Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: February 4, 2010
bigoted, conniving, fat, disgusting, prejudiced, bitchy, shallow, fake, deceitful. Looks like miss piggy after she was addicted to crack for her youth, quit, then ballooned at middle age, with burnt out skin, hair, teeth and eyes intact. “She looks like Jabba the hut” she says of her friend’s photo that “you should check out” on Facebook. Yeah she looks like Jabba the hut… Maybe you should slander her for a while longer, as your friends (your girlfriend who looks like she wore a picnic rug out today, and whose face you avoid looking at, and your gay friend – half bald, sick and withering – not just because of your frightfulness) sit tight-lipped, mmmm-ing and yeah-ing as you bitch to make yourself feel better.
Fucking Jabba the hut you say? Dont you think thats a bit rich? Or am i forgetting that because you constantly talk down on her, and you’re dining at such a fine establishment, and drinking wine, and you’re friends are so agreeing with you, and the slandering is endless, and you’ve got all this spare time to taunt her on facebook, or defame her and slander her some more (not in front of her face mind you), that you must be better than her…… And so many other people… As you spill out of your clothing everywhere.
Insecure enough to be completely insane..
Millions of people a day, dine or drink (usually both) at restaurants, bars, clubs, cafes and other similar establishments around the world each day, and behave in this manner. There are always staff in attendance who can observe this behaviour, and some say that is a small reason as to why many of those in the service industry, enjoy what they do. – It’s the people..
So next time you speak without thinking, remember > >
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: January 28, 2010
Valentine’s Day – or Saint Valentine’s Day – was originally a day where lovers (or those courting love) would exchange notes, in the form of “Valentines”, the day’s name also deriving from the ancient Roman word “Valens” which means worthy, and from the Saint Valentine, whose feast is on the day we traditionally celebrate Valentine’s Day.
Commonly, it is said, flowers and chocolates were also regularly given on February 14th as well. It may have seemed an innocuous occasion in times gone by (though impassioned, meaningful and heartfelt – history says that the first Valentine’s card was sent by a knight being held captive in 1415 in the London Tower, to his wife) whereas nowadays, such a simple analogy of this time of year would almost seem laughable, due to Valentine’s day’s hugely, and increasingly commercial nature, magnified by some perceived importance for those already in a relationship.
According to Wikipedia, the U.S greeting card association says that around one billion Valentine’s cards alone are sent around the world each year. The amount of chocolates and candy bought and sold in some countries is even more ridiculous – the U.S market managing to make well over $1 billion in chocolate sales during Valentine’s.
With the almost perpetual increase and success of consumption at Christmas time, it’s no wonder that Valentine’s Day has become another lucrative, exploitable occasion for retailers and businesses alike, while becoming a more and more expensive venture for all its participants. – Apparently love can be quantified in pounds or dollars these days – how convenient!
Just as Christmas advertising (notably earlier and earlier each year) and the proliferation of specific Christmas time consumer products has also become greater, so have specialist Valentine’s money-grabbing ideas, packages, gimmicks, fads, products, services and deals.
As early as 1868, Richard Cadbury (sound familiar?) was introducing specific “Valentine’s Chocolates”. Card-making giant Hallmark can also boast of offering over 1330 Valentine’s cards, at this “loved up” time of year. – Loved up? Or is that “cashed up”? In a society of increasingly commercial consumerism, where success and prosperity is more and more determined by material wealth and dollar value, it is no wonder that surveys have proved that the majority of women in the U.S and the U.K would actually consider dumping their boyfriend if they didn’t receive a Valentine’s gift on February 14th. – Where’s the love gone?
Still looking, and still not feeling like you’ve spent enough money, Selfridges can offer you special Valentine’s day Marmite – laced with champagne (such a negligible amount you wont even notice) bearing special labels with monikers such as “spread love”, at a nicely inflated price. Or you can opt for jewellery designer Theo Fennell’s “Lover’s Marmite” with its engraved sterling silver lid, at a cost of £145. Maybe there’ll be matching toast in the years to come? Lick it off your partner’s skin I hear you say? – That would be promoting intimacy and romance, which goes against trends of consumption and spending, sorry.
