08 September 2011

Football’s untouchable God’s

Australia’s football empire is approaching religious cult like status, where the herd of its worshipers condemn anyone who is not a follower.

This is both done at the lowest common denominator level, from the follower, right up to the highest level of politics and corporate business.

Oppression in the workplace is common, that if you don’t follow the footy, you are un-Australian. You have to follow a football team otherwise you are looked at as if there is something wrong with you. In this politically correct world, one can choose to follow or not follow whatever sport they desire without criticism.

The mass media elevates, the simple sport ball throwers to ‘Gods’, and hero’s. Many of their actions make the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

Judges commonly give footballers lenience or suspended sentences, where if the same crimes were committed by the general populous, the outcome would be harsher. There is a deliberate policy from the top, to leave these people alone.

A common philosophy amongst footballers is that of treating women with not only disrespect, but also as objects for fulfilling a sexual desire, only to be disposed of shortly after.

As a result of this promiscuous behaviour it has been noticed by medical staff at major hospitals that approximately 70% of footballers have STD’s (Sexually Transmitted Diseases).

The football industry is plagued with various legal troubles, that include;

match fixing, corporate fraud, illegal gambling, allegations of rape, drunken disorderly, drug use, confirmed links to underworld crime figures and other illegal activities.

Amongst the tarnished reputation, allegations and court appearances the industry stands not only tall and proud, those who allege any wrong doings, their lives are shattered and are humiliated with the support of the mass media.

Recruitment of footballers starts from an early age, as the selection process begins in the early years of primary school education. Those who are seen by teachers to be lacking in intellect are coerced into forging a career in football. As a result it is widely accepted that footballers are not the brightest individuals.

The AFL alone is now approaching a billion dollar industry, and as a result must continue to flourish and not wane. The amount of monies spent by the masses this year will be close to $2 billion, as reported by the Herald Sun, with approximately $1 billion to be spent for alcohol.

The Australian Football League (AFL), previously known as the Victorian Football league (VFL), was born in the working class suburbs of Melbourne, to keep the blue collar workers amused on the weekends.

07 September 2011

Workers forced into extra hours with no compensation, survey finds

MANY Australian workers are forced to work extra hours without being compensated, a new survey suggests.

The poll of 42,000 employees, billed as the largest ever conducted with Australian workers, has found many are under increasing pressure at work.

ACTU President Ged Kearney says productivity is coming at the expense of workers' wellbeing.

"We have in fact what we call a productivity squeeze which means businesses are achieving productivity (gains) through a great deal of pressure on workers,'' Ms Kearney told ABC Radio.

What's more worrying is that there is a large amount of unpaid work being done, she said.

"We are being told by our members that they are working harder than ever, longer than ever and not getting paid for that extra work.''

Ms Kearney said that even under current workplace laws workers were being short-changed.

For example, the survey found 50 per cent of employees pay for workplace expenses and are not compensated for it.

"While the legislation might provide for these things, employers for whatever reason are not actually abiding by that,'' Ms Kearney said.

"A lot of our respondents, particularly in casual or insecure work, are saying that they are feeling forced to comply with this for fear of not getting shifts or for fear of not getting any extra work when they need it.''

The ACTU president said workers should not have more rights taken away from them.

"What we're seeing from employers is that they are trying to say that industrial relations laws are the reasons for productivity woes in this country and that just isn't true.

"This survey shows that workers are working harder than ever and that in some ways they're getting exploited even though the legislation is there to protect them.''

heraldsun.com.au 7 Spe 2011

This is where fraud happens at the greatest level in business / employment, in which businesses are 'allowed' to get away with it (fraud).

Not paying an employee for the time they have worked is not only against the Industrial Relations laws of Australia, but also fraudulent.

Since many workers fear for the loss of their jobs if legal action is taken, many cases are unreported.

This is a fraud that is occurring at a national level to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

05 September 2011

Mc Donald’s celebrating 40 years in Australia

McDonald’s is the world’s largest junk food chain, serving approximately 64 million customers daily. There have reports of how dodgy deals and deception was used to pry the original business from the McDonald brothers by the new business owner Ray Kroc.

Although there are many other brands and trademarks of junk food, like Hungry Jacks (Burger King), Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), Wendy’s, Donut King, the McDonald’s name is synonymous with obese American lower class eaters.

In Australia, nickname or the colloquial term for McDonald's is also Macca's or McChuck's (referring to the slang term chucking up - vomiting), which is a reflection on how society sees McDonald's.

McDonald's is the pinnacle of junk food success, where its marketing strategy promotes its carcinogenic foodstuffs to the masses.

The food without any doubt is carcinogenic, also causing arteriosclerosis, obesity, and many other health issues, depending on the individual.

Ironically McDonald’s also supports a charity called Ronald McDonald House, which supports families of children with cancer.

Registered charities in Australia are subject to government handouts, in the form of tax breaks, and government funding.

The so called food that is for sale at McDonald’s, is high in calorific value, low in nutritional value, laced with sugar, and sodium, which are detrimental to good health in the quantities supplied by McDonald’s in one meal alone.

Quite simply put, McDonald’s provides a product for consumption that is detrimental to the consumer’s health, something that is contrary to any honest company’s mission statement.

