Footballers vs Swimmers

I found Outside Centre’s story [NRL players could learn from swimmers] to be a very insightful piece of writing. It is interesting to look at the real differences in sport and comparing the behavior of footballers to swimmers who are of comparable ages and under similar pressure to perform really throws the appalling carrying-on among the ranks of footballers into stark relief.

Football management keeps throwing out the same old tired excuses for the misogyny and drunkenness of its players: they are only young, they’re under pressure, whine, whine, whine. The truth is that the culture perpetrated and encouraged by these chauvinist dinosaurs is one of misogyny, avoiding personal responsibility and yobboism. I would leave town to avoid an end-of-footy season ‘party’ and I would take my young daughter and sisters with me. However, I would be happy for swimmers to have a party in my house, with all my young female relatives in attendance. This is the main reason why I forbade my son (a gifted athlete) from playing football. I wonder how many other gifted athletes are being steered away from football for the same reason.

Time for football management to take a good, hard look at what they are teaching this generation of young athletes. They should all be replaced. No-one with the sort of attitudes they espouse should be in charge of our young people.

Cassandra Richardson

CRIKEY: Read Outside Centre’s story here – NRL players could learn from swimmers

Precious athletes wasting our tax dollars

How is it that for a country apparently obsessed with sport, we managed to send so many duds to Athens? Why do so many of our “top” athletes break down, over medicate, trip over, sink, collapse within a sniff of the finishing line or simply have hissy fits when they’re (so often) beaten?

A more serious question is why should the Aussie taxpayer be expected to foot the bills for their lives of luxury and ego-stroking, as well as the inevitable big bucks they’ll make out of endorsements?

Thorpe or Pittman can do but one thing better than me: I, on the other hand, can do numerous things far better than either. Who is the more deserving of accolades?

OzGeoff
Melbourne

Are there any other countries at the Olympics?

Terry Television made some very valid points about the Olympics coverage by Seven apart from the glaringly obvious. What are the Olympics about? Answer: Sport. I would like to have taped Seven’s coverage on the Monday night in question from 8:30pm to 10pm (when I finally gave up), so I could watch it later. There was the cliché ridden interview with the precocious Thorpey, a replay of a heat of the cycling when the semi had already been run, a cross to Rebecca (no comment), a teaser for the interview with the rower who stopped rowing. More ads than seemed legal, and about 5 minutes of live sport (men’s springboard).

Hey guys – there are some fascinating events going on, Australians love their sport, what about a game of handball between some world class teams? It would have to be better than the little montages of Australian medalists with the music over the top- like bad wedding videos.

Dave

CRIKEY: Read Terry Television’s story here – Lackluster Olympic coverage at Seven

Were’s Wilkinson?

Talk about amazing falls from grace in TV land, what about Garry Wilkinson? He was the primetime host of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics coverage for Seven and had a similar role at the Winter Olympics in 98.

In the year 2000 he was the Head Commentator for Opening and Closing Ceremonies at Sydney Olympics.

In 2004 – Head Commentator for the great grudge match of the century, China vs Korea in Table Tennis on SBS.

Kevin Perry
Tatura, Victoria

What are our tax dollars being spent on?

A new study shows Australia spends less on social security than most other wealthy countries according to a comparison of 16 OECD countries. At the weekend I also read where Australia is either the lowest or among the very lowest of developed or wealthier countries in our proportion of foreign aid to GDP.

Just for interest sake, how do we compare with the other OECD countries on defense spending (including security which surely now embraces our concept of defense)?

It is fair to ask if this Government is less concerned with the welfare of its citizens than the welfare of its relationship with the USA which I fail to see is necessarily the same thing? Why should we be concerned with justifying in the pending FTA with America, that we must ensure profit gouging pharmaceutical companies interests aren’t compromised by our insistence on protecting our PBS from just the kind of abuse that makes the Yanks health system a disgrace to its citizens needs?

I read recently where the Canadian national health service is being systematically undermined by pharmaceutical companies buying up health clinics and through them it is not hard to work out how you eventually subvert the system. The USA health system or lack of it, teaches us what to avoid, but does this current Government believe philosophically we should be doing everything in our power to protect what we already have, let alone undermine it through a FTA Trojan Horse?

I find it embarrassing that on such things as green house emissions, declining foreign aid, the refugee question, and other global good citizen indicators that aren’t measured by the point of a gun, we are not pulling our weight. Yet we don’t hesitate to commit to spending billions to sending troops and equipment on foreign misadventures. The peace dividend from all this military sucking up to the USA, is to see us deeply resented by more countries than ever to whom good relations should matter. We pride ourselves on being a country of the “fair go” and having a well developed conscience in knowing what is right and wrong. But sadly we are delusional as to the force for good we have become globally.

The pygmy mentality of our Prime Minature is leaving a legacy which any decent-minded Australian should repudiate by casting their vote not so much for Labor, but more to ensure the Howard “vision” is stopped in its tracks.

