Hard News: Just marketing to the base
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
I've been busy applying slices of ham to the screen to cover Craig's last few posts on this subject. He's entitled to his opinion, etc., ça va sans dire, but sometimes I'm just too sensitive.
God... I thought the Jane Austen readers were supposed to be languid petals. :) I never thought I'd type these words, but get a copy of North and South and toughen up. Gaskell, at her best, didn't feel the need to apply thick slices of ham to every thing.
-
<quote>I'd rather any daughter of mine emulate Scarlett O'Hara than any of Dickens' insipid drips./quote>
This is what comes of spending too much time jelly-wrestling with the likes of Dad4justice.
-
Yet another slab from Hard Times - an argument we're still having after more than a century-and-a-half:
Surely there never was such fragile china-ware as that of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them never so lightly, and they fell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed before. They were ruined, when they were required to send labouring children to school; they were ruined when inspectors were appointed to look into their works; they were ruined, when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they were quite justified in chopping people up with their machinery; they were utterly undone, when it was hinted that perhaps they need not always make quite so much smoke. Besides Mr. Bounderby's gold spoon which was generally received in Coketown, another prevalent fiction was very popular there. It took the form of a threat. Whenever a Coketowner felt he was ill-used - that is to say, whenever he was not left entirely alone, and it was proposed to hold him accountable for the consequences of any of his acts - he was sure to come out with the awful menace, that he would 'sooner pitch his property into the Atlantic.' This had terrified the Home Secretary within an inch of his life, on several occasions.
However, the Coketowners were so patriotic after all, that they
never had pitched their property into the Atlantic yet, but, on the
contrary, had been kind enough to take mighty good care of it. So
there it was, in the haze yonder; and it increased and multiplied. -
Heh, ok, that is a lovely quite Joe. Even for a Dickens Doubter like myself.
That being said, there are no more Lancashire cotton mills left. Mainly because those companies could allow their machines to chop people up elsewhere.
-
Heh, ok, that is a lovely quite Joe. Even for a Dickens Doubter like myself.t
Hey thanks, tho I'd class myself as being something of a "Dickens doubter" too. Like Shakespeare, it's counterproductive to ram his work down the throats of bored schoolchildren. I remember rankling at being forced to read "Twisted Oliver" in primary school.
For me, Dickens is one of those interesting artists who transcended his limitations while leaving his faults in plain view.
-
Like Shakespeare, it's counterproductive to ram his work down the throats of bored schoolchildren.
Heavens, yes. The bes VicLit comes across as dry these days, and even style aside, Oliver Twist is too LONG to serve as required reading in high school. Hard Times is half the length and a better book. IMO.
The 'mawkishness' of Dickens was high style in the Victorian period. It pays to remember that he was writing for periodicals, not writing novels. There aren't many famous novelists who had to worry about keeping their circulation up.
As a matter of personal taste, I vastly prefer Gaskell and Trollope myself. (Austen goes aside, because she's NOT a Victorian novelist.) But then, I loathe Wuthering Heights...
-
I loathe Wuthering Heights...
Probably why I love the "Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde.
-
But then, I loathe Wuthering Heights...
You just asked for this...
-
Probably why I love the "Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde.
Ha, yes. His audience-participation Shakespeare is a work of utter genius.
You just asked for this...
OMG. I had to go dig out the relevant Kate Bush just to get that out of my brain.
-
but if you've got mental health issues dealing with winz is about number 1 on the list of things that make you worse.
I'l that making a sensitive issue claim with ACC trumps thatACC are doing a remarkably good job of becoming as loathed as IRD once was. IRD at least has the excuse of being meant to be screwing you when it comes to behaving like a pack of bastards (is pack the correct group noun? Tribe? Swarm? Murder?), but have still managed to clean up their collective act - admittedly following much polly tubby-inspired hounding and bad press - when it comes to unnecessarily obnoxious behaviour.
-
For me, Dickens is one of those interesting artists who transcended his limitations while leaving his faults in plain view.
That about sums it up for me too, Joe. By the way, if any of you haven't read Orwell's terrific essay on Dickens, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
He is all fragments, all details — rotten architecture, but wonderful gargoyles.
Spot on George, spot on...
It's online here:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd
(excuse the ugly URL - still a bit baffled by the hyperlink instructions..)
-
OMG. I had to go dig out the relevant Kate Bush just to get that out of my brain.
And let's just mess it up again, with this God only knows what...
What's scarier --Goth Kate dry humping the cello, or Kate the fantasy art fetish made flesh?
