Stop traffic to stop VSU : Melbourne Indymedia

Around 200, perhaps a few more, had assembled at Casselden Place by the time the speeches

started. For a while it looked as if there were going to be a few hundred construction

workers to help balance the numbers against the rather large police turnout, but it turned

out they were waiting for the all clear to go back to their sites after a bomb scare. It was

pretty clear they were onside, though, which augurs sell for 30 June ...
There were a lot of speakers, but the megaphones were turned up so high, and the

reverberation in the forecourt of Casselden Place is so overpowering, that my ears wer able

to pick out only the odd word here and there. Others with younger equipment appeared to be

coping better, so it's up to them to fill in the blanks...
After the speakers there was a general move to the the intersection, with about ahundred or

so remaining for a sit-down, resulting in traffic backing up down Spring Street and

Lonsdale, until police eventually managed to clear it from the back. More speakers, then a

march down Lonsdale past construction sites where workers stopped to wave support, ending up

in the Mall, by which time numbers had dropped to about 50, but still enough to attract a

good deal of attention from shoppers and tourists.
These photos are from a camcorder, so not the best; there were plenty of other cameras

around, though, so perhaps more will find their way here?

from the Monash contingent ....

And how many university students are there in Victoria again???

Unrepresentative, self-indulgent swill.

"Unrepresentative, self-indulgent swil" - wow, what an inane, meaningless, worthless comment to make.

"Unrepresentative": well, it's not unrepresentative, by definition, because everybody there is representing themselves. If you want to represent yourself, then get off your lazy butt and do it - why the hell should we? Why should we add 'Oh, by the way, there are some lazy people who disagree with us, but they couldn't be bothered engaging in meaningful debate, so we'll just make their case for them.'?

"self-indulgent": Only if defending yourself and your rights is self-indulgent, which i suppose it is.

"swil": Wow, a perfectly apt description of your comment.

If we want somebody to blab on and not actually say anything, we'll call you. In the meantime, it's really not nessecary for you to spam threads like that.

I'll bet that every single person who got held up in traffic called his MP on his mobile saying he was against VSU, ya think?

I can only speak of my own subjective experience of the rally. Having said that, I witnessed some very promising signs of support from the public onlookers. There were many pedestrians on the sides of the street who stopped to show their support, including an old European couple who, in commenting about one onlooker's fascistic cry to the (relatively sympathetic to our cause) coppers to "arrest us" because that's apparently his job, said to us that they had migrated here to get away from a political situation that Australia seems to be heading straight towards. They recognised that our fight is in solidarity with the fight of many other individuals and organisations to fight against the decline of social justice, the welfare state, the union movement, and people's real access to powerful democratic expression. There was even a couple who actually joined in with our protest, and were particularly good at stopping one of the traffic flows we had overlooked.

Further to this, one of the cars on the street who it would seem Holden Caulfield implies would have felt rather annoyed at our actions, actually helped us by blocking off an outlet where the cops had been leading cars through to avoid the blockage.

After the 50odd minute blockade, we marched down the street to passionate (and I use that term purposefully, for this felt like a far more passionate rally than usual for these politically apathetic times) chants such as:
"They say warfare, we say welfare. They say cutback we say fightback."
"What do we want? Student Unions. When do we want them? Forever. How we gonna keep them? Fight for them."

As we marched, I noticed several onlookers, from labourers in building sites, to couples lunching on roadside cafes, expressing agreement with our sentiment, clapping and waving to us as we marched passionately.

As David above has said, our action out there was an exercise of our right to express our political views and try to get the attention of the public, so that they may be aware of the problem we are trying to highlight, and hopefully do something to help our cause. We may not have won the fight with this small rally, but we have undoubtedly made at least a small difference.

Somehow I doubt that the pissed off drivers are likely going to be as passionate and active in their apathy or irritation towards our cause as people that actually care are going to be in supporting it.

What is the major issue with VSU? Could it be that student union activist are concerned that most students won't find the services of the Student Union worth the money and therefore not pay for the services?

Could it be that student union activists don't believe in the benefit of their product enough to allow the market to decide?

Do they still teach Market Economics in university?