For all the money being spent and gifts changing hands, surely it is time that creative, original gifts (rather than those that simply cost the most) gained popularity? Maybe we’re all just being dumbed down and made ignorant to the fact that our loved ones are just jumping on one massive money-hungry bandwagon and thoughtlessly contributing to the billions of red roses sold and delivered each year, for example. Time to spread love – not literally! – figuratively. Put your cash away, before the days (and months) leading to February 14th annoy us as much as those leading to December 25th.
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: January 27, 2010
With many fingers pointing towards a future in dire straits, and blame being laid on the shoulders of the 190-odd representatives of each nation at the Copenhagen climate summit (a weight of considerably heavier load for certain individuals), it would be easy to ignore the point – amidst the almost childish and self-righteous fighting – of what needs to be achieved in order to assure our planet’s long-term sustainability.
The earth is not an infinite resource, and at current rates of growth and consumption (the two major driving factors of neo-classical economic systems – that must be seen to be failing humanity now?) nor can it replenish what we use, damage and destroy, fast enough for it to be available to us down the track. In the year of 2004 for example, we consumed what it will take the earth until March 2005, to replenish. In other words, we used 16 months worth of the earth’s ability to regenerate, in just 12.
It’s no secret that streets full of cars, factories billowing smoke, forests being cleared of trees, rivers filling with pollution and land being filled all contribute (amongst myriad other things) to our earth’s dramatically changing climate, but it all comes down to one thing: consumption.
The more we consume, the more smoke billows from the factories, the more forests need clearing, the more transport we need on our roads, the more pollution there is filling our rivers, streams, lakes and land. Making current technology “greener” and more sustainable is one thing, curbing consumption – in an economic system that dictates that we consume, and is stimulated by growth – is another.
We may be powerless to change our current economic paradigms, (and world leaders should surely be starting to realise that massive, systematic change is needed) but there are many things we can all do to drive consumption down, and effectively reduce the costs that our mother earth is bearing. And now is the time – despite Copenhagen’s shortcomings – for all of our involvement.
Installing more efficient appliances in our homes – from energy saving light bulbs and washing machines, to water saving shower heads – is a simple way our carbon footprint can be reduced. In addition to this, rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems are becoming more readily available at cheaper prices – and such an investment can also reap financial rewards into the future. – So can simply turning your appliances off at the wall when they’re not in use. It’s simple, and though it might cause inconvenience for you (in our lives of ever increasing, over-convenience) wouldn’t our world reaching the point of no return be far more inconvenient?
We need to ask ourselves whether our actions are respecting the environment – whether it is necessary to use non-biodegradable products; whether the way we drive is efficient, or whether it is necessary at all. We need to question whether or not we are recycling as much as we can; whether we are saving as much water as is possible; whether we are minimising our use of paper, and limiting the amount of packaging we purchase and use. So on and so forth.
- And when the financial costs of thinking with an environmental conscience seem to prohibit us from investing in these decisions, we need to consider the future cost on the earth, and generations to come. – This is something that simply just isn’t factored into our current economic model – an externality of a GDP based system (a system based on the calculation of all final goods and services, narrow-mindedly linked by economists and their un-real mathematical formulas, to a country’s standard of living).
As sustainability is the key, and limiting consumption is the aim, we need to look towards promoting individual production and sharing of those goods and services we need to survive – rather than relying on industry, and endlessly driving mass production. – Grow a vegetable garden, a herb garden, plant fruit trees, keep egg-laying chickens, eat what you grow, share it with your friends. Don’t take three cars, when you could take one.
For too long have we lived our lives in a system where these kind of considerations are irrelevant and relatively unimportant, in comparison to the bottom lines or profit margins of capitalist, corporate CEO’s, and all manner of company owner’s – who seemingly exploit our home, without consideration for the consequences that will be borne by generations in the future – who’s bulging bank accounts depend on our spending and consumption, mindless of the earth’s own resources and irreplaceable capital.
In the past 10,000 years, the world’s carbon dioxide levels have barely changed – remaining somewhere around 10 percent. In only the past 200 years however, (since the boom of industrial development) carbon emissions have increased by 30 percent. Yes population increases have contributed to this alarming ascent, but there is simply now no doubt that massive, profound change is in order. Copenhagen aside (and here’s hoping that the world’s leaders will continue to move towards a plan to rescue our planet) we all have a role to play in ensuring our planet’s health for the future, and generations to come. And your time starts now.
