Hayfever Sweeping the State Due to "Christmas Allergy"

The sharp increase in hayfever and asthma attacks across Victoria can be explained by unseasonably premature Christmas celebrations, according to an expert in Social Phenomena from the University of Melbourne.

Dr Wendy Sharpike, who completed her doctorate paper Yuletide Allergies: When Christmas Tries to Kill You in 2009, has identified the proliferation of general festiveness as the primary cause.

"This year, we have seen unusually early reminders that Christmas is coming. Appallingly unmusical arrangements of Christmas carols blasting through department stores, glittering reindeers and Christmas trees adorning ever corner...these are the kinds of things that can trigger severe allergy attacks."

The spike in hospital admissions with serious asthma is a something that needs to be linked with its true cause, Sharpike said.

Above: Sharpike describes in detail the "hellishly deadly tripwire of allergy triggers that is Myer in November."

"Too often these allergy trends are brushed under the dusty carpet with explanations about pollen counts and other ridiculous theories.

"We have to stop accepting such unscientific explanations, and begin to consider what is actually causing these problems," she added, steadily appearing more unhinged.

While her comments have been almost unanimously slammed by health experts and immunologists across the state, Sharpike is adamant that the allergies will only be stopped when Christmas is toned down.

"It doesn't require for us to completely trash Christmas. But certainly, the government - whoever that is - needs to step up to the plate and put in place some comprehensive guidelines for the two factors which my study has shown to be directly linked to allergic reactions: tastefulness and timeliness."

Qantas Plane Turbines "Spewing Confetti"

A Qantas plane en route to London was forced to turn around and return to Sydney airport when confetti began to explode from two of the wing turbines.

The colourful shower of small, coloured pieces of paper began as the plane passed over Brisbane, approximately 730 kilometres from its starting point.

Staff said that passengers were "equally delighted and terrified" by the multicoloured swirl issuing from the wing turbines, which was visible from window-side passenger seats.

The shenanigans didn't stop there, as, upon finally landing the plane, more than 2 hours after the confetti explosion began, staff opened the overhead luggage compartments to discover a troop of performing monkeys and tiny piglets.

The monkeys then climbed on top of the piglets and rode them around the inside of the cabin, whilst juggling red and yellow balls.

Passenger reactions ranged from admiration and adoration of the impossibly small riders, to disgust that monkeys and piglets had been rifling through passenger luggage.

"I found it terribly amusing," Victorian secondary school teacher Glenda Murray said.

"There's only one thing cuter than baby monkeys and baby piglets. And that's baby monkeys riding baby piglets. While juggling."

It is unknown exactly where the performing troupe came from, or how they got onto the plane at Sydney airport.

"At this point in time, we're running through a backlog of our security checks, and we're just trying to ascertain exactly how this breach has occurred," one Qantas security official said.

Qantas firmly denied suggestions that this latest plane fault is proof that the airline has become a circus.

"We are currently investigating the exact reason for the confetti and performing animals. We are confident that it is not a problem affecting other planes in this fleet," a spokeswoman said.

UPDATE: 6.45

It has been revealed that the baby monkeys and pigs were escaped from a Japanese zoo, where baby monkeys and baby piglets have been specially bred from a performing pair.

I'm A Real Journalist?

One of the projects I've set myself these holidays is to work on getting some journalism written and published.

Journalism is a funny field in this way, really, because unlike doctors, or teachers, or engineers, you don't need a degree. If you want to do journalism, you need to go out and do it.

So when I found out about a Greens forum in the city yesterday, I thought it would be a good idea to go along and cover it and try and get something published.

So I turned up, pen, paper, and clipboard in hand, and tried to be a journalist.

Feeling a little bit ridiculous, I had a chat with a man who was waiting outside as well beforehand. He described himself as a "not uncritical" Greens supporter, who was more interested in affordable housing than climate change. He also spoke of an interest in democracy, and his view that the Greens have a more transparent approach to this than other parties.

I spoke to newly elected Senator Christine Milne before the forum about her experiences with the balance of power and influence on policy. She talked about the conversion of the luxury car tax to a vehicle efficiency tax, which she said would work as a motivation to move towards more efficient cars, rather than function as a more arbitrary revenue raiser on luxurious cars.

I was considering asking her for an update on her potatoes , but then the talk started and we went inside.

During the talk, Adam Bandt talked about how he'd found the balance of power, and the Climate Change Committee.

But it was Christine Milne, the Greens climate change spokeswoman (and Deputy Greens leader), who had the most to say about this.

In discussing the Climate Change Committee, she raised several interesting ideas:

- Having experts a part of the committee, rather than using them in a solely advisory role, prevents politicians from getting away with playing political games and deliberately attempting to derail or mislead. While experts are certainly not infallible, this did make sense to me.