"Mr" Benway,

Its interesting that you seem to think free market philosophies are some kind of ethically proven framework for making policy decisions. This doesn't really prove you right, but merely is an indication of your own convictions.

Its also interesting that you choose to use the term 'student union activists' as if to symbolically annhilate the multitude of voices, opinions, perspectives, and motivations that make up the protesters' identities.

I am not a 'student union activist' and nor are several of my friends who have been involved in the protests. In fact, after 3 semesters of study at my university, I have never been involved in any extra-curricular 'union-affiliated' activities but have happily paid my general services fee. I have only become involved in my union's anti-VSU campaign because I agree with the anti-VSU cause, not because a prescriptive identity as a 'student union activist' requires I protest in knee-jerk fashion.

Perhaps if you wanted to have a meaningful discussion about the issue, you could suggest some of the arguments that justify your implicit position, one which you've thinly veiled behind smarmy rhetoric?

Having re-read "Mr" Benway's post, I guess I should at least address his relevant question: ie. What is the major issue with VSU? (Though my gripe with his pointless rhetorical slant remains.)

There is not a single major issue with all that is up for debate under the label "VSU". However, there are some recurring and popular arguments against the Howard Government's new legislation.

1. General Services Fees/Amenities and Services Fees will become voluntary under the new legislation. These fees are used to cover a wide-range of services that are not specifically related to the academic endeavours of the course each student is enrolled in. These funds are controlled by the University, not the student unions, and therefore it is not a 'union enrolment fee'. The fee works more like a tax or a local council rate; all students are required to pay an equitable fee that is administered by the universities to provide a comprehensive range of invaluable services to students either free or at a much reduced rate than the 'free market' provides. These services can include, but are not limited to:
Child Care, Disability Services, Student Advocacy and Rights Bodies, Language Services, Cheap Student Meals and Stationery/Books, Student Lounges, Student publications etc.

The Universities also provide some funding to the student unions with these fees but by no means does the entire fee go to the student unions. At Swinburne University, for example, the Swinburne Student Union was given only $240,000 in funding by the university this year.

It is also important here to stress that the configuration of individual universities' administrata and the distinction between "student services" and "student union" is variable greatly across universities in Australia. While the term "student union" undoubtedly evokes the idea of unionism and the long history of the workers' union movement, it is important not to simplify the issue and assume abolishment of compulsory ASF or GSF fees equates to abolishment of compulsory student union memberhsip. The unions themselves usually are not simply a political collective that is equivalent to a trade union, and are often comprehensive collections of resources, services, and spaces provided for all students for a variety of purposes and for use by anyone. Often the 'union' is synonymous with many of the invaluable services I mentioned above, and therefore, it is oversimplistic to conflate abolishment of the ASF/GSF fees with abolishment of compulsory unionism.

2. The comprehensive range of resources/services/spaces etc provided for by the GSF/ASF fees contribute greatly to campus culture. They enable things like:
-Clubs and societies, which assist students in building strong personal and professional social networks predicated on shared interests
-Entertainment events like free band performances and barbequeues
-Subsidised gym memberships and sporting endeavours
-Spaces for groups who are often subject to prejudice or racist/sexist/homophobic social violence such as queer lounges, women's rooms
-Student media including publications, performances, film nights, film competitions
and a wealth of others I have not mentioned. These are the things, in all their multiplicity and variety, that make universities vibrant, exciting communities with a wealth of opportunities beyond merely formal qualification and training for employment in the corporate workforce. This kind of culture sits hand-in-hand with the great tradition of universities as a place for the open exchange of ideas. Policy making in regards to tertiary (and other) education that responsibly bears these wonderful traditions in mind would look a lot different to the 'VSU' legislation and similar anti-free/cheap public education policies instigated by recent governments.

