"Our generation is begging to government: open your eyes." Daniel Aragona on Defqon.1 deaths

Daniel Aragona - known professionally as Daniel Tonik - is a Sydney based DJ and producer. He has been running events across Sydney for just over three years. 

Daniel is passionate about "music, culture and entertainment and the positive impact it has on bringing people together." See more on Daniel here: https://www.facebook.com/danieltonikdj/

He wrote this piece just for Josie's Juice after posting on his social media about the very sad news on the deaths of two young festival-goers at Defqon.1, the electronic music festival held in Penrith on the weekend.

The two festival attendees died from apparent drug overdoses and a further 13 were hospitalised for treatment of drug-related issues at the Sydney event.

Defqon.1 was founded in the Netherlands in 2003 by Q-Dance, a Dutch company that stages “hardstyle” (a dance music genre combining hardcore techno, house and trance music) music events and festivals.

Police have said 355 drug searches were conducted with 69 people found to be in possession of drugs, including the 10 charged with supply offences. A range of illicit drugs were seized including MDMA, cocaine and ecstasy.

If you think this isn't the first time you're reading about deaths at this music festival, you'd be right. In 2015, a 26 year old man was found unconscious in a tent and later died, and in 2013 a 23 year old festival-attendee also died.

The debate has been sparked again on pill testing. While doctors argue those attending festivals will take drugs anyway, our politicians are concerned they'll be seen as endorsing illegal substances.

Daniel weighs in here, giving an insight into his perspective:

Daniel Aragona

"Ban. Restrict. Shut Down.

A familiar theme within our state over the past few years.

Following two deaths due to drug use at Defqon.1 Music Festival last weekend, Premier Gladys Berejiklian released a statement saying that she vows to put a stop to the festival.

I cannot believe how ridiculous this backward approach is, the government can shut down all the events, clubs, bars and venues they want; they still won’t be tackling the issue at hand.

The sad thing is that the government honestly believes that they are fixing the drug problem by banning events and shutting down venues. The fact of the matter is, drug use still exists and will continue to exist whether or not every venue and event is banned in Sydney. It is super frustrating when our “millennial” generation wants to be involved with politics but there is no support from our government; there are issues which are being ignored, young adults being ridiculed by media with nothing but negativity… the government wants young people to be more involved but contrarily ignores us.

It is not so much about losing a festival, it’s more so the government taking a backwards approach to provide a “solution”. They will keep shutting things down until there is nothing left and the problem will still remain the same.

If we don’t stand up to this (and they do go ahead with banning Defqon), they will ultimately continue to do this to every festival.

I have been involved in the music and nightlife industry for over five years. I am absolutely irritated by the negative stigma created around the clubs and events. It angers me when I see comments from people calling it “drug festivals” or stating things like “only pill popping, no-good-to-society kids attend things like this.” I am not a user of recreational drugs, I do not condemn nor condone the use of drugs; I believe everyone has a right to make their own life choices. But I am begging, our generation is begging, for the government to open their eyes and not turn their back on the real issue. Let me tell you, you will never stop the manufacture, distribution and use of drugs… they have tried, but drugs still exist, people still take them and people wont stop taking drugs.

I cannot stress the importance of Pill testing at festivals!! It has been in use overseas for years with positive results. It has been tried and tested at Canberra’s “Groovin’ The Moo” Festival, it was a proven success with results quoted:

“128 participants

85 samples tested

50% was 'other' (lactose, sweetener, paint)

50% was pure MDMA

2 of the samples were deadly”

“STA-SAFE’s Dr Caldicott said five people used the amnesty bin and between 10 and 20 per cent of others who had their drugs tested said they were also considering throwing out their pills.”

It works. Harm was reduced and lives were saved. But no, our government wants to downright cover their eyes and go with what they do best: Ban. Restrict. Shut Down.

After all this, the people still blame the festival or the club. Let me be the first to tell you, clubs/festivals/events in Australia have a zero tolerance to illicit drugs, event managers implement strategies to reduce harm including extra policing, more widely accessible first aid and they do everything in their power to stop deaths and injury from happening. Yet they are still blamed for the mistakes of the minority.

Let me leave you with this… Yes, people take drugs at music events, but they also take drugs at home, at work and in the streets. People die from drug-related deaths in their own homes every year, does the Premier threaten to ban houses?

How far does our government need to push culture and entertainment out the door before we wake up and realise that there needs to be change?"

