I have ambivalent feelings about the current Commonwealth government
ad campaign about violence against women. I am not all that keen on compulsorily taking people’s money to preach at them. I am also sceptical about whenever such campaigns have useful effects. A few years ago, the EU ran an anti-racism campaign. The follow-up surveys indicated
(
Read more... )
Comments 19
As for the motives of the campaign, my money is on proving to the longer-lived portion of the electorate that the current Government values them. Simple mathematics: it's better to win the votes of those people who are statistically more likely to keep voting.
Reply
A hypothesis with elegant simplicity going for it.
Regarding yours and longi's unpleasant experience, males are both disproportionately perpetrators and defenders.
Reply
Feh.
sol.
.
Reply
(It's nice to feel not alone.)
Reply
By the way - there's no such word as curmudgeonous.
I think you mean "Curmudgeonly".
sol.
.
Reply
I like the idea of coining a word :)
But, actually, I like using 'curmudgeonly' more. Sort of like cuddly. But not :)
Reply
This is just a motherhood campaign. Much of the meat of the original was going to be on the website, now it's just another hotline. And, as you have said, it makes it look like either there is no violence against men, or that it is all right that there is.
Then there are those Gods-damned 'Medicare' ads.
"I want to talk to you about our Safety Net."
"Are there more Hospital Beds?"
"No, but we have this Safety Net."
"Will I be able to sleep in this Safety Net when I can't get a hospital bed?"
"No, but it's a very nice Safety Net..."
"Will I be paying more or less for the medication I need to live?"
"More. But you'd be paying the same under Labor. They support our Shiny New Safety Net."
Labor and Liberal: together bringing you the US's welfare system.
Reply
As for welfare systems, all the developed countries will go down some version of the US path. The question is whether they do it before or after bankruptcy. (Moving from 22 taxpayers per working-age recipient to 5 taxpayers per working-age recipient is not a sustainable trend.)
Reply
And as for the inevitibility (and sustainability) of the US style Welfare 'system', I note that you didn't say whether or not this trend is a good thing. I for one am dreading the appearance of mentally ill people kicked out of hospital to survive as best they can in the Real World -- oh, hang on, they are, and have been for years (to my personal knowledge and experience) -- or Critical Care being denied because of the lack of sufficient insurance. (Thankfully not here -- yet.) The Welfare System is more than just the Dole and the Pension ( ... )
Reply
The 'de-institutionalisation' was actually a change in Fashionable Compassion, not cost-cutting as such. I think it is generally agreed it went way too far.
The lack of coverage in American health care is greatly exaggerated. If you're on welfare, you're covered by Medicaid. If you're old, you're covered by Medicare. If you're in conventional employment, you're covered by your employer's plan. That actually doesn't leave a lot of the population and those that it does are often in transition between the above cases.
There is a difference between govt funding and govt provision. I am generally far more dubious about the latter than the former.
There is not very much which has to be provided by coercive power (i.e. govt) and it is generally better not to have the regulator also be a producer.
Reply
My gaster is flabbered.
Reply
Reply
Your right! If the violence go down, everybody will benefits! You will no worry no more. It will lessens the crime, injuries and everything bad. You can save your medical insurance, money and you will be calm and secure.
Reply
Leave a comment