3. Student unionism is given an infrastructural backbone by the financial support of universities from the GSF/ASF fees. If these fees, which as I stated are not simply 'union fees', become voluntary, there is much evidence to indicate very few students will pay this. The loss of income from these fees to the universities means they will have to source fudning from elsewhere, and considering the history of continual cutbacks to union funding (not to mention funding of other non-academic related student services) that has been established in recent years, it is not hard to imagine that universities are not going to be proactive in finding alternative avenues for fundings. This means the unions may very probably die!
While (for some insane reason), thanks to the political climate of late, and transformations in populist politics since the rise and rise of rampant commodity fetishism and consumerism since WWII, the term 'union' is often believed to have a predominantly perjorative connotation, and the 'union movement' is talked about as if it is some kind of commie-scum-boogeyman. (It's tempting, but I won't go off the point and start talking about how socialism (along with almost every other term that exists, but particularly 'terrorism', 'communism', 'refugee' and 'multiculturalism') has been treated increasingly monolithically and simplisticly by our capitalist media, talking of it in almost exclusively fearful and negative terms, instating 'capitalism' and the 'free market' as the dominant ideologies without question.) The reality is that the term unionism represents a multi-discursive set of philosophies much like any other intellectual or political concept, some of which are arguably egalitarian and a powerful strategy of lobbying for increased fairness and improved working conditions in the workplace (and other modern social arenas). Due to black marks in the history that is associated with the term, some people find it too easy to simplify the philosophies of unionism and treat it like a bad thing almost by definition. This is not the case.
In ideal terms, student unions represent students. Student unions are made up by students. They are collective organisations built upon the principles of representative democracy. And they are strong enough (at the moment) to be a credible political voice. They are there to fight for us, against an increasingly unfair, undemocratic and unequal political climate which threatens the very rights of all people to access education and be fulfilled and happy members of society.
As an example of what student unions have done for students; at Swinburne University, students who feel they have been graded unfairly are able to have their work re-assessed by an independent marker and the student is able to keep whichever of the marks is the highest. This is a right of all Swinburne Students that was won by the lobbying of our student union. Our student union is also able to provide professional legal representation for students upon request, if they are faced with a panel review of their academic record and/or pending suspension.

4. This legislation is symptomatic of a long documented anti-welfare state/pro-free-market stance by Howard's Govt. As much as "Mr" Benway may think "Market Economics" is the logical framework for a just society, this is not the case. It is market economics in post-industrial socieities which have resulted in the poor of this world being poorer and worse off than those who were poor during pre-industrial times, and the richer being richer. Along with the selling off of public assets like Telstra, the increasing restrictions on peoples' access to welfare such as youth allowance and pensions, the weakening of Medicare, the continual cuts of funding to the ABC (which represents an important media resource and source of journalistic commentary that isn't funded and thus influenced by the interests of the corporate world), and increased funding to elite private schools coupled with unjust funding cuts to public schools (and bullshi* rhetorical attacks on them to justify these cust (ie. Howard's "values" issue)), the VSU legislation is just another weapon in Howard's assault on the Australian people in defense of corporate interests.

5. The Government, in what is seemingly a happy collusion with the mainstream media, are not treating the VSU issue with any respect for the ideals of democracy and open public debate. There has been almost no meaningful discussion by them or the mainstream media as to the pros and cons of the legislation. Rather, they have simply introduced the bill, justified it with a few repetetive and unqualified appeals to 'freedom of association' and the idea that compulsory student union fees represent 'old fashioned' philosophies, without actually adressing with any shred of investigative integrity, the above issues I have pointed out. To allow this kind of unethical media and parliamentary treatment of important social issues to go unchecked in our country is akin to submitting further to the disablement of democracy and social justice.

6. The VSU legislation was tabled as a solution to one 'problem' disguised carefully in tired rhetoric, when in fact it actually is a one sided political attack on another 'problem' as perceived by Howard's government, and more importantly as a supposed solution to this first 'problem', no other alternative solutions were ever meaningfully investigated or debated. There is support from the ACCC to suggest it is not a good solution at all.
Howard's government claims abolishing the compulsory ASF/GSF fees helps poor students (like single mothers, who clearly don't benefit from free/cheap child care provided by their student unions) and that the services it funds will be better provided for by the 'free market'. These claims have actually been debunked by the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission). Basically what this amounts to, unsurprisingly, is a distinctly lazy and sloppy approach by the government, one which will frighteningly have drastic results for the welfare of so many, and an undemocratic agenda-setting founded on lies and misinformation. Tampa anyone?