Emmy Rossum: Gisele Bunchen Breastfeeding Parody Photo + 'Outrage'

Following Gisele Bundchen's breastfeeding photo (in which she breastfeeds her one year old daughter Vivian, while a hairstylist, manicurist, and makeup artist tend to her, pre- photo shoot), actress Emmy Rossum has posted what Aussies would call a 'piss-take' photo.

Here it is:

"I feel ya girl," Emmy captioned this photo of herself.

Cute. Clever. Harmless fun.

Here is Gisele's photo below... a few words on that below...

"What would I do without this beauty squad after the 15 hours flying and only 3 hours of sleep #multitasking #gettingready," she captioned the photo.

Acknowledging her dream team - great. Real. Honest.

Offended by this photo? Wanting to join what was described as 'a media storm', the 'outrage' over this pic?

NO.

Please. Stop telling me how I apparently feel.

I am not outraged. At all. What for?

She's a model who has a job to do, she's sleep deprived, and she still breastfeeds her baby. Awesome.

What does this photo say about me? Or you?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

There is context and history, sure, about Gisele posting this photo.

She did cause some kind of 'outrage' amongst some women when she told Harper's Bazaar, that breastfeeding should become a mandatory, "worldwide law."

As someone who breastfed her twins for several months, sometimes at the same time (did you get a visual? Yeah, like that), and sometimes topped my hungry babies up with bottle feeding, I know that the only medal I deserve is one for keeping my babies fed and alive and clean each day. Beyond that, I am not a hero. And neither is Gisele. And there should be no 'law' to tell me how to best satisy hungry, screaming babies. Do you think you'd be all Earth Mother if your child is yelling your house down because they are hungry and your boobs are simply not doing the trick? Don't you think you'd reach for the tin? Yup.

Indeed, after the mini hoo-ha, she later clarified her comments on her blog: "I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge. I believe that bringing a life into this world is the single most important thing a person can undertake and it can also be the most challenging. I think as mothers we are all just trying our best."

"My intention in making a comment about the importance of breastfeeding has nothing to do with the law," she wrote.

"It comes from my passion and beliefs about children. Becoming a new mom has brought a lot of questions, I feel like I am in a constant search for answers on what might be the best for my child." The model and her husband Tom Brady also have a young son Benjamin, while Tom has a six year old son with actress Bridget Monyahan.

She continues: "It's unfortunate that in an interview sometimes things can seem so black and white. I am sure if I would just be sitting talking about my experiences with other mothers, we would just be sharing opinions."

In the Harper's Bazaar interview, Bundchen said, "Some people here (in the US) think they don't have to breastfeed, and I think 'Are you going to give chemical food to your child when they are so little?' I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months."

She explains on her blog: "I understand that everyone has their own experience and opinions and I am not here to judge. I believe that bringing a life into this world is the single most important thing a person can undertake and it can also be the most challenging. I think as mothers we are all just trying our best."

(Photo credits: courtesy of Emmy Rossum and Gisele Bundchen).

"I crochet. Julia knits. Big. F-ing. Deal!" - Rina Ferris On Julia Gillard's Knitting Photo

"I crochet. Julia knits. Big. F-ing. Deal! Paul Keating polished clocks, Howard wore a stupid tracksuit, (Costello polished Howard's nob,) Hawke drank beer - but the hobbies of these "blokes" weren't called into question."

This is the fabulous comment by Rina Ferris, an Australian entertainment publicist who does not mince words, in relation to the just-released 'The Australian Women's Weekly' magazine photos of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, where she is seen knitting.

She posted this comment on her Facebook feed, supporting this opinion piece by writer Amanda Blair titled 'Why I Don't Care If Julia Knits.'

The article starts:

"Australia. Put the needles down. The knitting needles that is. The furore over the Prime Minister Julia Gillard being photographed for The Weekly click clacking her way through a Cleckheaton Kangaroo pattern has me truly gob-smacked.

So what if she has a hobby? Everybody has a hobby and some would argue strongly that at the moment she needs this hobby — her stress relief, her little piece of sanity and calm in a crazy world more than ever.

The media hounds are in a feeding frenzy accusing Ms Gillard of taking her eye off the political ball and instead focusing on the ball of 8 ply. Seriously? Do you honestly expect her to be in Prime Ministerial mode 24/7?"

Click above for the rest of the piece.

To prove her love of crochet, Rina posted THIS photo on her Facebook feed, with a caption:

Proof of my crocheting expertise:

Pretty impressive, Rina!

Rina, and likely many women (although I obv. can't speak for them all, nor can I give you specific numbers!) could not give a toss that Julia knits. Me included. Darn it, I wish I could knit properly... I am one of those people who starts a scarf, and then it all goes pear-shaped... in every way.

