given great support by the 70+ age bracket (52.5% support, but 8.8% don't know - the highest level of all age groups).
- States that the Republicans won in 2004 have a 50.7% support for impeachment, while states that the Democrats won in 2004 have a 52.7% support for impeachment.
- Support for impeachment is weakest (49.5% but still a majority) amongst those who shop at Wal-Mart on a weekly basis.
- Of those who belong to a political party, the results are obvious. 71.3% of Democrats want impeachment while 70.5% of Republicans are opposed to it. Independents have a 58.5% support.
- Interestingly, the higher the educational achievement of the person is, the less support they have for impeachment. 71.6% of High School dropouts favour impeachment, 58.9% of High School grads (who have not gone on to college) support impeachment, 52.1% of college dropouts favour impeachment, while 48.1% of college grads (a majority) do NOT support impeachment. This result is obviously affected by racial elements - eg the majority of high school dropouts being African Americans, college grads being white, and so on.
- White Americans are divided but slightly favour non-impeachment (46.7% yes to 47.7% no)
- Hispanics are not impressed with Bush (56.3% yes to 38.0% no)
- African Americans appear to despise the guy (74.8% yes to 20.6% no)
- Asians are even less impressed than the Hispanics (60.7% yes to 32.6% no)
- Those who live in large cities (55.6% yes) or small cities (58.1% yes) want Bush impeached, while those who live in the suburbs (48.9% no but a majority) or in rural areas (49.6% no but a majority) do not want him impeached.
- Catholics (50.0% yes) want Bush impeached while Protestants (50.0% no) do not.
- 62.5% of Muslims do NOT want Bush impeached (a statistical anomoly methinks, less than 10 were clearly identified in the poll)
- 83.0% of Jews want Bush impeached.
- 57.4% of Born Again Christians do NOT want Bush impeached (groan!!)
- Married people are more likely to NOT want impeachment (52.1%), while 74.8% of singles and 53.4% of Divorced/Separated/Windowed do want Bush impeached.
- 49.0% of members of the armed forces want Bush impeached, while 44.0% do not.
- 49.7% of NASCAR fans want Bush impeached, while 46.5% do not
- Regular church attenders do not want Bush impeached, while less regular attenders support impeachment.
- 48.5% of men want Bush impeached, while 45.9% do not.
- 54.6% of women want Bush impeached, while 39.9% do not.
- Those who earn less than $50,000 per year want Bush impeached. Those who earn more than that amount do not want him impeached.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-13
Heckuva Bubble for Bush
US Presidents are often tagged with lines uttered in public that go down in history as expressions of their incompetence or political failures. With Bush Sr, it was "Read my lips, no new taxes" spoken clearly and concisely some months before he raised taxes. With Clinton, it was "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" as he testified lamely before the Grand Jury.
George W. Bush certainly has a bit of time left to come up with similar gems. At the moment, however, one of his more popular phrases is "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job", as he assessed the work done by FEMA director Michael D. Brown in helping the people of New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina. Given the obvious incompetence of FEMA at the time, and the reports of suffering going on in the Superdome and other places, this phrase is now used quite ironically by Bush opponents to ridicule and criticise him - "You're doing a heckuva job (insert name of incompetent Bush-appointed offical)".
So it is with a measure of surprise that Dubya has used the phrase again - not just anywhere, but in a speech given to people in New Orleans about the rebuilding effort. Speaking to these citizens, he pointed out that New Orleans is "a heckuva place to bring your family".
There's no doubt that Dubya said this innocently and without any idea of what he was saying - and that's the problem.
White House staffers, advisors and other Bush hangers-on would no doubt have be aware that his praise of Michael Brown was erroneous, and that the praise "You're doing a heckuva job" was becoming a popular anti-Bush phrase. So why did the president innocently utter it? The answer is simple - no one has told him of the problem.
That's right, all these people close to the president have not informed him of the awful truth that this innocent phrase should now be verboten. Not one of his advisors took him aside in the last few months and said "Mr President, I'm afraid that the expression you used to praise Michael Brown - 'you're doing a heckuva job' - is now being used by your political opponents. I really suggest that you be careful to never use that phrase again in public, because the phrase is now quite embarrassing".