These are some of the major issues I and others have with VSU.

Dr Benway, Chris Parsons by any other name.

"These are some of the major issues I and others have with VSU".

Good for you, Ben. Keep up the protests.

But excuse the rest of us if we exercise our democratic right to be significantly indifferent to your viewpoint.

"These fees are used to cover a wide-range of services that are not specifically related to the academic endeavours of the course each student is enrolled in. "

The primary purpose of a University education is to enable one to participate in a market driven economy. If one wanted education for the sake of education and enlightenment, then one wouldn't have to bother with the enforced constraints of the degree system.

You (and I) attend(ed) university for the sake of obtaining a degree and therefore, hopefully, making ourselves more competitive in the job market, whatever career we might chose.

For example, if I were solely interested in learning all I could about Existential Philosopy or Renaissance Folk Guitar for personal edification, then why would would I bother with the bourgeouis trappings of grades and transcripts and eventually a degree?

"If these fees, which as I stated are not simply 'union fees', become voluntary, there is much evidence to indicate very few students will pay this."

If the services you laud, such as "free concerts", queer lounges and women's rooms are as important as you claim, why wouldn't every student be more than willing to contribute to them?

Are you suggesting that only a small percentage of students are enlightened enough to appreciate the value of these things and that the un-enlightened must be forced -- at risk of expulsion -- to value them? Hmmmmmm... there is a historical name for this. It's been a long time since I've sat in a History class, what is that word again? Oh yea! Facism!

"The loss of income from these fees to the universities means they will have to source fudning from elsewhere"

Wait a moment? Do universites have discretionary access to student union fees? They do not. Your previous argument was that student union fees go to extra-curricular, non-university sponsored functions and services. If that is the case, then the universities won't find they have lost any sources of income.

If the university feels that the lose of these services are detrimental to their ability to attract students, or would result in a loss of institutional prestige, then it would be incumbent on the university to raise fees (one would guess on par with the actual value of student union fees) to provide them. Of course, students would have to decide if the increase in fees made that university more attractive. They would have to value the services.

"It is market economics in post-industrial socieities which have resulted in the poor of this world being poorer and worse off than those who were poor during pre-industrial times, and the richer being richer."

It seems that they actually don't teach History in university as a required subject anymore. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a historical period -- pre-industrial or pre-cambrian -- where the "poor" were better off than the "poor" of today. Even a cursory glance at History can put paid to the myth that the agrarian poor of centuries past were as educated, or long-lived, or provided with as many services as the poor of today. The pre-industrial poor were un-educated, politically exploited, and, on average, died off in their 40's. They had bad teeth, bad diets, were covered in sores and smelled pretty bad. They didn't die from exotic diseases, or even from cancer or heart disease. They died of influenza, common coughs, or (in an incredibly sexist way) in child birth. The didn't "commune" with nature -- they were hip deep in it. They slept with the animals (and the animal dung) -- even the urban poor.

As for the rich getting richer -- good on them. Why should we decry a wealth gap? Would we decry a beauty gap? Would you insist on a world where no one should be selfish enough to be as beautiful as Tyra Banks. Wouldn't it be more fair if no one would be allowed to be as beautiful as Madelyn Albright? A minimual passing grade in MacroEconomics 101 would have at least taught you that wealth is not pizza, where if I have two slices, someone goes without. Wealth is created by turning low-value commodities (like a Philosophy degree from Melbourn Uni) into high value items (like a best-seller on how much I hate John Howard).

"The VSU legislation was tabled as a solution to one 'problem' disguised carefully in tired rhetoric, when in fact it actually is a one sided political attack on another 'problem' as perceived by Howard's government"

NOW ! We're getting to the actual issue. "If John Howard is for it, it must be evil". That, at least is an argument that makes sense. If "populism" is turning against my values, then the populous must be made to maintain the things I value. That argument has been made before, many times in history. Do you agree with it being made in instance where the payment went for things you perhaps didn't value? Do you agree that it is alright to make the same argument for things that you do value?