And yes, I know, I know... it's a very specific image of Julia being projected to us, and The Australian Women's Weekly has delivered an image we are now ALL talking about. Mission accomplished.

Oh, look... I am not silly. I know it's a way to skew our perception of her. I really don't mind. I'm not a fool. And neither are most people.

I like seeing this version of Julia.

Just as I liked seeing her glammed up for the Mid-Winter Ball last week, with beautiful finger waves in her hair and a bright red lip.

What? She can't run the country, and look beautiful?

So, what do you think?

Is this brouhaha utterly over the top?

Kevin Rudd Supports Gay Marriage: Blog Post

In new just in, former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd has declared his support of gay marriage on his blog page.

Today, Kevin Rudd wrote a blog post on the matter, which started like this:

"I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith."

You can read the rest here.

This comes hot on the heels of the column his daughter Jess Rudd has written for her regular Cleo opinion piece, on gay marriage. Read more on that here, and in the June 2012 edition of Cleo.

Your thoughts? Feel free to comment below.

"Iron Lady: Rust in Peace" - Laury Jeanneret on Margaret Thatcher

When news of Margaret Thatcher's death broke, the reaction - on social media especially - was beyond polarising.

One writer - who lived through the Thatcher years - was so passionate she put her thoughts down about the former UK PM exclusively for 'Josie's Juice'.

Here Laury Jeanneret expresses her version of events during Thatcher's turbulent political reign, on the eve of her funeral:

“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony,” Margaret Thatcher told the British public as she entered office as the first female prime minister in 1979. And yet ironically, for something that started with a quote from St Francis of Assisi, Thatcher became one of the most divisive figures in British history.

Death hasn’t changed this. In the last week you’d be forgiven for thinking you’d stepped back in time to the 1980s, with the street demonstrations, and the burning effigies, and the chanting. Only this time it wasn’t “Maggie! Maggie Maggie! Out! Out! Out!” it was  “Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Dead! Dead! Dead!"

The death of the Iron Lady has also ignited contemporary platforms for debate, our modern day speakers’ corner: the social media. One interesting aspect I have observed is how views of her differ so greatly globally. Social media statuses posted from friends overseas have been very respectful, dubbing her a “feminist icon” – though we would do well to remember Thatcher’s own views on feminism: “I hate feminism. It is poison,” she reportedly once told her adviser.

But home-grown statuses from British friends have largely consisted of six words; “Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead.” Indeed, at the time of writing, Judy Garland’s version of the Wizard of Oz song is on its way up the iTunes chart, after a huge internet campaign to get the song to number 1 in time for her funeral this week.

I was only two years’ old when Thatcher came to power in 1979, but she was a dominant force throughout my childhood. I was, I suppose you could say, a child of the Thatcher era, and from ostensibly working class stock, immigrants on my mother’s side, unionists on my father’s – two of the most hated demographics by Thatcherism, so it’s fair to say the power she wielded directly touched my family more than once.

One of my earliest memories was watching footage of the 1984-85 miners’ strike on the 6-o’clock-news. I was too young then to understand the graphic images of men waving placards and fighting with policemen, but as I grew I came to understand that Thatcher and her government were no friends of people like us.

The mining dispute was simple, the National Coal Board planned to close 20 coal mines, with an estimated loss of 20,000 jobs, decimating entire communities across industrial Britain. The move was part of a wider plan to deindustrialise Britain, moving away from nationalisation to privatisation.

Thatcher’s Conservative government wanted to break the trade union movement, the National Union of Mineworkers being the UK’s strongest. In a speech to the Conservative’s 1922 Committee in 1984 Thatcher famously spoke about defeating the “enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty”. The Ridley Plan detailed how it would be done.

After announcements of “accelerated closures” of pits by the Coal Board in 1984, with just 5 weeks’ notice, president of the NUM Arthur Scargill announced a national strike in March of the same year. The following month soup kitchens were opened in the northern county of Yorkshire, for the first time in 60 years. Local schools began giving free school meals to children from families affected.

The dispute raged for a year, during which time 11 people lost their lives and thousands of pickets were arrested after violent clashes with police. But unbeknown to the picketers, anticipating strike action, Thatcher’s government had stockpiled coal at the country’s power stations, wary that railway workers would come out in sympathy of the miners, they secretly recruited fleets of road hauliers to transport the coal. The miners never stood a chance.

The episode was widely regarded as a triumph for Thatcher in “breaking” the unions and their state monopoly. Nationalised Britain was running at a loss, Thatcher’s rationale was to liberate it from the stranglehold of unionism and open it up to privatisation. This sounded good on paper, but the reality was quite different for the majority.