Something similar happened during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in April, 2004. Things got so bad that the President made a speech live on television about it. What was interesting during that speech was that he mispronounced "Abu Ghraib" several times. This was not an example of Bush's inability to read, after all, most people did not know how to pronounce "Abu Ghraib" previous to the scandal unfolding. Nevertheless the question needed to be asked - why was George Bush mispronouncing a name that virtually everyone had heard and knew how to pronounce by the time the president appeared on TV?
Think of the generic 20th or 21st century president sitting at his desk in the White House. An advisor enters and says "Mr. President, an Air Force B-52 carrying nuclear weapons has crashed in Tajikistan." As he listens to the report, he is mentally saying to himself 'Ah, that's how you pronounce that word' ".
Had Mr. Bush been properly briefed about the issue, he would have been surrounded by advisors and staffers all pronouncing "Abu Ghraib" constantly around him as they talked about damage control. Through this process of being exposed to the name "Abu Ghraib", the president would have known how to say it.
But he didn't. On the night he made the speech, he mispronounced it several times. The only reason I can think of is that he had never been exposed to the name in the first place - or at least once or twice by the speechwriters before he sat down before the cameras.
Both the "Abu Ghraib" and "Heckuva" events show that George W. Bush is kept apart from the world. News items, talking points and important events that we are aware of are barely on the president's scope. For whatever reason, his advisors have learned to keep certain information from him - possibly because the president does not wish to know or even acknowledge these sorts of details.
All of this begs the question - what else does the president not know? The answer to this is probably frightening.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
George W. Bush certainly has a bit of time left to come up with similar gems. At the moment, however, one of his more popular phrases is "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job", as he assessed the work done by FEMA director Michael D. Brown in helping the people of New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina. Given the obvious incompetence of FEMA at the time, and the reports of suffering going on in the Superdome and other places, this phrase is now used quite ironically by Bush opponents to ridicule and criticise him - "You're doing a heckuva job (insert name of incompetent Bush-appointed offical)".
So it is with a measure of surprise that Dubya has used the phrase again - not just anywhere, but in a speech given to people in New Orleans about the rebuilding effort. Speaking to these citizens, he pointed out that New Orleans is "a heckuva place to bring your family".
There's no doubt that Dubya said this innocently and without any idea of what he was saying - and that's the problem.
White House staffers, advisors and other Bush hangers-on would no doubt have be aware that his praise of Michael Brown was erroneous, and that the praise "You're doing a heckuva job" was becoming a popular anti-Bush phrase. So why did the president innocently utter it? The answer is simple - no one has told him of the problem.
That's right, all these people close to the president have not informed him of the awful truth that this innocent phrase should now be verboten. Not one of his advisors took him aside in the last few months and said "Mr President, I'm afraid that the expression you used to praise Michael Brown - 'you're doing a heckuva job' - is now being used by your political opponents. I really suggest that you be careful to never use that phrase again in public, because the phrase is now quite embarrassing".
Something similar happened during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in April, 2004. Things got so bad that the President made a speech live on television about it. What was interesting during that speech was that he mispronounced "Abu Ghraib" several times. This was not an example of Bush's inability to read, after all, most people did not know how to pronounce "Abu Ghraib" previous to the scandal unfolding. Nevertheless the question needed to be asked - why was George Bush mispronouncing a name that virtually everyone had heard and knew how to pronounce by the time the president appeared on TV?
Think of the generic 20th or 21st century president sitting at his desk in the White House. An advisor enters and says "Mr. President, an Air Force B-52 carrying nuclear weapons has crashed in Tajikistan." As he listens to the report, he is mentally saying to himself 'Ah, that's how you pronounce that word' ".
Had Mr. Bush been properly briefed about the issue, he would have been surrounded by advisors and staffers all pronouncing "Abu Ghraib" constantly around him as they talked about damage control. Through this process of being exposed to the name "Abu Ghraib", the president would have known how to say it.
But he didn't. On the night he made the speech, he mispronounced it several times. The only reason I can think of is that he had never been exposed to the name in the first place - or at least once or twice by the speechwriters before he sat down before the cameras.
Both the "Abu Ghraib" and "Heckuva" events show that George W. Bush is kept apart from the world. News items, talking points and important events that we are aware of are barely on the president's scope. For whatever reason, his advisors have learned to keep certain information from him - possibly because the president does not wish to know or even acknowledge these sorts of details.