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: January 14, 2010
Some of the views being purported on this issue, are nothing short of absurd and ignorant, bigoted and simplistic, denying and defamatory, disillusioned to the point of gross concern, unjust, uneducated and unfair.
Civil rights operate at the absolute root of national security. Without a system that at least attempts to be just, and offer freedom of speech to a country’s citizens (at the very least), the risk of an unstable society can easily burgeon a situation where national security will soon come under threat. Clearly.
Marginalised areas of a country’s social structure easily fall into patterns of unrest. Take for example, the opposition supporters in Iran. Faced with an apparently rigged election result in favor of the hardline Mir Hossein Mousavi – and practically voiceless due to his oppressive regime – they took to the streets to be heard, and are still mobilizing a nation’s people, as well as supporters around the world. While some may view their fight in positive light (while perhaps viewing Mousavi’s rule as a farce), what occurred as the protests reached their peak is now history. And doesn’t bode well for the situation of any nation’s security.
In some ways (and the notion is an anomaly itself) Iran could consider itself lucky. – Denying civil rights can lead to a lot more extreme consequences. Consider the Muslims of India. Marginalised beyond belief, and treated with passionate hatred by the vast majority Hindu in the country, the Muslim population of India are actually deemed lower in the country’s social hierarchy (and to some extent, the caste system is still recognized within its culture) than the poorest, most unskilled and disrespected citizens of a nation of billions. They suffer systematic racist attacks, have had their land and their livelihoods taken away by the (strongly Hindu) government, and continue to struggle for recognition as a group – religious or otherwise – in a country where struggling is an everyday occurrence for the vast many ignored by a government that is happy to segregate and marginalize. – Where are the rights of these people?
In November of 2008, India was gripped by a horrifying attack that in its aftermath, saw the Indian government blaming Pakistani (Muslim) terrorists for the bloodshed and chaos. There are many theories (and gaping holes in the evidence provided by the Indian government, as well as the threats and mistreatment against those convicted of involvement in the attacks) that point to a marginalized people, coming from within the Indian nation, resorting to violence in order to be heard. Whether this is the correct way to go about business is practically irrelevant – it’s the fact that they were pushed. – (Elaborating on this aspect of such a controversial subject – India’s record with Pakistan and the Pakistani (Muslim) threat to the Indian nation, as well as the world’s perceived threat from Muslims, are all that need be mentioned – could prove time-consuming to say the least) …
If you continually push someone into a corner, they’ll eventually try and escape. And if peaceful means won’t work, they might just be forced to wrestle or fight their way out. How many nations that are constantly struggling with national security are denying their citizen’s their basic rights?
Civil rights are something that every person can expect, and that every person should exercise. Freely, willingly and even impulsively. – Deny people of something that could even be considered inherent to human nature, and you risk – from within or without – a justifiable attack on power, and a failure in securing a nation and its people.
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: December 28, 2009
I think everyone is still shouting and pointing after Copenhagen’s apparent “failure”…
Referring loosely to a city, and knowing that the true meaning of a seemingly innocuous word wont be lost on its readers as to what it actually refers to, reflects well what the summit did, and should be a positive focus for inhabitants of this earth who might be remembering it, as the media attention fades again. Yes, perhaps an agreement – the agreement – that we all hoped for wasnt actually penned, but a dialogue has been created. While i say “i think” everyone is still shouting and pointing, i havent noticed much of a clear sign that anyone (particularly the self righteous?) is still concerned. It seems that its easier to blame politicians, tell governments and world leaders they’ve failed us, and go about our lives as we’ve been used to them since the industrial, consumer age began, and wait for disaster to strike in 2012.
What can we do about it anyway? (Did i just hear you thinking that?) See, the fact of the matter is, somewhere along the line, someone saw it fit to exploit us. Someone. Somewhere. Amongst us, and amongst them. And all of a sudden, an imperfect being, with a weakness for temptation perhaps (call our desire for material possessions or our need to consume, whatever you will) has created a market, and found itself driving the destruction of the earth. – Not only in 2009 or 10, but since we started to outstrip our home, faster than it could show thanks for the good things that we do. When we remember to.