Pits were closed almost overnight with no viable alternative being offered for the thousands of workers. Many tout The Iron Lady as a “champion” of the working classes, freeing them from a life of dependence on the socialist state, but in reality this “liberation” was only felt by the lucky few, mostly in the south-east of the country, strengthening the north-south divide and leaving many towns and cities little more than wastelands.

In a movingly poignant piece about the fabric of society built by mining towns, Ken Capstick described how “they built and provided their own welfare facilities and, well before today's welfare state was built, miners created their own welfare systems to alleviate hardship. They rallied around each other when times were hard. They recognised the need for cohesion when at any time disaster could strike a family unit or indeed a whole community.”

But for Thatcher, such socialist values were intrinsically opposed to the neoliberal macro-economics she sought to impose on the country. The woman who decreed “there is no such thing as society” set about doggedly making that dictum a reality. For the mining communities of Britain, left little more than ghost towns, whose families were left living below the breadline, Thatcher’s vision had become a reality, there was no such thing as society anymore.

Many of these communities have never recovered, but have instead been left with the heavy burden of mass unemployment and spiralling rates of divorce, homelessness, suicide and depression as the life-force was ripped from their heartlands. It is interesting to note that when news broke of Thatcher’s death Scotland’s Daily Record’s front page headline read simply “Scotland will never forget”, whilst both Sheffield’s The Star the South Wales Evening Post led with just five words: “We can never forgive her.”

But the NUM was not the only union to come under attack, working with her ally Rupert Murdoch, in 1986 Murdoch’s News International set about smashing the print unions, with the help of Thatcher. Murdoch had become a trusted friend of the Iron Lady when in 1979 his populist tabloid The Sun, a paper with huge political sway in Britain, had switched allegiance to the Tory party and helped get Thatcher elected.

In 1981, after covert meetings between the pair at Thatcher’s country house, Murdoch’s bid to buy The Times Group Newspapers was waved through without referral to the competition committees (given that he already owned much of Fleet Street), this sealed a beautiful friendship between the pair.

During the 1986 ‘Battle of Wapping’, Murdoch, frustrated by unions’ control over the industry, launched a crusade to move his operations from Fleet Street to Wapping, in east London and streamline the production process. Demanding the unions agree to a no-strike policy, abandon their closed-shop arrangements and adopt new ‘flexible working’ patterns, the battle began.

The unions refused, and over 5000 workers went on strike after negotiations collapsed. Murdoch, quite literally, moved operations to Wapping overnight and dismissed all striking workers, hiring rogue traders to man “Fortress Wapping”, TNT couriers to distribute the papers, and reportedly offering £2000 to journalists not to join the pickets. Throughout the episode Thatcher promised Murdoch full police support on the picket line, fostering the close ties between News International and the Metropolitan Police force, that some argue led to the 2011 phone hacking scandal.

“After 15 months of so-called negotiations on the move out of Fleet Street, Rupert Murdoch provoked the strike that he had cynically wanted in a plot cooked up with his lawyers. Overnight, 5,000 people were sacked, and Murdoch's plan was put into action. His secret workforce, men and women lured from unemployment black spots with a promise of a prosperous future, arrived by the coach load,” wrote union man Barry Fitzpatrick for The Independent.

“Week in, week out, I attended the demonstrations and as the weeks turned to months, I watched the lives of people I'd known and worked with for years unravel. There were suicides, marriage break-ups; people lost their homes. Twenty years may have passed but those sacked overnight - secretaries, researchers and cashiers as well as printers - still bear the scars of Wapping today.”

The quid pro quo relationship between the ‘Dirty Digger’ (as Murdoch was dubbed) and the Iron Lady continued throughout Thatcher’s premiership, indeed she is still widely despised in Liverpool following her support of Yorkshire Police’s conduct in the Hillsborough disaster and The Sun’s front page splash blaming fans. Many believe her backing of the ensuing police cover up was a sideways wink to repay them for their support during the miner’s strike.

In 2011 it came to light that following the 1981 Toxteth Riots in Liverpool, amid calls for a massive cash injection to stabilise the area from social decline Thatcher’s government toyed with the idea of a “managed decline” with one of her minister’s commenting that putting money into Liverpool to alleviate the widespread poverty would be like “pumping water uphill”.

But of course it was not just Thatcher’s demonisation of the trade union movement that crippled Britain, throughout her tenure, fuelled by a belief in free-market economics the country was transformed to one of the most unequal nations in the Western world. In 1986 Thatcher deregulated the City of London, the Big Bang delivered new legislation for stockbrokers, banker’s bonuses soared, relaxing many of the old rules which were seen to ‘fetter’ the marketplace.