-
What's scarier --Goth Kate dry humping the cello, or Kate the fantasy art fetish made flesh?
Kate Bush may be the worst dancer in the history of dancing, but having said that, I love that song of hers Hounds of Love .
-
Well, Craig beat me to linking the cello one (couldn't remember the song, but remembered the clip: made a big impression on a young lad)
...but here's the Not the Nine O'Clock Noise version:
-
Significant issues arising in welfare states as pointed out by people I can only assume to be in favour of continued benefits. Also some evidence that the welfare state feeds apathy rather than people who might genuinely need assistance:
And the organisations that will be required to provide the increase in mandated budgeting advice are asking where the funding will come from to pay for the increased output.
Welfare states create employment for people who could be doing something productive. There is inherent stupidity in a large workforce dedicated to working for those who are not working. Those who are not working should work for those who are.
single mothers are damned no matter which way they go. Work all the hours god sends, get blamed for neglecting the kiddies; stay on the DPB and try to raise them on $200 a week or whatever it is, get blamed for being a bludger, as if raising children isn't work that should be highly valued anyway.
Single mothers do not benefit from being given money. They benefit from being part of a properly functioning family. Some things money will never solve. A welfare state would do much better to issue laws protecting families rather than handing out money after families disband.
there are already checks on sickness benefits. You have to provide regular doctor's certificates.
A welfare state believes it is wrong to steal. Given this hypocrisy they will go to great lengths to avoid being stolen from. Hence numerous checks on beneficiaries which lead to a numbing of public resistance to fraud in general. Anyone who believes a doctor is not affected by pressure to sign welfare papers is living in a fantasy land.
it won't work in practice
Any idea on how to police welfare will only add to the bureaucratic pressure and inventiveness of those willing to stretch the rules.
Life in the benefit line is already hell. Very little money, constant denigration by society (and a cohort of children feeling ashamed of their station in life), regular deprecation by WINZ.
Why does a state sanction this sort of degradation? People are capable of finding there way to this level regardless of public policy. Without a benefit to keep them subsisting the motivation to work would motivate them to work.
well... if they can afford them, then more power to them. being rich doesn't mean the kids will be better people than the children of the poor. or vice versa.
Social policy that shapes plans for families is an obvious no-no. People should be responsible for their actions, not rewarded or penalised for having or not having children.
In. Any. Case. Governments created centralised social welfare as a reaction to well-recognised social problems.
Having no money is not a social problem. People's actions that cause poverty are. People's responses to poverty are. Clearly the idea of paying poor people for doing nothing does not end their need.
More people in the workforce ... means a cheaper workforce.
Which should end all argument. Who doesn't want a cheaper workforce?
There are two very simple truths that are perverted by the welfare state. The first is obvious. It is wrong to steal. No government has the right to demand money for reasons other than that which it is authorised to do.
The second is perverted as a consequence. Nobody has the right to demand who an employer hires or fires.
It is denial of these simple truths that leads to all the hand-wringing and unnecessary legislation.
And a final note: You people would do better to engage the points rather than ranting like lunatics about anything and everything but. Gosh, I thought I was back in a Sunday service there for a minute...
-
Single mothers do not benefit from being given money. They benefit from being part of a properly functioning family. Some things money will never solve.
What, apart from having enough food for your children and a house to live in you mean?
A welfare state would do much better to issue laws protecting families rather than handing out money after families disband.
I'm sorry, that sounded like you were advocating that the government legislate against the break up of families. Do you propose that divorce become illegal? I sometimes struggle to understand if you are treating this entire forum a a joke. I truly don't know what stops me from believing that you are...
Why does a state sanction this sort of degradation? People are capable of finding there way to this level regardless of public policy. Without a benefit to keep them subsisting the motivation to work would motivate them to work.
You are either deliberately obtuse, incredibly badly informed or an asshole. What possible reason do you have for thinking that people claim benefits purely out of indolence?
Having no money is not a social problem. People's actions that cause poverty are. People's responses to poverty are. Clearly the idea of paying poor people for doing nothing does not end their need.
Quack quack quack. That doesn't even make sense. See above re: deliberate obtuseness.
More people in the workforce ... means a cheaper workforce.
Which should end all argument. Who doesn't want a cheaper workforce?Would you like a pay cut Grant?
-
What the Dickens...?
Tony, I must have a higher expectation of people than you do. Which situation do you think would be better:
A) A mother as a part of a properly functioning family, or
B) A mother being paid because she is not so?If you think you're making some reason as to why we should have benefits then you'll have to start again rather than jumping in the middle. I do not think vulnerable women should be left to fend for themselves. So stop trying to play the sympathy card. 1% of the population being in genuine need is not justification for handing out money as a way of life.