Irresponsible consumption has contributed most to our climate’s warming. – Consumption that has driven unsustainable growth, spewed carbon dioxide (and other manner of poisonous gases) into the air, polluted our waterways and seen landfill from a plethora of means and wastes grow at almost unfathomable levels – especially in the last few decades. While Copenhagen (or ‘World’ as it should now be called, now that it is the responsibility of all of us here) might set targets for the industries creating and contributing to our wants and desires, surely changing our lifestyles to more sustainable means will have a similar – or even far greater – positive effect?
Responsible consumption will mean less waste, less energy used, less pollution created, more efficient use of resources, better support of local initiatives and communal living and above all, a smaller footprint on what is more and more becoming a fragile earth. With more support, what is being touted as a more expensive way of living, may soon become a cheaper lifestyle, should support within the general population be shown.
Were it possible for governments and world leaders to cry foul and point scapegoat-seeking fingers (like the apparent millions disappointed by the climate talks) at the general public, im sure they would. Its time everyone pulled their heads in. Its time we all had a look at our patterns of consumption and the choices we are making when it comes to our home here on earth. While the facts may continue to rally more interest and support for those concerned about our changing climate’s effect on the earth, we must all take action, shift our thinking and consume responsibly hereafter. The focus need only be on solutions, not problems. – What use is shaming all our leaders if we can’t show that we are all willing to act?
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: December 21, 2009
Copenhagen didnt fall short of expectations because of the difficulty of such large negotiations. The real reasons are constantly being overlooked, and being left unspoken because they threaten the very democracy in which we all comfortably, blindly sit and nurture our putrid existence.
Copenhagen failed because neo-classical economic paradigms and capitalist “free markets” (which are anything but free, and simply wouldnt operate if they were) – which scarily, countries like India and China are now trying to emulate, at the peril of many areas of their respective societies and peoples – depend on growth and consumption, without consideration for the damage that a GDP based economy – which doesnt even provide for a means of equating environmental costs at all – is doing to our earth.
Unless economists with governments reconfigure our current greedy economic models, and move towards sustainability rather than growth, any kind of environmental “agreements” will be irrelevant, as we plunge head-on towards our destruction instead.
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: December 15, 2009
I was in India recently, and nearing Christmas and engaging in sometimes frivolous conversation with rickshaw drivers and the like, I often asked “what happens at Christmas time here?” – The general consensus amongst all that I asked was “a really big party”. – Nothing unusual there. But I had to ask, because I had to wonder. – There aren’t decorations sprawling streetwards from businesses, or climbing lightpoles and strangling trees. Christmas music doesn’t filter from speakers in lifts or lobbies or halls or rooms. And there is very little (if any) advertising for “Christmas bargains!” or anything of the sort.
Across one small span of ocean from India’s east coast however, you will find Christmas has taken on a traditional flavour of the sort we are more used to here in the western world. In Singapore, carols infest almost every space, with version upon version of all of the tunes we’ve come to know. There’s advertising on walls, televisions, radios, buses, trains and their stations – the list is almost endless. And I realize finally, after much detachment from the Christmas that I am used to, that we’re only a matter of days away, and the typical push for consumption and money that we see in the western world is indeed, slowly filtering in to the east. Ah modern consumer culture.
But why not yet in India? – Is this some measure of capitalism’s impression on a nation’s thinking? Is it a sign of just how far Singapore has come, and how far India is from really being the player on the world stage that they are hoping to be? (Don’t tell them). Look up how they celebrate Christmas in for example, Vietnam, Africa, Peru, Samoa or Uzbekistan (all of which aren’t yet dictated by capitalist ideas) and the focus seems to invariably be on celebrating family and feasting (just like India) – not spending and consuming.
The fact of the matter is that now – more so than ever – Christmas is a time when retailers can push consumers to give their profits one last positive kick for the year. It’s the months leading in to it that determine whether or not salespeople hit their targets, and if you’re part of this machine (as we inevitably are in western society), you’ll jump right on to the train of thought that Christmas capitalism teaches. What’s the point of really pushing for that consumer dollar (or rupee, as it were) if they haven’t yet inherited our culture of consumption and growth?
