Bye, bye, Qantas

Hooray! Another political post! I swear next time I'll post kittens doing something cute.

I have flown Qantas a lot in my life. Its pretty much always been a pleasant experience, the staff a friendly and I don't want to get all soppy but there is something about flying home with them. It may have been a while since you've heard an Australian accent, and you finally feel that energy and can read Australian newspapers and see Australian news and I would be lying if I told you I'd never teared up at that stupid video with the kids singing (and by never I mean every single time, and by tear up I mean cry like a baby).

I am flying home for a wedding mid-November, I have exactly a week, I leave Friday evening and get back Sunday. I work as a nanny so when I need time off the baby's parents need to take time off or fine other arrangements for her, its not something I can just call in sick on or change on a whim. Other people depend on me so I depend on whatever airline I choose to fly with.  I understand delays and I add enough padding in my transferring flights to accommodate them.

I have been watching the recent industrial action with interest obviously. I think the Unions are not entierly in the right. I think Qantas should stay on Australian shores but the Unions need to make compromises. Plane travel has changed, the cheaper carriers have changed the way people fly. They can see that they will get them where they need to be (except for Tiger of course).  When I fly I don't go to Qantas' website to pick flights anymore. I go to a site that consolodates lots of airlines, put in my infromation & pick the cheapest one that fits my schedule. I believe most people pick their flights like this and Qantas needs to be able to compete with other airlines. If that means they have to make structual changes then so be it.  Although its hard to believe that the company is in dire financial straits when they report record profits and the CEO gets a massive pay rise, if things were really that bad wouldn't it be showing in the bottom line?

The actions taken by Alan Joyce on Saturday have completely destroyed my faith in Qantas.  Yes Union industrial action caused flight cancellations, but they gave warning, they did not completely shut down the company. People could still fly.  That a CEO would make a decision to ground the entire fleet on a Saturday morning then let people go to the airport, let people get on the first leg of their trips then screw them is not something I can trust.  I have read stories of people taxiing in the runway and being turned back, people stuck in Hong Kong after a layover, doctors stuck at a conference in Alice Springs. He didn't even give the Government enough warning to get leaders from CHOGM out of Perth. He did not have to shut down the airline, he could have just asked FWA to arbitrate the dispute, everyone knew there was a problem, he didn't need to screw people over in order to ask for what he wanted.

I cannot trust my travel plans to a company who's CEO will ground all planes on a whim. What if this had happened the day of my trip? I could have gotten a refund (and by refund I mean credit to use with Qantas within a year, not actual money). But who would have told my 89-year-old grandmother that all her grandchildren won't be there for my cousin's wedding? What if I got stuck in Australia? Am I meant to tell my employers "Sorry, I know you made a big effort to make sure I could make it to this event even though it was inconvenient for you but you need to take more time off."

For at least until Alan Joyce is gone I will not be flying Qantas if I have another option. I will probably fly Air New Zealand for my trips back to Australia. Saying goodbye to Qantas is not something that makes me happy, like I said there is (or was) something special about getting on board, like the planes were an extension of Australia. But that sense of warmth can not come at the cost of actually getting to my destination.

Occupy Oakland Protests 2011

I am not anti police. I'm pretty pro police. When the riots after the Oscar grant trial happened I was on their side. I think it started out as a peaceful demonstration then as the night went on people lost sight of that and started destroying property and looting. I think in instances like that police do have a right and a duty to respond with force to get rid of the crowd and protect the people who live and work in the city.  Of course this view is framed in the context of how I grew up. I went to a private school and while I didn't grow up wealthy my family has money. I've never been arrested. I don't fear police. I'm also white which makes a huge difference. My interactions with police have all been positive. I've never felt threatened by them and I don't know anyone who has ever been a victim of police brutality.

I'm not 100% behind the Occupy Movement. I went to the march in Oakland on Saturday because I think banks need to be better regulated in this country, that people who broke the law should be punished, they government is too close to wall st and that the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed. Other people are at occupy for those reasons, some are there for other reasons and some don't know why they are there, they just feel that there is something wrong with the system. I think what the movement has done so far is great. It was a genuine grass roots expression of dissatisfaction and angry. It tapped into the same feeling as the tea party but unlike tea partiers it is not backed by billionaires.

I think it is now time to create a list of demands. I understand the argument that demands isn't what the movement is about, that it's strength is in it's diversity of message, that demands will alienate people etc etc but I think that's  bollocks. If we want actual change we need to give people in power something to work with. The lack of demands, the lack of cohesion is no longer an asset it has become an excuse for politicians and the media to ignore the people. 