Many saw the move as a revolutionary act, a breaking of the Old Boys’ Network of the markets. The face of Britain was changing, traders wearing top hats were replaced by Barrow Boys. American investment flooded the City. Entrepreneurial spirit flourished, and people who had hitherto been “enslaved” to the unions in state jobs began starting up their own companies, and buying shares in the ones they used to work for.

The emergence of the nouveau riche caused huge resentment towards Thatcher amongst the Tory Old Guard, reinforcing her status to many as a champion for the working man, offering up opportunities where once there had been none. But with the privatisation of previously nationalised industries in coal, iron, steel, gas, electricity, water, railways, trucking, airlines and telecommunications, what followed was the birth of yuppie culture, a society built on consumer credit. The inflated “greed is good” ethos permeated its fabric, and almost certainly contributed to the 2008 financial crisis as unregulated casino bankers took bigger and bigger risks.

The “flogging off of the family silver”, as many still refer to it, enabled foreign ownership of a great deal of formerly state-run utilities, meaning companies paying lower taxes, with limited accountability, were able to hike prices, sending the British cost of living soaring. In a climate where the decimation of the manufacturing industry, and most of its skilled jobs, were replaced with white-collar service industry posts offering paltry salaries and poor working conditions with no union protection. In the sell-off of Britain that ensued, even these jobs were eventually lost in most part, and outsourced to cheaper emerging labour markets such as India.

The hangover of such policies was the creation of mass unemployment, a housing crisis and a reliance on state benefits in the devastated deindustrialised communities the Tories had created. Thatcher’s proponents shout loudly that unemployment was down under her reign, but even this is smoke and mirrors, it is widely accepted now that the Conservative government fudged official figures by putting many they had just rendered jobless on Incapacity Benefit, instead of unemployment benefits, in order to keep official unemployment statistics down.

Thatcherites will tell you that her policies like ‘Right-to-Buy’ in which council houses were sold off to their tenants was a good thing, enabling the social mobility of people who would’ve been unable to buy property in any other way. But what of the social cost? When huge swathes of the country’s social housing was sold off, which netted the government an estimated £18 billion; local councils were instructed not to invest the money in building new council houses to replace them.

What resulted was a housing crisis that still plagues the country today, there are no more council houses for our most disadvantaged citizens, who are forced into the private rental sector, paying exorbitant rents they can ill afford to private landlords. In my town, which is by no means the gritty inner-city, the waiting list for a council house currently stands at 8 years, unless you are high priority (and by that they mean that you have a dependent), in which case the waiting list is 5 years. The reality for many has been temporary housing in B&Bs, or homelessness. There are an estimated 1.8 million UK citizens on council housing waiting lists today.

In truth, the liberation that Thatcherism embodied did not better the lives of the majority of Britons, it dismantled the historic post-war social gains made by Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee: The improvement of workers’ rights, the creation of the National Health Service, improved conditions for women (including the implementation of financial support for women raising children), the establishment of our welfare state to offer social security for those in need, large scale house building programmes to offer good quality accommodation to the deprived.

The so-called gains of Thatcherism, which were mainly financial, for a minority of people, completely ignored the plight of the majority who were plunged into poverty by her politics. Free-market economics had no place in decimated industrial communities; there was nothing left to barter with. What Thatcher created was a society of haves and have-nots, a society that did not care that some people will never be entrepreneurs, or go to university, or that some people suffer illness and infirmity and require care. If you didn’t fit the upwardly mobile Thatcherite mould then, tough, there was no one there to catch you when you fell.

The eradication of democratic socialism also completely eroded the sense of community that Britain had always prided itself on. Because socialism isn’t all about reliance on the state, it is also about group responsibility, looking after those that, for whatever reason, are weaker or unable to do so themselves. In Thatcher’s Britain there was no room for weakness, it was every man for himself. The psychiatric patients told to fend for themselves and placed back in the community following mass closures of scores of long-stay hospitals which were considered “not financially viable” being the ultimate example of this.

In 1990, the Tory government, under Thatcher introduced the Community Charge (colloquially known as the Poll Tax), changing the old rates system based on the value of a house to a flat-rate tax payable for every adult living in the house. The move sparked mass protests across Britain, the worst civil unrest seen for decades, and images of OAPs being charged by mounted police became commonplace. Campaigns of civil disobedience became routine as people simply refused to pay.