Seriously though, do we (or does anyone) really need an excuse to encourage consumerism in today’s consumption and growth-driven society? Where over-consumption and the inherent consequences of it (pollution, waste, global warming, climate change, death, greed, hunger, excess, detachment, escapism – the list is almost endless) are continuously and increasingly inhibiting and harming our lives and futures.
Are retail and commercial organizations not simply “cashing in on Christmas” in order to improve their bottom line? Is the fact that India wasn’t gearing up for Christmas (even in December) – where big spending of a commercial nature is only now starting to really grow – some measure of their society’s ability (or current inability) to contribute cash to the machine that Christmas has become?
The point isn’t to get back into church, and pick up your bible and speak to “god” (whoever yours might be) on Christmas day. The point is that the capitalist machine further and further infiltrates more and more aspects of our lives, wherever and whenever it can. Getting back in touch with giving thanks for family, friends and our relationships, and sharing merriment ought to be far more important, especially over the behest of capitalism’s grave desire for growth – or should we call it a majority contribution to the destruction of our earth? I’m sure the rest of the world will soon follow suit, because money is most important, right?
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: December 14, 2009
When people think of India’s Goa, images of a state full of sex, drugs, alcohol, partying and pristine beaches are no doubt often conjured. Quite recently, amongst those on an Indian tour itinerary, a stigma has even seemed to have developed to traveling there, some opting to shun it in favour of a more genuine, wholesome Indian experience.
Contemplating my own journey there, I didn’t know what to expect. But after a positive and diverse experience, I was shown another facet of India – something very unique in itself, and its (self-proclaimed) Un-Indian-ness – and given much food for thought in a place that was in times gone by, being chastised for its over-bearing tourist culture, but now benefiting from thoughtful reforms.
Goa on the whole, is a prosperous state, thriving on its ever-booming tourist industry. In its capital, Panaji – away from the beaches that have burgeoned this boom – it still bubbles with the colour and life that its Portuguese predecessors left behind, also dotted with impressive white-washed churches, amongst the brightly coloured houses and buildings in the often narrow, European-esque streets.
But the beaches and their attractions are where it’s at for most who come to India’s smallest state, and also what has helped it prosper. Traveling south from some of Goa’s northernmost beaches, you run the whole gamut of styles. From untouched and undeveloped, to once loved and now neglected. Deservingly, one of Goa’s most southern beaches – Palolem – gets much of the acclaim, and still attracts hoards of visitors that have seen it gain its reputation. But it wasn’t always fun and games.
A few years back, Palolem was so over-run with shacks and stalls and people trying to cash in on the tourist trade, that it was beginning to represent an illegal camping ground, not only spewing waste and pollution river and ocean-wards, but also leaking controversial amounts of noise into its once stilled air.
When I arrived there, a recent closing and demolition of all unlicensed traders gave the beach a vastly different feel to its former day. Although prices for accommodation and other tourist fare may have risen (in a slightly disproportionate fashion) the businesses that remained had a strong sense of community pride – no doubt borne out of their satisfaction of being amongst those still allowed to operate.
What remains at Palolem now, is a beach that is remarkably clean, with wildlife offshore; healthily competitive bars and restaurants, many serving excellent local and international dishes; a good spate of quality beachside accommodation, in creative, clean, communal and welcoming surrounds, all blanketed in an almost surreal and hedonistic, friendly community vibe. And the parties are still there. The people are still out to socialize. And there’s still as much fun as you need to accidentally stay there, far longer than you first expected.
Perhaps it’s not really India, but what has happened in Palolem, ought to be a model for many communities and cities within the country. – Palolem was one of the only beaches that was virtually litter free, and its surrounds continued its cleanliness – something of which was very few and far between. What’s more, is that there were actually people assigned to enforce the change of rules, as well as maintain the high standards that are no doubt being stressed.
India is striving to be a player on the global stage. Consumption and growth however, are seeing its massive population, clearly struggling with the ideas being inherited (or forced) upon their society by “the west”. The amount of waste – and the methods of disposal – coupled with a lack of education as to the damage such neglect will cause, will soon destroy everything that was once sacred in this country of vast wonder.
Taking a leaf from Palolem’s book will not only help to create an attitude of preservation and cleanliness and environmental awareness that will benefit all (completely non-existent to some people, who simply drop litter where they finish with it) but it will surely help to employ a workforce needed to shift the population’s thinking. The benefits for each individual community will only then proliferate. Call me idealistic? Spend some time in Palolem, and you’ll come to realize the possibilities – and the necessities – in a land of endless wonder.