--"You (and I) attend(ed) university for the sake of obtaining a degree and therefore, hopefully, making ourselves more competitive in the job market, whatever career we might chose."

Why do you consider that mutually exclusive to 'education and enlightenment'? I am studying zoology primarily because i am interested in zoology - i do hope i'll end up with a job in that field, but i only want this job because i am interested in the subject in the first place. And i definitely didn't begin my degree with the hope of eventually getting that job - i began on this course for the sake of education and enlightenment.

--"For example, if I were solely interested in learning all I could about Existential Philosopy or Renaissance Folk Guitar for personal edification, then why would would I bother with the bourgeouis trappings of grades and transcripts and eventually a degree?"

For the same reason that someone who was only interested in getting a job from their degree would do it - because university education provides a much better, deeper, more well-rounded education than if we had just stayed home and read textbooks.

That is, i think your point is self-contradictory.

--"If the services you laud, such as "free concerts", queer lounges and women's rooms are as important as you claim, why wouldn't every student be more than willing to contribute to them?"

For the same reason that we don't make taxes voluntary.

--"Hmmmmmm... there is a historical name for this. It's been a long time since I've sat in a History class, what is that word again? Oh yea! Facism!"

It *has* been a long time since you've sat in a History class. It's actually called taxation or social security.

Though if you're just refferring to the abstract assumption that voluntary fees for important institutions are a cruddy idea; thats more often known as common sense.

--"Do universites have discretionary access to student union fees? They do not. Your previous argument was that student union fees go to extra-curricular, non-university sponsored functions and services. If that is the case, then the universities won't find they have lost any sources of income."

That isn't nessecarily true; many universities will try to replace some of the services with their own capital. The Melbourne University Vice Chancellor refers to the "Melbourne Experience" as that uni's "value-added" - economic rationalism alone will cause universities *who can afford it* to try and replace the services. And that will not result in perfect replacement of services (even if it was possible for universities to afford it); it will most likely result in more expensive services of reduced quality.

--"As for the rich getting richer -- good on them. Why should we decry a wealth gap? Would we decry a beauty gap? Would you insist on a world where no one should be selfish enough to be as beautiful as Tyra Banks."

Oh please. To use your flawed beauty analogy (flawed because cash has a more 'objective' value and is easier to trade around than 'beauty', but ill set that aside for the moment) - he is not arguing that noone should be 'as beautiful as Tyra Banks' - he's arguing that everyone should be that 'beautiful'.

The ethical problem with the rich getting richer is not that they are rich (and i find it hard to believe that you seriously thought this, but yet, there are your words...) - it's that the resources needed for humans to have free existence, being well-fed, sheltered, with protected rights and access to leasure time/activities, are bunched up with one group of people rather than dispersed throughout everyone.

--"We're getting to the actual issue. "If John Howard is for it, it must be evil". That, at least is an argument that makes sense. If "populism" is turning against my values, then the populous must be made to maintain the things I value."

Pardon me, but that's a clear straw man wrapped in a bait-and-switch.

John Howard's "evilness" is debated and argued in the realm of ethics and morality, but you switched this ethical debate for the concept of an objective morality defined as "that which is most popular" (even if you had any supporting arguments for this concept in general (and i cant think of any), i can't see how it could *possibly* apply in this particular instance, considering firstly that half the country voted against Howard (and the one Family First senator was probably elected by votes that were directed against the conservative side of politics), secondly that not all voters agree with every policy of their preferred party, and thirdly that a sizeable portion of all voters are likely to be uninformed any one issue.)

As for the straw man, he was pointing out that VSU is one part of a strategy designed to achieve a particular end, an end which he argues is undesirable. This is clearly not the same as saying "If John Howard is for it, it must be bad" - you're basically accusing him of a ad hominem attack that really wasn't his point.

On second thoughts, i may have been wrong about the straw man; on second thoughts, i don't think your point was to accuse him of an ad hominem.

Sorry about that.

"Mr" Benway, while what I am to say here naturally implies the subjectivity of my own position (something someone not as arrogant as you seem to be should be equipped to handle) I think you need to be reminded that you are not actually correct in your opinions, and that what you are saying are not facts. You are simply expressing opinions, and justifying them with ideological statements and logics. I think the ideologies you seem to represent to be absolutely disgusting. I wish you all the best, but you will have absolutely no influence on my opinions, for while I accept that though neither are my opinions right or correct, I think my ideologies actually have some sense of humanity.