All of this begs the question - what else does the president not know? The answer to this is probably frightening.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Home Loan Unaffordability
One of my least favourite lobby groups is the Housing Industry Association (HIA). For some reason, I find their pronouncements to be almost always self-serving, and speak of the housing industry as if it were the engine room of the Australian economy and woe betide anyone who says otherwise.
Today the HIA announced that the housing affordability "crisis" is now over. Since the housing industry has been suffering from a deflating bubble in the last 2 years, you'd think it was time we filled the streets and partied.
But the stats are more depressing. According to figures supplied by the Real Estate Institute of Australia and AMP Banking and featured at the MESI wesbite - the Home Loan Affordability Indicator - housing has been exceptionally unaffordable in Australia since June 2004. The recent figures that the HIA are touting are not wrong - but they need to be seen in context. Yes, housing has become more affordable, but it is still exceptionally expensive.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Today the HIA announced that the housing affordability "crisis" is now over. Since the housing industry has been suffering from a deflating bubble in the last 2 years, you'd think it was time we filled the streets and partied.
But the stats are more depressing. According to figures supplied by the Real Estate Institute of Australia and AMP Banking and featured at the MESI wesbite - the Home Loan Affordability Indicator - housing has been exceptionally unaffordable in Australia since June 2004. The recent figures that the HIA are touting are not wrong - but they need to be seen in context. Yes, housing has become more affordable, but it is still exceptionally expensive.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-12
Suffering in "The John"
The John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle is the city's largest and newest hospital. It not only serves the people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley, but is also the hospital many people from the north coast and north-western NSW go to when they have a complicated condition.
It has no air-conditioning.
Yes - you read that right. "The John", as it is unaffectionately known, is a hothouse in summer. While the reception area has its own air conditioning system, the wards do not. That means that sick people, nurses and doctors often have to live in temperatures of 30 degrees or more quite often during summer. Some wards do have their own air conditioning system, but most do not.
It is absolutely incredible in this day and age that a major hospital does not have something so basic as air conditioning. Moreover, it is also incredible that a modern hospital should have no air conditioning.
There are so many design flaws at the John that it must represent the worst piece of central planning ever by publically funded health services. It's almost enough - almost - to prove the belief that government cannot do anything with any sort of efficiency.
Take parking at the hospital. Since Newcastle does not have a 24-hour medical centre anywhere in the city, sick people are often forced to go to hospital emergency departments. A few months ago I was concerned that I had developed a chest infection and so off I went - in the early evening - to the John to see a doctor. I entered the parking area, got myself a ticket and then drove around for 5-10 minutes looking for a space. Do you think I could find one? Then I had the frustration of paying a $4 parking fee on my way out when I decided to go to the Martyr emergency department instead (which has just as impossible to enter). Things are so bad with parking that people are hired to move cars in the staff parking area so that Nurses and Doctors can actually put their cars somewhere.
There's also only one road in and one road out - and the road is located at a major intersection. If there is a traffic accident at that section, then the hospital is temporarily cut off from the rest of Newcastle.
The John is designed as a long three-story building. Between floors two and three there are gaps in the floor reminiscent of a shopping centre - you can walk along floor three and gaze down at people walking on floor two. On the ceiling are skylights to allow natural light in, which is okay during the winter but in summer it adds to the heat. Moreover, because of safety, these "gaps" have ugly safety nets draped over them.
Most Newcastle people I know - especially those who work there - are totally frustrated with "The John".
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
It has no air-conditioning.
Yes - you read that right. "The John", as it is unaffectionately known, is a hothouse in summer. While the reception area has its own air conditioning system, the wards do not. That means that sick people, nurses and doctors often have to live in temperatures of 30 degrees or more quite often during summer. Some wards do have their own air conditioning system, but most do not.
It is absolutely incredible in this day and age that a major hospital does not have something so basic as air conditioning. Moreover, it is also incredible that a modern hospital should have no air conditioning.
There are so many design flaws at the John that it must represent the worst piece of central planning ever by publically funded health services. It's almost enough - almost - to prove the belief that government cannot do anything with any sort of efficiency.
Take parking at the hospital. Since Newcastle does not have a 24-hour medical centre anywhere in the city, sick people are often forced to go to hospital emergency departments. A few months ago I was concerned that I had developed a chest infection and so off I went - in the early evening - to the John to see a doctor. I entered the parking area, got myself a ticket and then drove around for 5-10 minutes looking for a space. Do you think I could find one? Then I had the frustration of paying a $4 parking fee on my way out when I decided to go to the Martyr emergency department instead (which has just as impossible to enter). Things are so bad with parking that people are hired to move cars in the staff parking area so that Nurses and Doctors can actually put their cars somewhere.