An interview with a McDonald’s franchise owner also revealed that McDonald’s is also one of the world’s larger realtors, meaning that it owns the land it occupies, a goal set out in its business plan.

McDonald’s is celebrating 40 years of feeding junk food to the herd or lower class population of Australia. An accolade truly to be proud of.

Melbourne The most livable city

Another lie perpetuated by the 'authorities'.

The 'most livable city' state of Melbourne changes from the worst to the most livable city on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Depending on which 'authority' issues it's findings, this month it's the
Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Survey),
and next month it could be the
Radical Views Pregnant Albino Japanese Woman's Society.

For example, there is no deviation of political, industrial or economic change to Melbourne's status that warrants any classification change.

from the article:

Welcome to the world's most liveable delusion

Melbourne is the world's most liveable city, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Survey.

WHO didn't feel a rush of pride this week when Melbourne was named the world's most liveable city? It would be almost un-Australian to query the basis of the evaluation. The Economist Intelligence Unit, which calculates the rankings, is an independent body and has no interest in selling Melbourne or promoting the other Australian cities, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, that featured in the global top 10.

The score is good for Melbourne and good for the national brand. It confirms our pre-eminence as a haven for overseas students, and so contributes to our economy and culture. Performing well in the international rankings has tangible benefits way beyond justifying our swagger and conceit.

The problem, however, is that we are already quite conceited enough and largely incurious about the virtues of other urban configurations. The latest result is a fillip to Australia's policymakers who now have international authority to vouch for our smugness: we have proof that the settings are right, that our cities are the best in the world and that nothing needs to change.

Unfortunately, all metrics are only as good as the things they count; and the Economist Intelligence Unit Liveability Ranking, which is now interpreted as the league table among competing cities, is far from a scientific guide to anyone's experience in Melbourne or anywhere else.

The rankings were originally conceived as a scale for determining benefits to executives or knowledge workers sent overseas. If employees go to a dangerous place with oppressive weather and no private education or healthcare, they need compensation. The rankings reflect an upper-middle-class view of the world that greatly values comforts and security but has no dimension of social responsibility, diversity, equity or sustainability.

It's of no interest to the Economist Intelligence Unit, for instance, that Melbourne is almost totally dependent on petrol, and that for anyone without a car it's impossible to get from Doncaster to Knox or Vermont to Oakleigh or Mulgrave to Bulleen or Keilor to Thomastown or Kew to Dingley.

According to the unit, Melbourne scrubs up pretty well because it's peaceful, has excellent weather, has a good hospital system and is reliable and prosperous. The positive statistics derive from its climate, excellent police force, its remoteness from conflict and the availability and quality of private and public healthcare and education.

Noting that the top 63 cities in the world have few degrees of difference, the Economist Intelligence Unit authors nevertheless attempt an explanation for what puts certain top cities in the lead. The authors relate the highest performance to medium-sized cities in wealthier countries of lower density.

This correlation of high marks and low density has been widely publicised as the cause of our glory. This despite the fact that the unit itself concedes that there's little statistical difference at the top end of the tables, where a superior position arises from infinitesimal degrees of separation. A single road closure can demote a city by two steps.

From a planning point of view, the Economist Intelligence Unit analysis is a catastrophe, because it confirms our resistance to urban density. It now seems provident that we have so many obstinate building restrictions and setbacks to maintain our low density. Alas, the Australian fear of living close to other Australians has had the unfortunate consequence of creating a vast sprawl which is unliveable without millions of cars.

How the unit came to its conclusion defies its own metrics. Density features in none of the rubrics. The qualities measured don't relate in any way to density; and very few can even be described as aesthetic. There's a vague possibility that we could attribute a lower crime rate to lower density, on the basis that maybe people with criminal tendencies are happier among gardens and are somehow lulled by leaf and persuaded that a hammock is better than a hammer.

If I had to explain why Melbourne has a relatively low crime rate, I'd rather ascribe the cause to the thousands of dedicated school teachers in the state and Catholic systems who have an unpaid second occupation as social workers and counsellors. Their kindness and care for young people of all classes are much more likely to make for crime prevention than the hectares of empty gardens that require cars and are alienating for youth.

We know that low density has nothing to do with liveability by the very study that suggests it. The intelligence unit itself consistently rates Vienna close to the top. This year, the elegant city on the Danube is number two, just below Melbourne. Vienna is a city where most people live in apartments of five-or-so storeys, built hard upon the street, without setbacks or suburban gardens. Vienna's 1.7 million inhabitants occupy relatively little land; and yet the city is secure, reliable, has beautiful water and is an international cultural destination with all the other amenities that a foreign executive could desire, if not our lovely weather all year round.

Of course, there are aspects of Melbourne, as in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, that earn the marks. You risk life and limb if you want to get around on a bike but at least your fingers don't freeze on the handlebars. You can always get milk, and divergent opinions are seldom censored and never punished.

Nevertheless, the idea that we Down Under have the urban formula for liveability - which is based on spreading out over unsustainable hectares of automotive space - is an irresponsible delusion that sets us up for disaster when the petrol runs out, and a filthy planet while it lasts.

theage.com.au 3 Sep 2011