"The primary purpose of a University education is to enable one to participate in a market driven economy."

As I stated this is an ideological position, one which you have failed to qualify as such, and simply stated as a fact. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to suggest this represents a gap in your education (as you would suggest my disagreements with you reflect on my own behalf), but I will suggest that the claim is made without reference to the actual history not just of University education, but of the kinds of intellectual traditions and ideals of knowledge production that the university tradition stems from. Universities in today's world, for some people, in some countries/states, in some courses, may reflect your ideological position, but they are not simply a monocultural institution that reflect your 'market driven economy' interpretation. Name me one university that doesn't refer to either "knowledge", "enlightenment", "betterment", "brotherhood" (not "sisterhood" though unfortunately) or simply "education" in its motto.

"You (and I) attend(ed) university for the sake of obtaining a degree and therefore, hopefully, making ourselves more competitive in the job market, whatever career we might chose. "

As scary as this might be for someone like yourself, your assumption about my motivation for study is in fact wrong. I am studying my current course as a coincidental result of a number of causal factors, so that I now find myself studying something I never intended to graduate from, but enjoy so much that I study it merely for the sake of furthering my education within the field.

"why would would I bother with the bourgeouis trappings of grades and transcripts and eventually a degree? "

Why would anyone? Most employers do not bother with checking job applicants' actual grades or transcripts. And kudos for your use of such a big word like "bourgeouis" (sic) but your oversimplified use of the term betrays its misappropriation by you as simply a 'buzz word'. Either that or it reflects your ideology that perhaps only the middle class or 'capitalists' should be entitled to formal university education since the trappings of that system are 'bourgeouis" (sic).

"Are you suggesting that only a small percentage of students are enlightened enough to appreciate the value of these things and that the un-enlightened must be forced -- at risk of expulsion -- to value them?"

No. But thank you for asking.

"Hmmmmmm... there is a historical name for this. It's been a long time since I've sat in a History class, what is that word again? Oh yea! Facism! "

Well its rather moot that you think the suggestion I didn't make is fascist.

"Wait a moment? Do universites have discretionary access to student union fees? They do not. "

Your question is actually phrased in a way that completely confuses the issue. As I have stated above, the GSF fees which the VSU leglislation refers to, is not a 'student union fee'. However, if we were to rephrase your question as "Do universities have discretionary access to general services fees?" the answer would be, yes and no. Yes in the sense that the 'university' or rather, a body that is recognised as part of the university, and that is empowered to do so, eg Director of Student Operations, is responsible for determining who it is to be distributed to and spent by. No in the sense that the decisions this empowered body can make are governed by acts of parliament which legally restrict their actions. Information specifically pertaining to Swinburne University's policy statements regarding the GSF fee, its collection and disbursement, can be found here: http://ppd.swin.edu.au/stuinf/default.htm
There you will find the statment "the GSF Funds are distributed annually between the Swinburne Student Union, the Swinburne Sports Association , the Amenities Levy and the University." Here in simple English is clear evidence that the GSF is not a union fee. And an understanding of the complexity of what 'student unions' actually are, that was hinted at in one of my previous posts, might help you "Mr" Benway, in perhaps getting over your fear that these bodies may actually get SOME of the GSF fees.

"If that is the case, then the universities won't find they have lost any sources of income. "

Decrease in payment of GSF fees under a voluntary system means Universities will lose the funds of the GSF to disburse in the manners they currently do, as governed by current legislation. Thus this will represent a loss of income for disbursement to student unions and other bodies. My argument was that the VSU legislation will mean that unions will not be funded to the extent they are now and may in fact die by losing that economic backbone. Universities will probably not be proactive in trying to find other ways to fund the student unions and other services the GSF fees pay for currently, if they are not influenced to do so or persuaded to by the government's legislation.