I was thirteen at the time. And I remember it well, Britain was hurtling towards recession, and my father, a bricklayer had been out of work for months as trade in the country slowed to a standstill. The introduction of the Poll Tax for families like mine, already living below the breadline, meant financial meltdown. My most pervasive memory of the time is seeing my father, a burly tradesman, a man’s man, weep as the banks threatened to repossess our house. Our family simply could not pay the tax. The price of not paying? Imprisonment.

For my family there was only one way out of the continued battering by Tory policy, and that was for my father to take his skills to mainland Europe and work there. He was not the only one, most of his friends, also tradesmen, packed their bags, waved their families goodbye and went to Germany, where a building boom was taking place at the time. This saved our family from financial ruin, but it came at a high price.

We only saw our father every 2 or 3 months after that, for years. During that time I witnessed countless relationships of my parents’ friends end as they became increasingly untenable after years apart, countless families broken. The human cost of the only financial option no less savage than the financial ruin they were trying to avoid.

For our family the end came with my father’s death, before the age of 40. The time he spent away from us is never lost on me, or my sister, our tragedy was that we never got to spend those precious last years of his life with him in any meaningful way, and that is the real cost of the type of rampant social vandalism that Thatcherism championed.

Beyond the statistics, beyond the hyperbole and political rhetoric, the real impact of neoliberalism with total disregard for humanity is that real people get hurt, little people get hurt, communities are left ruined, families ripped apart, children robbed of time that could have been spent with their now-deceased parents.

So when President Obama described Thatcher as a “great champion of freedom and liberty” following her death, I like many other Britons, tuned out in disgust. The irony of using such adjectives to eulogise a woman who described Nelson Mandela, a true freedom fighter, as a “terrorist”, who counted Augusto Pinochet as a personal friend, who introduced a bill banning the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable in schools, who allowed 10 men to die in the Northern Irish hunger strikes, who was the only European head of state to oppose the ban on the ivory trade and to oppose the sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, is hard for many on these shores to swallow.

For families like mine, and the mining communities, and the black and Asian communities who suffered continued police harassment and limited opportunities (leading to the race riots of the ‘80s), and the scores of working classes that her policies ravaged into the under classes, there was no freedom, or liberty. There was only poverty and inequality and destruction and a dismantling of the very heart of our communities, our families, and our hope.

There has been much disgust in the media about the bad taste of partygoers lining the streets to celebrate Thatcher’s death, in the south London suburb of Brixton revellers celebrated with pints of milk, a reference to her abolishment of free milk for primary school children (an act which earned her the moniker “Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”). But what of the bad taste of the moralisers trying to rewrite Thatcher’s vicious assault on the working people of our country? Where is the compassion for them?

This week Britain’s taxpayers will foot a £10 million bill for the funeral of Thatcher. It is not, we are told, a state funeral. Only it is. In all but name. The woman who brought our country to its knees and told us to look to the state for nothing, is receiving a send off fit for a queen paid for by it.

In her later years the grocer’s daughter from Grantham was said to decline into dementia, a heartbreaking reality for many, but this OAP had the good fortune to meet her maker whilst staying at The Ritz. This is more than my elderly grandmother, who also has dementia, can look forward to as she sees out her days in a fetid state-run care home, as social care budgets continue to be slashed.

And this is our reality: the reality of working class Britons that lived through the Thatcher era, and the society inherited by the generations that came after it. Thatcherism didn’t end when Thatcher was kicked out of her own party in 1990. The values she instilled rebuilt Britain, fashioned on a type of “screw-you capitalism” that completely eroded our moral code, and our spirit, packaged it up and sold it off to the highest bidder.

Nothing was a better illustration of this than the 2011 London riots, where all that was ugly about the consumer-driven, apirational materialism rose to the fore as rioters looted shops for bigger TVs and better mobile phones. And why not? The kids involved in those riots, the grandchildren of Thatcher, had been brought up being told by our culture that the only human value is monetary value. That status is everything. That what you have defines who you are. They had watched the bankers loot our country, teaching them that selfishness is acceptable and greed was good.

On May 4 this year, exactly 34 years after Thatcher entered Downing Street, an anti-austerity demonstration is planned in Trafalgar Square, a protest against the current Conservative government’s savage benefits reform. The Sons of Thatcher, Cameron and Clegg, paying the Iron Lady the biggest tribute by carrying on her assault of the working classes. Thatcher may be dead, but the immoral stench of Thatcherism certainly is not, millions of ordinary Britons are still living its heartbreaking, humiliating reality.

So, as Big Ben falls silent on Wednesday and the Iron Lady is laid to rest with full military honours, there will be many who will be unable to shed a tear for the woman who ruined their lives. Perhaps the last word should be given to the anonymous graffiti artist in Northern Ireland, who this week, following news of her death, scrawled simply on a local wall: Iron Lady: Rust in Peace.