There's also only one road in and one road out - and the road is located at a major intersection. If there is a traffic accident at that section, then the hospital is temporarily cut off from the rest of Newcastle.
The John is designed as a long three-story building. Between floors two and three there are gaps in the floor reminiscent of a shopping centre - you can walk along floor three and gaze down at people walking on floor two. On the ceiling are skylights to allow natural light in, which is okay during the winter but in summer it adds to the heat. Moreover, because of safety, these "gaps" have ugly safety nets draped over them.
Most Newcastle people I know - especially those who work there - are totally frustrated with "The John".
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-11
Any cartoonists out there?
I can't draw very well, and I have no ability to create anything with help from my computer. I suppose I could try but it would take me ages.
But I've just thought of a great new comic strip that is lefty-political in tone. I've come up with two strips already with the dialogue. If you'd like to be my cartoonist, please contact me. No money will be made (it'll come under a creative commons license)
Update:
C'mon! I've made about a dozen now, and they are all scientifically proven to be hilarious.
But I've just thought of a great new comic strip that is lefty-political in tone. I've come up with two strips already with the dialogue. If you'd like to be my cartoonist, please contact me. No money will be made (it'll come under a creative commons license)
Update:
C'mon! I've made about a dozen now, and they are all scientifically proven to be hilarious.
Meme of Four
Thanks to Maxspeak for this one. Pass the meme on...
Four Jobs you've had:
1. High School Teacher
2. Security Guard
3. Purchasing Officer
4. Console Operator
Four Movies you could watch over and over:
1. Brazil
2. The Big Lebowski
3. Apocalypse Now
4. Dead Man
Four places you've lived:
1. Cheltenham, NSW
2. Carlingford, NSW
3. Croydon, NSW
4. Waratah, NSW
Four TV Shows you love to watch:
1. Millennium
2. The Simpsons
3. The Young Ones
4. Big Train
Four places you've been on vacation:
1. Cawdor, Scotland
2. Hollywood, California
3. Kangaroo Island, South Australia
4. Leeton, NSW
Four Blogs you visit daily:
1. Eschaton
2. One Veteran's Voice
3. The Texas Baptist Underground
4. Pyromaniac
Four of your favourite foods:
1. Thai Chicken Curry (Green/Red/Panang)
2. Spaghetti Bolognese
3. Butter Chicken
4. Laksa
Four Places you'd rather be:
1. King Island
2. Devonport
3. Kamchatka
4. Cobran Road, Cheltenham, NSW
Four albums you can't live without:
1. Ride - Going Blank Again
2. U2 - The Unforgettable Fire
3. Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
4. Pixies - Doolittle
Four Vehicles you've owned:
1. Honda VT-250F
2. Suzuki Swift
3. Mitsubishi Lancer
4. A Chopper
Four Jobs you've had:
1. High School Teacher
2. Security Guard
3. Purchasing Officer
4. Console Operator
Four Movies you could watch over and over:
1. Brazil
2. The Big Lebowski
3. Apocalypse Now
4. Dead Man
Four places you've lived:
1. Cheltenham, NSW
2. Carlingford, NSW
3. Croydon, NSW
4. Waratah, NSW
Four TV Shows you love to watch:
1. Millennium
2. The Simpsons
3. The Young Ones
4. Big Train
Four places you've been on vacation:
1. Cawdor, Scotland
2. Hollywood, California
3. Kangaroo Island, South Australia
4. Leeton, NSW
Four Blogs you visit daily:
1. Eschaton
2. One Veteran's Voice
3. The Texas Baptist Underground
4. Pyromaniac
Four of your favourite foods:
1. Thai Chicken Curry (Green/Red/Panang)
2. Spaghetti Bolognese
3. Butter Chicken
4. Laksa
Four Places you'd rather be:
1. King Island
2. Devonport
3. Kamchatka
4. Cobran Road, Cheltenham, NSW
Four albums you can't live without:
1. Ride - Going Blank Again
2. U2 - The Unforgettable Fire
3. Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
4. Pixies - Doolittle
Four Vehicles you've owned:
1. Honda VT-250F
2. Suzuki Swift
3. Mitsubishi Lancer
4. A Chopper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)