I cannot remember a time when we have been more wrong so often both at home and abroad, and when our citizens have felt more directly under attack on all matters affecting our national welfare in every sense of the word?

Doubting Thomas

When is a discussion a split?

In follow-up to Robert Manne’s article in the SMH the other day, the bleedin obvious went unstated. According to the Meeja, discussion within Australian political ranks is immediately identified by the big, bold headline “SPLIT” rather than for what it is – proper discussion and open debate. Remember, according to the Meeja, the ALP was SPLIT on the FTA for most of this year.

No politician wants to to be responsible for a SPLIT headline. Unfortunately, Mark Latham immediately fell into that trap in response to Peter Costello’s alternate agenda. He could have been just as damaging to the PM by welcoming the Treasurer’s views. Maybe the issue is one of the messenger, not the message.

Rodders

John Howard – career dignitary

I had this really weird dream which had a sense of déjà vu about it. Howard resigned sighting mounting pressure on his family from all of these accusations about his integrity and lies. Costello stepped up as PM and called an election. Costello won and during his first term made Howard G-G. Howard then turned out to be the best G-G we’ve ever had – attending all the sporting events etc. visiting the Queen every year when Aussies were playing in England. Costello finally gets up a republic model that the majority of people support. Howard goes on to become our first President – being won of our best-like G-G’s and an elder statesman of our society.

Anon

The St James ethics centre

Note your comments in Crikey re St James Ethics Centre – just remember that these are the same guys who gave Ray Williams, former head of HIH Insurance a framed Certificate attesting to his outstanding contribution to business ethics. Funnily enough, it was auctioned at the Liquidators sale of HIH Artwork. Sadly I had to settle for a Sandra Leveson Landscape ($12,000) – the bidding on the St James Ethics Centre memento was far too spirited for me!!

Mark Bailey

Private Health Insurance Rebates

Should Lofty, Bluey, Honest John Howard be wandering around town talking about increases to the health insurance rebates, seeing he is a direct beneficiary of this policy now he is 65?

Your Soul Subscriber
Roger

Election garden produce

The election carrot of 35% rebate over age 65 and 40% over age 70 on private health insurance, once again cancels some of the private part.

Nevertheless, at this stage it is going down well with the bunnies, despite warnings, such a move will make the health insurance industry less viable – and what is not spelled out directly yet, result in still higher premiums.

The globalisation of the health and old age care facilities, including pharmaceuticals, as part of just another profit oriented industry, will perpetuate this situation of the dog chasing its tail.

Until Australia bites the bullet and decides to put the whole health, pharma, hospital and care issue on a unified national level, independent of global shareholders and industrial blackmail, there will be no change.

The vocational care factor in our health system has been relegated to the volunteer sidelines, whilst the system follows a fee for service, the sky is the limit banner.

Of course, the fee part is necessary and just. However, a health system, based on purely capitalistic principles, in contrast to say purely cosmetic clinics, has never been just, nor successful from the health view, anywhere! A negatively growing part of the national gross product, failing health and rising costs!

Indeed, that part tends to be used to attract bunnies, come election time.

RD Roos
Launceston, Tasmania

The Qantas monopoly

Is any further proof required that Qantas is a federally protected monopoly? During a year of soaring oil prices they report a $648 million net profit or $964 million profit before tax. Consensus analyst forecasts for 2005 are for net profit to increase to $720 million. Nowhere else in the world will you find such a profitable airline, particularly considering the small Australian market.

Now Qantas has the audacity to increase the fuel surcharge on tickets, which analysts’ estimate could bring Qantas another $100 million. Qantas has its fuel requirements hedged until the New Year, so the fuel charge is pure profit and is not covering higher fuel costs as claimed. Virgin Blue have followed suit because they can. Who else is going to undercut the fuel charges imposed by this oligopoly? Compare a competitive market like the US, where no airline adds a fuel charge. Cutthroat competition won’t allow it.

Qantas complains about competition from other airlines who obtain government assistance, but Qantas receives assistance in the form of legislative protection of its monopolistic position. Even if other competitors enter the Australian market, which Qantas is fighting hard, they still face formidable barriers to entry such as terminal and gate access and the Joint Service Agreement (JSA), which allows Qantas and British Airways (BA) to fix prices and co-ordinate scheduling. It’s outrageous that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) lets the JSA with BA continue. The ACCC recognizes that these two airlines have 70% of the business market, but don’t mind businesses being ripped off “as long as vigorous competition continues in the leisure market”. They are wrong on both issues. Higher business costs get passed onto consumers through higher prices and the ACCC has no idea what leisure prices would be if greater competition were introduced. Look at any other market where more competition has been introduced and the results show prices come down and consumers win.

In one of the worlds most cost conscious industries, the fact that Qantas is making record profits should be a signal to legislators that Australian aviation desperately needs more competition, especially on international routes. It’s about time the Federal Minister for Transport, John Anderson, stood up to Qantas and started working in the interests of the electorate.

Andrew Calderwood