You can read more of Laury's exceptional writing right here.

Bogans from the ‘burbs: confronting our hidden biases: 'The Conversation'

Whenever there is a piece on "Westies" (as they're known in Sydney) and the 'burbs in general, I read with great interest.

That's because I am a proud "Westie." Always have been, likely always will be. And I am very aware there are some ingrained prejudices that come with that label, often accompanied by a negative connotation.

I chose to live in the Greater West because this is where my parents settled over 40 years ago. I love it. I love the true diversity of my neck of the woods. Multiculturalism is not something I learned to adopt a decade ago - I was born into it, and I truly get it. My kids will also. I love that I can afford to buy a home with a large backyard and live in a quiet street with a community park nearby. I have always worked in the CBD and now freelance from my home office. I am exposed to both 'worlds' constantly and I don't see a heck of a lot of difference these days, except geography. Crime and break-ins and murders happen everywhere around Sydney, though I often see news reports skewed to negatively represent "Westies." Socio-economics can't be disputed, sure... but there are plenty of highly-educated, cashed-up, peace-loving folk out West.

This piece by opinion site 'The Conversation' gives people who are unfairly biased towards people who live in the 'burbs something to think about. Read on, and feel free to comment.

Bogans from the 'burbs: confronting our hidden biases

By Rebecca Wickes, University of Queensland

Every city has them – the neighbourhoods that everyone else looks down on.

In Australia, Sydney has “Westies”. Brisbane has “Logan bogans”. And in Melbourne, the western suburb of Sunshine is colloquially referred to as “Scumshine”. These areas are commonly characterised as problem places, inhabited by “problem people”.

So when something goes wrong in these areas – as it did last month in Logan City, where tensions between young Indigenous and Pacific Islanders bubbled over into four days of violent clashes – it’s easy for the rest of us living outside those areas to roll our eyes and look the other way.

Defined by where you’re from

A Google search for where to live in Brisbane reveals that many of the “worst” suburbs are in Logan City, including Woodridge where the clashes occurred. The online urban dictionary includes this defintion of “bogan”: “anyone from the locality in Queensland known as Logan City. Look at that new kid. He lives in Logan, such a bogan!”

Our perceptions of what makes a good or bad neighbourhood extend beyond crime and visible signs of disorder and decay, such as graffiti, garbage and broken windows.

Instead, criminological studies find that the problems we “see” are strongly associated with the presence of particular minority groups living in the neighbourhood. These negative associations are known as “implicit biases”. And they matter because they can affect people’s lives.

In the case of Logan, one of Australia’s most ethnically diverse areas, the recent clashes have unfortunately reinforced public perceptions of it as a racially-divided city, where high levels of unemployment and crime abound.

There is some truth to this characterisation: levels of disadvantage are higher in Logan than the national average and violent crime rates are high. But our association of Logan City and crime is, at least in part, biased.

How implicit biases shape our behaviour

Unlike stereotypes, which represent either positive or negative associations between a social group and a given trait, implicit biases occur when attitudes, attributions or stereotypes compromise the accuracy and fairness of judgments. They operate without us being aware of them, are widely held in society, and are predictive of discriminatory behaviour. Federal MP Andrew Laming’s tweet at the height of the clashes – “Mobs tearing up Logan. Did any of them do a day’s work today, or was it business as usual and welfare on tap?” – is a case in point.

Implicit biases are the result of everyday personal observations, which are then exaggerated or applied to an entire group of people. For example, studies in the United States show that white residents who believe they live close to black residents will report higher levels of fear of crime than those living further away.

There is significant evidence indicating that implicit bias is alive and well in Australia too. For example, Indigenous Australians are perceived as welfare-dependent, substance-addicted and are associated with problems of crime and disorder.

In a recent study of nearly 10,000 Brisbane and Melbourne residents living in 300 suburbs, a team of colleagues and I revealed how widespread implicit bias is in Australia. Using data from the Australian Community Capacity Study, we found that residents are more likely to perceive problems such as public drinking, loitering and drug use when they overestimated the number of non-Anglo-Saxons living in their suburb.

When people saw more Muslim and Indigenous Australians, they perceived more disorder – irrespective of the neighbourhood’s actual socio-economic status and rate of violent crime. Interestingly, people in Brisbane were more likely to associate ethnic diversity with crime and disorder than people in Melbourne.

The practical impacts of implicit bias

As the Australian Community Capacity Study and other research demonstrate, implicit biases matter because they can make disadvantaged people’s lives tougher.

