Remember those ridiculous big business-sponsored ads showing three thugs (supposed to represent union members) switching the lights off at a dress-maker store? Needless to say that militant unions and textile industry (especially small tailor shops) are not a realistic combination. In fact, somewhat ludicrously, one of the purported "union thugs" is wearing a CFMEU symbol - it is hard to see how CFMEU would be involved in dress-making shops, but obviously there is not need for reality in the favourite past-time of big business and Howard government - constructing union activists as thugs.
But with this ad the big-business sponsors have shown a closer associated with thugs than the union officials they are keen to defame. The Age reports that two of the three actors in the ad are real life criminals, convicted of a host of offences, including drugs, dishonesty crimes and sexual crimes against under-age girls.
The ad was pulled after the identity of these "actors" was revealed, but it has served its purpose - showing that the big business unions may well have closer association with thuggery than the unions that defend workers' rights. This is yet another embarrassment in the WorkChoices advertising campaign: a little while ago an ad had to be discontinued when it was discovered that actor in the ad ripped off his workers to the tune of about $13K and is now being prosecuted. Perhaps it is just too hard to get honest actors who could even pretend to support the Howard government's unfair workplace laws.
September 23rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Industrial relations, Political advertising |
no comments
We've been hearing a lot about numbers recently. There are the poll numbers. They bring to mind Mark Twain's famous opinion about lies and statistics. One week Howard is down, the next week he's up, one day its doom and gloom for the Libs, the next they are catching up as the numbers inexplicably rearrange themselves. OK, the polling industry has got to make its money, but lets not pretend that the voters change their minds as often as their underwear.
Then more recently, there was Costello attacking Rudd for making an error regarding the amount at which the top tax rate kicked in (the gaffe may have been embarrassing, but forgetting a number is no more a sign of lack of economic credentials, than Howard forgetting the name of his own candidates is a sign of dementia.)
The Howard government must like numbers (so long as they don't predict an election loss). Numbers are convenient - they can be twisted to suit one's purpose. They can say that 50% of the voters approve of something, while forgetting to mention that the other 50% are vehemently opposed. They can say that only 4% are unemployed, while forgetting to inform us that you only need to work one hour a fortnight to be considered "employed". Numbers are dehumanising - they can reduce the person, his hopes, triumphs and sufferings to a set of digits. They can tell you how many children die of hunger in the third world, without conveying any sense of life extinguished. They can feed you the information numerically, so you don't have to process it emotionally.
But if we are talking about numbers, and if Mr Costello is so keen that we should remember numbers, lets remember these:
And finally - 11.5 years - the amount of time it took to accomplish it all
I wonder whether Howard or Costello would recall any of these numbers if quizzed on them? If anyone wishes to add some more memorable figures - please don't hesitate to comment.
September 23rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government |
one comment
RSS