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: November 3, 2009
In the leadup to the monumentally important Copenhagen climate summit, The UK Guardian is hosting forums involving MP’s who will be present at the talks, hoping to exert influence and see positive and lasting changes come out of the talks. Liberal Democrat spokesman for energy and climate change Simon Hughes was available for questioning this week. The following question was posed to him:
02 Nov 09, 2:50pm (about 20 hours ago)
The biggest quandary in my mind is the disconnect between the current economic system and the limits that both climate change and peak resources present to macroeconomics. We need economic growth to provide jobs and investment in our current system and without growth it would be difficult to finance the R&D and capital investment needed to roll out efficiency improvements, new alternative energy, transport and electricity networks. Professor Tim Jackson has recently written a very good paper on this problem – “Prosperity Without Growth”.
How do you and your party view this issue – is it possible to still have growing economies once environmental and resource considerations are added to the way we view economics? And if not, how do we provide new technologies the investment they need?
Thank you for your time today.
Tomas L. Martin
To which i responded:
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Moreover, whether it is “possible to still have growing economies once environmental and resource considerations are added to the way we view economics” is beside the point as far as im concerned. A radical shift in economic thinking – away from old models, that fail to incorporate externalities like species extinction, resource depletion, ozone destruction etc, and only focus on growth and production, rather than sustainability – is what is needed in order to ensure humanity’s longevity, while limiting the ecological costs that we pass on to future generations. This concept may seem improbable, suffocating (even negative), frightening or even impossible, but reduced consumption and a slow-down in growth is imperative, lest we further manufacture and quicken our demise. Do you think this is a possibility? How do you measure when an economy has reached the limits of its growth – where cost outweighs benefits? Is classical economic theory ready to move towards a more sustainable model?
I have no doubt that if we cannot move towards a more sustainable way of economic thinking – where we pay the true cost for goods and services, for example (factoring in the costs on the ecology – which are ignored, deemed “externalities” by current economic theory) that the demise of our planet will be crippling and sudden. Most economists would baulk at the concept of limiting growth, and i sincerely doubt whether the vast majority of them currently practicing economics (as well as those who are teaching future generations of economists) would be able to pose a compelling answer as to when an economy reaches the limits of its growth – when the costs outweigh the benefits of increased prodution. Resources and funding need to be directed towards renewable energy, public transport and carbon efficient industry, amongst many other efforts that have been ignored for too long. Nobel prize winner Wassily Leontief once remarked that “departments of economics are graduating a generation of idiotic savants, brilliant at esoteric mathematics yet innocent of actual economic life”. Undoubtedly, his words encompass all neoclassical economic theory, blatantly out of touch with people, and totally dependent on mathematical models. As our ecology continues to suffer, and our resources near their limits, are we truly ready for this essential shift in thinking, or is the bottom line of those practitioners who deem growth and consumption an economic necessity destined to doom our existence?
Posted by: Carlos Hurworth on: October 29, 2009
Ms. Anna Bligh MP.
The following comment will preface the context of this letter, which i hope you will take very seriously. While i am certain that this will not be the only letter of this kind that you have received lately (and will certainly see more of) i believe i speak for a massive amount of people regarding the issue i am addressing. This is a comment made on a page addressed to you:
- Glass and glasses exist for a particular reason, and that is because the style, construct and quality of the vessel from which you drink – be it wine, a beer, a cocktail or anything at all – has a great effect on the taste, texture and all other characteristics of the drink you are consuming. When you are at home and having a tipple, do you use plastic to be safe? Or do you use your favourite Riedel wine glass, in order to enhance the bouquet of your Beaujolais?
Eliminate the aspects from clubs that make them “high risk” – or enforce measures for venues to monitor them – dont dilute the experience that the public are having at these venues, and further kill the ever-struggling bar and club industry in Brisbane!!
Your plastic cup idea in high risk venues is aiming to implement an ignorant plan that will see Brisbane’s entertainment districts suffer. While the middle class – detatched and distant from the scene that they are despising – are singing the praises of a government that is “finally listening”, obviously there is outcry amongst those who see a different despair for a city that has long lived in the minnows of the capitals of southern states – and undeservedly so.