- A committee will enable politicians to change their opinions and be supported by the consensus of a committee - defending them from words such as 'backflip' and 'dodgy'.

And one of the most interesting aspects of her speech (I must admit I was a tad seduced by her clearly framed, forthright arguments), was her discussion of climate change communication in general. I found this particularly interesting as it is something I've been learning about at university this year.

She outlined, like most climate change communicators, the danger of assuming human beings are rational actors. What academics term the 'information deficit model', this approach assumes that once the facts of climate change are filled in, people ought to appreciate and understand that something must be done.

The danger of this approach is to create fear without agency. People may agree that climate change it a problem, but may not know what to do with this newfound sense of urgency, anxiety, and concern. Hence, if they cannot act or change their behaviours in a way which complements their attitude, it is their attitude which must change. And it is usually a change to confusion and disillusionment, and the relegation of climate change to an issue of lesser immediate importance.

Instead, the dominant climate change communication discourse (which Christine Milne discussed) involves the 'ecological modernisation' argument, where climate change is presented not as a problem which must be solved through a series of actions which lead to negative economic growth, but instead as an opportunity for change, and the creation of a new economic paradigm where economic growth and climate change action are not incompatible.

As I left, I was filled with a range of thoughts and feelings.

I was unsure that I could turn what I'd seen and noted into a concise article that would be suitable for publishing somewhere. There were so many different threads and ideas. How could the article be balanced, if I was essentially reporting what the Greens leaders said to a small gathering of supporters? Yet it would seem inappropriate to me to counter what was said with another point of view from an irrelevant setting.

In the end, this is the article I came up with and have sent this morning off to an online newspaper for potential publication:

Perhaps owing to the rainy Melbourne weather, Sunday afternoon timing, or the end of year exam period for university students, it was a modest audience who greeted Deputy Greens Leader Christine Milne, MP Adam Bandt, and inner-city Greens candidates at yesterday’s forum on the balance of power and climate change, held at the State Library.

With the Victorian state election less than two weeks away, and the election of up to four inner city Greens candidates seemingly within reach, Senator Milne focused on how the balance of power the Greens won in the Federal election had been successfully harnessed as a “pathway to government”, citing the inclusion of Indigenous people and local councils in the constitution as an important gain.

She also looked to the opportunity that gaining lower house seats on November 27 would offer with “the linking of policies from local, to state, to federal.”

Particular emphasis was given to climate change and the Climate Change Committee negotiated by the Greens, which Mr Bandt described as “a reset button.”

Senator Milne discussed the inclusion of experts in the committee rather than involving them in a solely advisory role. “It is really hard to run political games when there are experts in the room,” she said. She also spoke on the psychology of the committee, which she said would give politicians room to change opinions and be supported by the consensus of a committee.

The meeting concluded with a sense of optimism for the coming election, as Brunswick candidate Ms Cyndi Dawes was hopeful about the result, “whether we win one seat, or three seats, or four.”

This is an outcome which became less likely last night, when the Liberal party announced its intention to preference the ALP ahead of the Greens in all lower house seats.

While The Age, the Herald Sun, and The Australian have all unanimously asserted that the Liberal’s decision will almost certainly enable the ALP to retain these seats, ABC election analyst Anthony Green had a different take on the implications, writing “the Greens can still win Melbourne and Richmond.”

I'm not sure that it's going to be published.

I don't feel that it's excellently written. It is jumbled, and perhaps tries to tackle too much in so few words (right up against the word limit for publication in this particular online newspaper).

But at the same time it has made me feel good, because it is a beginning.

Who Is Getting Up?

I've recently signed up to a number of email newsletters from across the political spectrum, so I can have a look at the sorts of communication different groups put out.

One of these groups is 'GetUp!', which is, according to its website, "an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation giving everyday Australians opportunities to get involved and hold politicians accountable on important issues."

There are strong elements of populist rhetoric on their website and across their communications. While 'populist rhetoric' might sound an alarming or derogatory label, it simply refers to a discourse which centres upon the actor or central figure of 'the people' - a homogenous, virtuous group sharing common views and opinions.

'The people' are usually at danger of having their voice suppressed by others. In the discourse adopted by GetUp, the people must have their voice heard so that the democratic process can occur unimpeded.

Their very name, 'GetUp!' is a call to 'progressive' Australians to stand up and take action on a range of issues. GetUp collected data informs us that their supporters are people concerned about climate change, asylum seeker and refugee rights, water, renewable energy, and healthcare.

This data helps make clear exactly what the term 'progressive Australians' means when used to describe 'the people' GetUp represents.

GetUp asserts that the organisation is "not for profit and receives no money from any political party or the government. We rely solely on funds and in-kind donations from the Australian public."