I was at the plaza on Saturday it was not smelly or dirty I saw no rats. I also did not see a concerted effort to make a visible show of cleaning.  I think the city may have had some legitimate concerns about cleanliness that could have been better dealt with by the protesters, after all Occupy Wall St managed to keep clean up crews from Zuccotti Park by making it absolutely obvious they were cleaning. Keeping in mind however that the plaza is usually full of homeless people who have never been raided by riot police.

What the City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department did to clear the camp was a major overreaction. Around 600 police stormed the camp at around 5am. They claim they tried to enter peacefully and ask people to leave and were hit with objects thrown at them. The media have reported this as fact when the police provided no evidence to back up this claim. Multiple reports, videos and pictures show the police to be lying. There is video of police knocking over rubbish bins and throwing garbage onto the plaza. People have provided statements of people being beaten and refused medical aid. 75 people were arrested, many for loitering or remaining at the location of a riot.

Last night a large group of people, between 500 and over 1000 met at the library with the goal or retaking the plaza. The media either ignored it or used loaded terms like that protesters had "clashed" with police and that there was a "stand off" these terms assume a certain level of equality that there was not. I was not there last night I revived my news from twitter as well as local news websites. I did not rely on people just in my feed, instead using the search term #occupyoakland. I didn't want to just see what people I liked were saying since they may have been biased.
By all accounts protesters were relatively peaceful. Reporters on the ground kept saying this, you could tell they were kind of disappointed though.

There was a report of one car on fire, and one smashed police car. There was also a report of a protester trying to kick a police car and being held back by other people in the crowd. I saw pictures of one or two officers with paint on them, presumably thrown by protesters. There were also reports of other items being thrown. On my twitter feed there were widespread reports of fellow protesters chanting "don't throw shit" every time some one did throw something.
Things I saw on my twitter feed but not on the media were a US navy vet in uniform standing at the front of the barricade holding a copy of the constitution (presumably open to the 1st amendment). Police claim no injuries although there are pictures of people with wounds from rubber bullets and bean bags 1, 2. The OPD claim they did not use rubber bullets or bean bags (here are some pictures of some fired at protesters) they are "investigating" if other police did (why did they not tell the reinforcements they called in not to bring the bullets?)
US Marine vet Scott Olsen was shot in the head by some sort of projectile, here is a statement from Veterans for Peace, Here is a video of people attempting to help him and having flash bang grenades thrown at them (for the record the OPD claims they did not use them, that they were fireworks thrown by protesters)*. There are pictures of a woman in a wheelchair being helped out of a cloud of tear gas after her battery died. Here is a video of tear gas being thrown as well as what appear to be flash bang grenades (the ones the police didn't throw) appearing to come from behind the barricade. You can also see protesters throwing tear gas canisters back at the lines.

Keep in mind this was no a riot. There was no looting. This was a police response to health and fire code violations.  Agree or disagree with the protesters there is a right to peaceful assembly in this country.  Can you really be comfortable with police tear gassing people for protesting?  The specific issue they are protesting is not the issue, if the police get away with responding like this to this group what stops them from responding like that to an issue you care about?

As I write this, Frank Ogawa Plaza (which the protesters renamed Oscar Grand Plaza) is open again, the grass had been fenced off but the group pulled down the fence. There appear to be no or few police. Although apparently they are only allowed to remain there until 10pm. We will see what happens. The best course of action for the police is probably to just let them stay, there are apparently several thousand people there.




*When I first wrote this the story had not fully broken, now it appears to have exploded, there is a lot more information about this man I'd encourage you to read The Daily Kos or http://oaklandnorth.net/ for updates. It looks like he's going to be ok but this appears to be turning into a big story.

Prepare Your Best Pearls For Clutching

Did you know The Queen was in Australia? I did not, granted I don't live there anymore but most of the people I'm friends with on Facebook do and a fair amount of my twitter followers are Australian. Exactly none of them mentioned her visit that I saw.  The reason I found out is that for some reason Google News still thinks I live in Australia and gives me the Australian news page.

That's not really what I want to talk about although I find it interesting that the articles I read talked about how much Australia loves the Monarchy and how another referendum on the Republic is years away. How everyone is obsessed with William & Kate and yet no one was talking about the visit at all. Either my friends are not a good cross section of society (probably true of my twitter friends who tend to be more progressive, but I think my FB friends have a fair range of views) or the media is making up that we are in love with The Queen when in reality we just don't give a flying fuck either way.