There is already legislation against the break-up of families. So you're going to have to issue challenges that make you at least appear to know what you're talking about.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance by pretending that people do not claim benefit out of indolence. All it takes to be indolent is a little encouragement. A benefit is a great encouragement to anyone who has only ever known a benefit, or worse.
If you can't understand simple truths then I'm not surprised you cannot wage a decent assault on my points. Not having money is not wrong. The actions of people that lead to people being poor are wrong. People responding to not having money by expecting others to work for them is wrong. Do you so desperately want to disagree with me that you are prepared to argue with that as well?
And, no, I wouldn't like a paycut. Why would I?
Do you?
-
Grant Dexter: Why is caring for children legitimate paid work if it's done by childcare centres but not by mothers?
Why do you think single mother-led families are not real, functioning families? I personally find that extremely offensive - but if you prefer women and children to stay in families where they're demoralised, abused (and very unhappy) just so the model nuclear family can be upheld, then I think you're one very unpleasant person.
It has already been pointed out that Liable Parents pay the government the maintenance that should be going towards their children's upkeep - that offsets the base cost of the benefit. In effect, the government and the taxpayers are getting very cheap childcare for the young citizens we like to declare we care so much about. Half of all New Zealand women will be single parents at some time in their lives - that indicates the model nuclear family is no longer a lifetime choice.
If there were no benefits - and I regard WFF as a "benefit" - NZ social order would fall over, because employers don't pay enough to keep the people at a decent standard of living, without tax redistribution.
-
Tony, I must have a higher expectation of people than you do. Which situation do you think would be better:
A) A mother as a part of a properly functioning family, or
B) A mother being paid because she is not so?Grant, I must have a stronger understanding that the world is not a theoretical fantasy land than you do. Which situation do you think would be better?
A) A mother has three children and recieves a benefit to help feed, house and educate them while she is unable to work, or
B) A mother is punished for not being in a relationship by being forced to somehow scrabble for enough money to allow her children to merely survive, thus re-enforcing the cycle of poverty?1% of the population being in genuine need is not justification for handing out money as a way of life.
Your repetition of this number without being able to provide a single shred of evidence that it is anything other than a figure that you have made up makes me think that this is some sort of article of faith to you. An article of faith is only true to the believer. Please provide evidence that in the real world (the one where we live) that only 1% of welfare recipients are in genuine need, or else quit making things up.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance by pretending that people do not claim benefit out of indolence. All it takes to be indolent is a little encouragement. A benefit is a great encouragement to anyone who has only ever known a benefit, or worse.
Again, you are just making shit up. Are you truly claiming that 99% of beneficiaries claim the benefit purely out of laziness. You do not have a single shred of evidence to support that claim. All you have are your own nasty predjudices.
There is already legislation against the break-up of families. So you're going to have to issue challenges that make you at least appear to know what you're talking about.
I beg your pardon? What on earth are you talking about? Good god man. Are you hallucinating?
And, no, I wouldn't like a paycut. Why would I?
What do you think a cheaper workforce actually means in this situation Grant? Cheaper workforce = lower wages. I would argue that the people who are unlikely to want a cheaper workforce are those in the workforce. I assume you work. Therefore...
-
A mother as a part of a properly functioning family
I am part of a properly functioning unit. It just doesn't have a live-in father. He lives with his next wife (no fault of mine), and I don't think us all living together would 'function properly'. Got any other good ideas??
I wouldn't like a paycut. Why would I?
because
Who doesn't want a cheaper workforce?
Logical dissonance.
-
Tony had it right at:
You are either deliberately obtuse, incredibly badly informed or an asshole.
Trying to reason with Ms Dexter is like wrestling a pig. I'm bored with it.
-
Tony had it right at:
You are either deliberately obtuse, incredibly badly informed or an asshole.
I do have a slight quibble, in that I don't think they're mutually exclusive. It's not an 'or' situation.
-
Youre right, Emma - maybe that's what's distinctive amidst the ho-hum fundie ravings. If I want them, I'd move to the States or listen to talkback.
-
. . . listen to talkback.
Right - while ignorance is a common excuse, it is possible to be both "incredibly badly informed" and an asshole.
-
The irony is, that we'll probably be collectively supporting Grant Dexter if he becomes institutionalized within a public mental facility, as its entirely probable that he needs more help than most.
And here I was, sure that was where he already lived, hence my patience for all his delusions;)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.