"It seems that they actually don't teach History in university as a required subject anymore. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a historical period -- pre-industrial or pre-cambrian -- where the "poor" were better off than the "poor" of today. Even a cursory glance at History can put paid to the myth that the agrarian poor of centuries past were as educated, or long-lived, or provided with as many services as the poor of today. The pre-industrial poor were un-educated, politically exploited, and, on average, died off in their 40's. They had bad teeth, bad diets, were covered in sores and smelled pretty bad. They didn't die from exotic diseases, or even from cancer or heart disease. They died of influenza, common coughs, or (in an incredibly sexist way) in child birth. The didn't "commune" with nature -- they were hip deep in it. They slept with the animals (and the animal dung) -- even the urban poor. "

and

"A minimual passing grade in MacroEconomics 101 would have at least taught you that wealth is not pizza, where if I have two slices, someone goes without."

Obviously you haven't heard of 'the third world' because what you have just described is the life of most people who live as the lowest classes in these countries. And a market is not a pizza "Mr" Benway, so your analogy doesn't really work. I would be intersted though, to study in a course where one of the principle tennets that are instilled in the students is that "wealth is not pizza". Perhaps you need reminding that knoweldge and truth are not the same thing. Just because the epistemologies learned in 'macro economics' courses apparently teach you to believe that Bill Gates' vast fortune is not directly responsible for a young boy in Bangladesh dying of a cough at the age of 2 in poverty, this does not negate the widely held notion that the first world's affluence is in large part maintained through exploitation of the environmental and human resources of the third world. As David pointed out, people that decry a wealth gap may not be saying it is wrong for one individual to have a long, healthy, happy and comfortable life, but that it is not fair for a minority to have this while a majority don't.

"NOW ! We're getting to the actual issue. "If John Howard is for it, it must be evil". "

Would you mind trying a little bit harder to convince me that that was the thrust of my arguments against VSU?

"Do you agree with it being made in instance where the payment went for things you perhaps didn't value? Do you agree that it is alright to make the same argument for things that you do value?"

I don't value competetivve sporting culture at all. GSF fees go a long way to funding university sports by either being channelled directly to university sporting bodies, or being disbursed to student unions that govern the sporting bodies. I am happy for this to happen, despite my distaste for the competetive sporting culture in our country. I recognise that competetive sport is a wonderful thing for many people that they find much fulfilment and joy in it and believe that university sport is one aspect of what I celebrate as the diversity and variety of campus life.

"If "populism" is turning against my values, then the populous must be made to maintain the things I value. That argument has been made before, many times in history."

Populism is not a benchmark for rightness or goodness. The Nazi party in Germany were popular. George W Bush is remarkably popular for some insane reason. And Michael Moore is popular amongst many uneducated 'left' popular culture fans. Pauline Hanson was popular in her electorate. Anthony Callea has had two number one singles in this country. If the beliefs of the majority reflected that lesbians should be killed this would not mean the minorities that disagree with this are wrong. It would merely indicate that a majority of people believe lesbians should be killed and a minority do not. Its as simple as that.

The danger of pursuing a belief that if something is popular then it is right stems from the pragmatic improbabilities of ever being able to conclusively determine what 'popular opinion' actually is. John Howard seemed to think that winning an election by polling about 43% (I don't remember the exact figure but know it was significantly less than 51% which is the smallest and most unconvincing of majorities (in a binary) possible) of the 1st preference votes and gaining a majority only due to allocation of preferences is a 'mandate' for bringing in GST legislation. If we cannot even trust legislators to ethically and cogently gauge public opinion, how can we trust in the notion that what is popular will guide us in the right direction?

And i definitely didn't begin my degree with the hope of eventually getting that job - i began on this course for the sake of education and enlightenment.

so what the fuck did you start the degree for then fuckwit? yet another hopeless cunt who has no idea of what he/she wants but is prepared to waste the taxpayers money while aimlessly wandering through life thinking that their empty little fucked existence means something when it clearly does not...sorry...it really doesnt...welcome to the real world, perhaps you should join us sometime, get a job maybe??? scary thought I know but you'll get used to it, there's some job openings up in the army too by the way, join up, be a man, go and kill some fucking terrorists and make the world a better place instead of wasting bandwidth with your fucking stupid prattlings that pass for defence of a useless little organisation that wouldnt last ten seconds in the big bad world.