Our implicit biases can reinforce disadvantage and disinvestment in certain neighbourhoods, as the racial, ethnic and class compositions of an area become strongly associated with social problems and “types” of people.

Such associations negatively impact upon the people who live in these neighbourhoods. Residents living in places with unfavourable reputations report lower well-being, self-esteem and feelings of trust.

However, the negative association between “problem people” and “problem places” can be changed. In our study, for example, we found that there was less implicit bias in suburbs where people trusted each other and shared common values.

Why prejudice is everyone’s problem

Though the local council is doing what they can to improve the quality of life for Logan City residents, it remains an area that is over-burdened by inequality and increasing ethnic concentration. It is home to populations with multiple and complex needs, yet there are limited resources to foster full participation in society.

Instead of examining the underlying conditions that lead to social problems – such as concentrated disadvantage, cuts to important government services, and the gap between the rich and the poor – it is easier to reduce Logan’s “crime problem” to a racial divide between Indigenous and Pacific Islander residents.

Yet this will only serve to reinforce the problem. By mistakenly attributing what happened in Logan to the “mobs” that live there, we fail to recognise and respond to the broader social forces that lead to the clustering of violence in disadvantaged areas.

Rebecca Wickes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Criminology Research Council.

        This article was originally published at The Conversation.
          Read the original article.

'The Shire': "Women do not dress for men. They augment for themselves."

Ready for another week of 'The Shire' controversy and conversation? The most-talked about reality show returns tonight and the two most talked about characters - Sophie and Vernesa - may well be judged on their looks... again. Well, it's kinda what they're hoping for, right? A reaction from the public?

But why do they, er, enhance themselves the way they do?

I asked Lyn Worsley, psychologist from 'The Resilience Centre', about it all. Here's what she had to say [the answer may surprise you]:

"Women do not dress for men. They do not dress to look sexy for men. They dress to impress other women and to make them feel threatened. Women generally see other women as threatening," says Lyn.

"It is 'dog-like' behaviour, and is well documented by the biological psychology theories, which means they want to secure their mate and push other potential mates away.

"So they like to impress other females so the other females will give up.

"Funny, though, because in sexual attraction, a woman will feel sexy if she feels like she looks good.

And a man will feel sexy if she looks good. So it is all about the woman, really!

"So they will augment their looks for themselves, and for other women to notice. Go figure!"

Does this ring true for you if you've had surgery? What was your reasoning behind doing it? For more on Lyn, go here: http://www.lynworsley.com.au/

And here is a sneak peek from episode two featuring Beckaa, screening tonight:



And here is last week's post on Sophie and Vernesa: http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/shire-sophie-and-vernesa-whats-appeal.html

Plus, the first piece on 'The Shire': http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/shire-australias-jersey-shore.html

Professor Gab Kovacs: "Settle for Mr Not-Too-Bad."

Wow, those IVF doctors - who do some amazing work in helping couples have long-desired babies - sure are an opinionated bunch.

Did you hear the furore - yet again - created today surrounding the age women should be having babies? More specifically, how long they should wait and whether they should rely on assisted reproductive methods?

Sure, there is some merit to the doctor's argument, when it hinges on medical fact.

When it rests on the social dynamics of complicated relationships.... hmmm, not so sure.

Here's what he had to say:

The Director of Monash IVF, Professor Gab Kovacs, says women shouldn't be 'conned' into thinking freezing their eggs offers up a 'guaranteed family' in the fridge, as reported by 'The Age.'

He says the rate of successful births that result from these eggs is low and that the technology still has a long way to go.

"I think they should be working harder to find a partner or changing their criteria for Mr Right," Professor Kovacs said.

"Maybe there is no Mr Right and you have to settle for Mr Not-Too-Bad. There is no such thing as a perfect person for anybody, and even if they're perfect now, they won't be perfect in five or 10 years time."

To read more, go here:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/mr-not-quite-right-beats-freezing-eggs/story-e6frfrnr-1226170212481

What do you think?

If the clock is ticking, do you just settle?

For any guy?

Again, what about the blokes in this equation? He's a 'perfect catch' = tick.

He's not keen to have kids for 5-10 years, though.

What to do? Run? Find another partner? [Gasp] trick him into pregnancy?

Is the doctor making sense? Or is this yet another opinion from the medical profession - probably with good intentions - which simply just not ring true in real relationships.

That part about "There is no such thing as a perfect person for anybody, and even if they're perfect now, they won't be perfect in five or 10 years time".... that certainly rings true.

Conversely, it can also be said that partners can get better with age...

Feel free to comment here!