What is a “high risk” venue anyway? Is it something just as ambiguous and wide-ranging as a “terrorist” in the US’s Patriot Act?
Furthermore, your plan is yet another example of government attempting to create the impression that you are acting on behalf of your people, by applying a metaphoric, poor quality band-aid, to a gaping wound, in order to stem the flow of blood from a potentially crippling injury. Insisting that the venues “responsible” for the violence incur the subsequent costs (by forfeiting business with shorter operating hours, or in the case of your proposal, by paying for 1000’s of various plastic cups a week to stock their venues with) is a weak and transparent attempt by you and your government to pass the buck, find scapegoats and assure voters and the police (or fool them into thinking) that you are combating the problem.
I wonder how many of these voters you are trying to win favour with have actually had direct experience with one of these alcohol fuelled violent outbursts you are alluding to? And conversely, how many of them are standing by, nodding their heads in self-righteous agreement with your senselessly strangulatory policies?
I trust they will be thinking little of the consequences of disgruntled revellers pouring streetwards at 2am, wondering where to go? – Or of the prohibitive costs of supplying plastic cups, and then subsequently disposing of them. How about the ecological cost of all the needless waste that will be created in these venues?
Need I mention the license holders, venue owners, security staff, alcohol sales reps, wine makers, wine growers, cab drivers, promotional teams, employers, employees, dj’s, entertainers, cleaners and others also, who will be at a loss to cope with the effective pay cut that they will all be enduring, with regard to the 2am close proposals, and the reduced business that plastic cups in clubs and bars will herald. Add all this together, and the downward spiral is initiated: by you, your peers, the police and its beauracracy.
Most of all, have you any idea the liftetime that plastic lasts on our earth, and the costs the environment will pay? In his book ‘The world without us’, Alan Weisman, investigating the mark we would leave behind, and how the earth would cope, were we to disappear from existence, quotes researchers who estimate that the world’s oceans harbour around 3 million tonnes of plastic. – And that is only an accumulation of 50 years of plastic’s existence! Further to this, Weisman also noted that “the real reason the world’s landfills aren’t overflowing with plastics” is because “most of it ends up in an ocean-fill” amazingly resistant to degradation, and washed or blown into our waterways and eventually out to sea, where salt and cool temperatures make them more resistant to degradation, and algaes protect them from the sun – virtually forever, or at least many millennia after we will cease to exist, and earth’s oceans and ecologies continue to suffer.
Even biodegradable plastics end up in minute particles in the ocean that plankton – feeding much of the worlds oceanic ecology – and microscopic bacteria, still haven’t evolved sufficiently enough, in order to break them down. Insisting that we contribute still more plastics to a world already beginning to struggle with it (in the very short time that is has existed) is irresponsible, to say the least. (If you doubt this point, consult chapter 9 – Polymers are forever – of Weisman’s book)
“Plastic is still plastic” he continues, and “the material still remains a polymer.” He also notes that plastic is not biodegradable in any practical time scale. “There is no mechanism in the marine environment to biodegrade that long a molecule.” And that’s not to mention all the plastic still stuck on the land. – I think it is worth repeating how irresponsible and thoughtless your idea is.
Real commitments on your part would involve funding increased training schedules for license holders, owners and managers, as well as strict training for staff in clubs (on responsible service of alcohol, and foreseeing, noticing, controlling and restricting potential troublemakers) – which includes those behind the bar, as well as security staff stationed inside venues, and at their doors where increasingly, troublesome revellers are being ushered in, by poorly trained, ignorant and unintelligent security staff, without a view to the damage that these affected people could go on to cause. Real commitments would take into account all factors in the equation – including tourism, entertainment and culture, promoting social interaction, supporting and attracting business and enterprise and anticipating the effects that a loss of employment hours will have on a city’s young, who one day (with government support or not) hope to go on to be successful – not just the votes of the conservative middle classes. Your solution is a massive cop-out that will see discerning customers staying at home, and the entertainment industry in Brisbane suffering a slow, and painful death, with little left to be proud of in what has so often been a burgeoning and then suffocated scene.
Real commitments would involve precious time and money, which you are effectively saying, you are not willing to commit.