In this sense, GetUp posits itself as a conduit for progressive Australians, which, through advertisements, online campaigns, and petitions, can help citizens engage with their politicians. It helps them have their voice heard.

Another populist group active in Australian politics (which I stumbled upon during a uni assessment) is the Australian Tea Party.

Unlike GetUp, which claims to represent progressive Australians, The Australian TEA Party writes that "We unite behind three main concepts: Free Markets, Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Small Governments."

A smaller afterthought notes that "Individual freedom is of course assisted by following these 3 concepts."

However, while 'progressive' is different to 'small government' in focus, the populist elements remain the same. The Australian TEA Party is "a grassroots citizen empowerment movement". It knows that you feel as though you have "lost your voice", and that "real choices that would actually work - making life better - are never presented" in contemporary politics.

Interestingly, on both of the websites for these groups is the symbol of stars, reminiscent of the Australian flag. Both of these groups suggest that they represent Australians.

They are both speaking on our behalf, both claiming to be organisations belonging to us, yet they have very different ideas about what we want.

So, which of them is right?

There is a dichotomous distinction which is usually made when labelling or discussing populist groups. They may be deemed true grassroots movements, set up by a number of concerned citizens to deal with issues which are important to them.

Or it may be what is called 'astroturfing', or falsely claiming to originate from the ordinary public, when in fact the group is carefully managed by one or several businesses (or politicians, other bodies with ample funding behind them), and has the aim of dealing with issues important to these businesses through the voice of 'the people'.

E.g., it is much more convincing to have a grassroots movement of citizens advocating that we should stop being mean to banks, than to have banks tell us to stop being mean to them.

GetUp certainly has a stronger claim to be able to speak for their more targeted demographic of progressive Australians. Petitions are supported by these people, and campaign videos virally distributed by them. In this way, GetUp is closely involved with its 'people'.

The Australian TEA Party's legitimacy as a representation of people's views is not as transparently displayed on their website, with a general sense of all-encompassing inclusivity attempting to sweep the reader up. It might be reasonably speculated that this is an astroturf group, supported and perhaps managed by businesses and banks who would very much like to be less regulated and monitored by government. But we cannot be sure.

This is why populist rhetoric is something like ventriloquism. People speaking on 'our' behalf put across 'our' point of view. Imitating 'our' voice. The danger being, of course, that the many groups 'speaking on our behalf' might prevent us from actually being heard.

The similarities and differences in both of these groups shows that pointing the finger at an argument and labelling it 'just populism' fails to appreciate the complexities of populist rhetoric. Like clothing, it may be used to dress up arguments and give them authority or the backing of the Australian people/battlers/progressive Australians/fair dinkum Aussies.

But it is not an evil in itself.

It is the ends to which it its immense motivational power is harnessed which must be examined. And most importantly, who is channelling the voice of the people?

Tickets for Thinking Pug's hilarious 'Puppetry of the People' cost $550 for adults, $549 for concession, and go on sale next March.

"Edgy"

Last night I trusted my Mum to cut my hair.

It was the first time I've done this, and I did it because it saves money, would be a valuable bonding experience with my Mum, and would avoid these conversations:

Hairdresser: You're still at uni, right?

Me: Yeah, we're on holidays now actually, so that's good.

Hairdresser: Got any big plans for the weekend?

Me: Oh, you know, just general tidying up, catching up with some friends.

Hairdresser: Yeah, that's nice. That's good, to have a quiet weekend.

Me: Yes it is.

Hairdresser: Mmhm.

*silent snipping*

Hairdresser: Can you hold your head straight for me again?

*adjusts head*

*more silent snipping*

*snip, snip*

Hairdresser (to lady next to me having her hair dyed): How are we, Mary?

Mary: Oh, not bad, love, not bad.

Hairdresser: Getting up to much this weekend?

Mary: Going to a wedding, actually.

Hairdresser: A wedding! Oh, that's nice.

Mary: Yes, yes. It's my niece.

Hairdresser: I went to wedding the other week. And it was a funny wedding, I can tell you that! They wanted to have a cruise ship wedding, so they packed us all onto a cruise ship and it was stuffy and hot - that was at 6 o'clock, but then they didn't serve dinner till 9 o'clock!

*snip, snip*

Mary: Oh.

Hairdresser: Yeah, it wasn't a very classy wedding, you know.

But here were the things that went on while getting my hair cut by Mum:

- lots of "hmmm"

- lots of "what do we do here?" not in the sense of an expert giving my some choice, but in the sense of someone genuinely pondering what on earth they are meant to do

- lots of "SNIP" followed by near hysterical laughter and "It's good, it's good"

The final "edgy" (Mum, 2010) haircut had be terrified before looking in the mirror, fearing it would be something like this:

But in fact it is quite a respectable haircut. And a bit edgy.