What I wanted to talk about was the faux outrage about Julia Gillard not curtsying Her Majesty. Gillard, a Republican* greeted The Queen with the Governor General. Ms Gillard did not curtsy. She does not have to, it is a matter of personal choice for Australians how they greet Her Majesty. Gillard shook her hand and gave a slight bow (although she could just be leaning down to speak to The Queen who is shorter than her).  Of course this was a big deal. Fainting couches were dusted of as The Media decided this was the biggest thing going on in the world ever, Gillard was disrespectful, she should have kept her personal feelings about the Monarchy to herself.  However when Opposition Leader Tony Abbott met The Queen he did not bow, he gave a "little head nod", apparently after shaking her hand, Gillard, at least at their second meeting, bowed, walked to Her Majesty, bowed again then shook hands.

Something about the coverage bothered me. I tried to chalk it up to the fact that Gillard is exceptionally unpopular at the moment and every move she makes is criticized. There was probably no way she could have greeted The Queen correctly in people's view. But I feel like there is something deeper going on. Some how it is ok for Abbott not to bow but its not ok for Gillard to bow. Is it because she is the Prime Minister? Or is it because she is a woman, a woman who is already subverting norms by not getting married (she lives with her male partner) and not having children? She cannot greet The Queen with a handshake and a bow, she must curtsy because Curtsying Is What Women Do.

Am I reading too much into this? I have trouble some time recognizing the difference between shitty journalism and misogynistic journalism.  Thoughts?





*For my American friends, for the purposes of this post Republican means someone who thinks The Queen should no longer be Australia's head of state. They are generally politically leftist although I am sure there is a lot of crossover. To confuse things further Tony Abbott who I will talk about later is the leader of the Liberal party which is Australia's right wing party. 
So its:
Julia Gillard: Prime Minister/Republican/Labor Party - left of centre
Tony Abbott: Opposition Leader/Monarchist/Liberal Party - right of centre

To all new parents: Calm down, you're doing fine.

As you may or may not know I'm a nanny, the new family I work for have a 5 month old who is not a good sleeper. She has short naps and fights them until the last second and she's not sleeping through the night and is taking a long time getting back to sleep when she wakes.

Because of this I've been looking through what resources I have and looking at some new ones about sleeping. And what has struck me is just how judgmental they are. The message is "all the other techniques will cause your child to become a serial killer. Only my way will get them to grow up without major psychological damage." this is the theme that runs through most of the child development literature. Parents are given the message that unless they do everything right they are failure and their child will hate them and never achieve anything ever.

Here's my message. STOP STRESSING. Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about how a child's brain works and how to help them get a good start in life. Neither am I saying that this isn't an important time in your child's life because it is. What I am saying is give yourself a break.

You are doing fine. Is your child happy a fair amount of the time? Do you tell them you love them? Do you show them you care by spending time with them and interacting with them? Are they healthy? Then you are being a good parent.

Does it make a difference if you let your child cry it out it if you comfort them every time they cry? I don't know there is evidence both ways. Does it make a difference in 20years? Who knows, I haven't found any studies comparing college admissions to infant sleep techniques. It probably doesn't matter in the long run. Here's what matters. What can you as a parent handle right now?

Is having to wake up 4 times a night driving you insane? Then try letting your child cry and settle themselves. Is the thought of hearing your baby cry and not comforting them the worst thing you can imagine? Then pick them up and rock them to sleep. What matters now is your sanity. And guess what. It's ok to change your mind. Maybe you try controlled crying and you spend a week sobbing in the corner. Maybe you are determined to go to your baby every time she cries but there's a point where you just can't function anymore. THAT'S OK. You haven't failed you have to do what works for you.

The most important thing you can give your child is love. So read all the books you want or read none but remember don't stress yourself out more than necessary. Each child is different each family is different. Find something that works for you and who cares what other people say. Are you happy? is your baby happy? Then you are being a great parent.

Review: The Book on the Bookshelf

The Book on the Bookshelf by Henry Petroski

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I really enjoyed this book. One of the most enjoyable I've read all year. The beginning is better than the end probably because the development of book storage into what we would be familiar with is more interesting than the relatively minor changes he deals with towards the end. Fact of the book for me? It is only recently that books have been stored with their spines facing outwards, which just sounds insane to me but makes perfect sense when you know the history.
I probably would have given this book 4 stars because it can be a bit dry and engineery but I was reading it on my ipod touch so I gave it an extra star for the irony.



View all my reviews