--"so what the fuck did you start the degree for then fuckwit?"

I actually already said that in the bit you quoted.

--"yet another hopeless cunt who has no idea of what he/she wants but is prepared to waste the taxpayers money while aimlessly wandering through life thinking that their empty little fucked existence means something when it clearly does not...sorry...it really doesnt...welcome to the real world"

What's with the existential rant?

--"perhaps you should join us sometime, get a job maybe???"

I have a better idea. Why don't *you* join *me*, and learn to write?

But thank-you for the laugh. It's not every day you get someone with the grammatical ability of a six-year-old telling you to "get a job".

And not that it's any of your business, but i have a job. And in a couple of years - thanks in part to my ability to compose sentences, i'll have a better paying, more fulfilling job.

--"defence of a useless little organisation that wouldnt last ten seconds in the big bad world."

Actually, it's not an organisation, it's many organisations, plus a network of extra services on top of those organisations. And it's all lasted for about forty years in "the big bad world", and wouldn't even be under threat if it wasn't for the selfish jerks heading the Liberal Party who would rather only certain special people made it through uni.

(Forty years... that's more than four times your whole age, jj! Can we count that high? *pats you on the head*)

Seriously, try to read what the other person is saying before mouthing off. Then you can come and discuss "the real world."

Ok, sorry to anyone who might have been offended by that possibly pompous-sounding post (well, anyone except the weiner i was replying to, of course...). I wouldn't want to reinforce any negative stereotypes of uni students.

But, god! Doesn't it just piss you off when somebody who knows nothing about politics talks about "the real world"? When you try to take part in a serious discussion, and all you get is some ignorant wanker jacking off on some fantasy about "the big bad world" of business, and contributing shit-all to any serious debate?

I mean, god, this 'jj' fucktard probably doesn't have the slightest clue how much her/his "big bad world" fantasy is the product of legislation and constitutional arrangements - just like the idea of welfare and VSU - but are they going to go look it up, learn something about politics, business, and all the other things in the actual real world? (As opposed to their wet dream of what the "real world" is?)

No, they're just going sit at home, posting bullsh*t to people whose political philosophies they can't be bothered even beginning to comprehend, learning nothing, and contributing to nothing.

If anyone was offended by my attitude toward that poster, i just wanted y'all to know where i was coming from. Peace.

once again wasting your life matey :) dribble all the shit you want, you're still a fuckwit without a job and any real intellect...

peace

love

flowers

Just a note to anyone who missed it, there is currently a move for an anti-VSU 'smart mob' - for all the details, check out our stop vsu campaign website.

"Smart mobs are the protest/activist counterparts to the flash mob. We believe they may be an effective way to get media attention in a time when regular protests seem to be happening without comment. Imagine a smart mob designed to get the attention of the Herald Sun offices in Melbourne. One minute, outside the building there is typical corporate blandness. The next, a wave of smart mobbers rushes in shouting the catch-cry anti-VSU slogans. If they stay there for 5 small minutes, you can imagine the stir it would create. If you would like to be a part of this, e-mail stopvsu@gmail.com".

"One minute, outside the building there is typical corporate blandness. The next, a wave of smart mobbers rushes in shouting the catch-cry anti-VSU slogans. If they stay there for 5 small minutes, you can imagine the stir it would create." (Fuckwit, 2005).

No one fucking cares...don't you get it? VSU is DEAD, and no one cares...poor little fellow, you really need some reality therapy don't you? Try going to a working class pub and spouting your loony shit there...I'm sure they'll re-educate you real quick...and you will see what true working class people think of your kind. Yes, it might be a shock but we (real workers) don't care about losers who waste our time and money, we REALLY don't!

Is that VSU which is dead jj, or the attempts to stop VSU legislation? You seem to have claimed that the anti-VSU protestors have won...sounds like a cause for celebration...shame the claim was made by a complete retard.

hmmm...one must feel pity for the person with a name like "mortar" on a so-called peace loving site...bit of an oxymoron really, perhaps even retarded...