Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Baby boomers, squeal thyselves
If Michael Duffy is just having a go at the corpulent, sinecured wankers of his age group, his argument seems to be considerably compromised by that old maxim about throwing stones in glass houses.
Of course, Duffy’s real intended target is quite different – anyone under the age of 40 with (i) a brain (in working order) and (ii) a job. Predictably, then, he is blithe to the fact that these are often mutually exclusive. But hey, why not kick all the 40 semi- or un-employed arts (etc) graduates while they’re down. Even Duffy’s maligned peers can laugh at the “joke” that way.
Myself – I have to admit being an arts graduate. I certainly can’t complain about the high tax rates I pay as a result of this unfortunate condition – my weekly existence costs Australian taxpayers at least $400 (I’m estimating; I know the first $220 for sure) in direct net transfers. Presumably Duffy and his ilk are too busy whipping up the “irritation” into a stick-everywhere froth to care that much about anything real.
I can claim one saving grace, though, re my accursed arts degree. I was due to do arts honours (4th year) in 1989; this wasn’t something I’d planned at the start; it was just that I’d done rather well with my marks, without even trying. In the meantime, of course, HECS had came in, leaving me with the choice of taking out a basic arts degree (for free), or incurring a hefty debt to get something more distinguished on paper, but probably otherwise worthless.
As you may guess, my actual choice was to anticipate, by a decade and a half, Duffy’s “joking” call for a Pol Pot-style program for arts degree holders. I could see the writing on the wall, even back then. There wasn’t a single scholarship available to reduce my do arts honours year fees by a single cent – I had been top of my state in Year 12 English (and all without going to one of those schools), but under the new regime, this meant absolutely nothing – or worse.
Oh, and as for Duffy’s throwaway call, re the Labor leadership: “A passionate party would take a risk with a young, new leader”. Err, actually the Democrats tried that, with the lose-lose outcome that a fuckwitted baby boomer thought that her slightly-trod on toes were worth more than the viability of her party, not to mention her principles. Michael Duffy, meet your new post- and past-irritation soulmate. And for Meg Lees - at last, someone who understands!
If Michael Duffy is just having a go at the corpulent, sinecured wankers of his age group, his argument seems to be considerably compromised by that old maxim about throwing stones in glass houses.
Of course, Duffy’s real intended target is quite different – anyone under the age of 40 with (i) a brain (in working order) and (ii) a job. Predictably, then, he is blithe to the fact that these are often mutually exclusive. But hey, why not kick all the 40 semi- or un-employed arts (etc) graduates while they’re down. Even Duffy’s maligned peers can laugh at the “joke” that way.
Myself – I have to admit being an arts graduate. I certainly can’t complain about the high tax rates I pay as a result of this unfortunate condition – my weekly existence costs Australian taxpayers at least $400 (I’m estimating; I know the first $220 for sure) in direct net transfers. Presumably Duffy and his ilk are too busy whipping up the “irritation” into a stick-everywhere froth to care that much about anything real.
I can claim one saving grace, though, re my accursed arts degree. I was due to do arts honours (4th year) in 1989; this wasn’t something I’d planned at the start; it was just that I’d done rather well with my marks, without even trying. In the meantime, of course, HECS had came in, leaving me with the choice of taking out a basic arts degree (for free), or incurring a hefty debt to get something more distinguished on paper, but probably otherwise worthless.
As you may guess, my actual choice was to anticipate, by a decade and a half, Duffy’s “joking” call for a Pol Pot-style program for arts degree holders. I could see the writing on the wall, even back then. There wasn’t a single scholarship available to reduce my do arts honours year fees by a single cent – I had been top of my state in Year 12 English (and all without going to one of those schools), but under the new regime, this meant absolutely nothing – or worse.
Oh, and as for Duffy’s throwaway call, re the Labor leadership: “A passionate party would take a risk with a young, new leader”. Err, actually the Democrats tried that, with the lose-lose outcome that a fuckwitted baby boomer thought that her slightly-trod on toes were worth more than the viability of her party, not to mention her principles. Michael Duffy, meet your new post- and past-irritation soulmate. And for Meg Lees - at last, someone who understands!
