My housemate’s sister had a theme party for her birthday the other week. Usually themed parties celebrate/mock bygone eras. Her bygone era was the ‘90s. Surely that wasn’t that long ago? And then you realise that 1990 was nearly 20 years ago! I’m a bit of a hoarder and I’ve found some old ticket stubs from the 90’s. Here are some of the events I witnessed that I still have physical evidence for. I’m disappointed that I didn’t keep more stuff from that time.
Big Day Out, 22/1/95, Showgrounds, $49.10 Australian Track and Field Championships, 7/8/9/10 March 1996, Sydney (Competitor) Melbourne International Film Festival - Unmade Beds, 2/8/98, Capitol Cinema Stereolab, 4/2/98, Prince of Wales, $20 Ed Kuepper, 9/9/99, The Continental, $15 Oktoberfest, 23/10/99, Showgrounds, $3 TISM, 17/5/98, Hi Fi Bar, $15 Hoodoo Gurus-Final Tour (Ha!), 28/11/97, The Palace, $26.50 Vans Warped Tour, 24/1/98, Showgrounds, $36 Dave Graney and the Coral Snakes, 7/7/96, The Continental, $15 Melbourne International Comedy Festival - Hoot, 13/4/96, Napier St Theatre Victoria v West Ham United, 21/5/95, Olympic Park (Freebee) Australia v Iran, 29/11/97, MCG, $41 (Devastation) Bledisloe Cup, 11/7/98, MCG, $64.75 U22 World Basketball Final – Australia defeat Argentina, 10/8/97, Melbourne Park, $22.50 North Melbourne v Sydney Grand Final, 28/9/96, MCG, $62 (Jubilation) North Melbourne v Adelaide Grand Final, 28/9/98, MCG, $42.50 (Concession – Terrible day) North Melbourne v Carlton Grand Final, 25/9/99, MCG, $45 (Student cards are great)
Some of the events that no physical evidence exists for but I know I was part of: Anthrax gig, 1990, Entertainment Centre, (now Lexus Centre) England v Pakistan Cricket World Cup Final, 1992, MCG Living Colour gig, 1992, Festival Hall Big Day Out, 1993, Showgrounds Carlton v Geelong Grand Final, 30/9/95, MCG FIFA World Youth Championships, Semi final Australia v Brazil, 17/3/93, Olympic Park Countless TISM gigs Countless Australia v …….. Soccer matches held at Olympic park
I just had to comment on this article in Friday's Age about the principal of a exclusive Jewish school who has fled the country because of allegations of child molestation.
This paragraph in particular got me thinking: "Parents were also concerned that the psychological treatment of the girls had been compromised because the school had refused to release information to outside psychologists. Students and parents were instead referred to school-nominated psychologists."
The parents are worried because the school used school-nominated psychologists? But hang on, isn't this school run by a particular Jewish community (Adass) and they have very strict laws about communicating and mixing with those outside this exclusive community? I assume parents send their kids there because of this particular reason. So they should be glad they don't use outside help.
And another thing, the parents are worried about the psychological effects on their children due to the alleged molestation. Fair enough. But I'd be also concerned about the psychological effects of children growing up in a secluded environment and not being allowed to interact with the wider world. Stuff like no stories in which boys and girls are friends, (in fact boys and girls are not allowed to mix), thinking that calling someone by their first name is forbidden because it may lead to sex, and forget it if you are a woman who wants to further their career after marriage because that's out of the question.
I think this community has more to worry about then just these allegations.
There is a economic furphy that we must have full employment, that is, the unemployment rate must be kept low. Underlying this statement are one assumption which I think needs to be carefully looked at.
Assumption: You are only contributing to society if you are in a paid job. This is a crock of shtimpy. In fact I think that there are people who contribute far more to society by staying at home then some out there who are earning money. I would even put forward the idea that if more people did stay at home, the world would be a better place. One reason that everyone has to work in a job that pays money is due to the financial pressures put upon them by ideologies of certain governments. The conservative mantra is that money is the determinant of not just your material wealth, but your social wealth as well. So it looks down upon those that stay at home and "not work". Because of course when you are at home you don't do any work, just ask any stay at home mum or dad. If more people stayed at home, the impact that may arise from such things as the possible collapse of the ABC child centres would not be so great. By taking this further, we get the situation that by having less people "working" the unemployment rate would be lower!
On a side issue, there are the misleading terms "earn" and "make" when it comes to describing your wage. This article has an interesting idea that we should replace these terms with 'receive'. Does an executive of a paper-clip company really 'earn', say, $300,000? Do they contribute to society in a way that is 6 times that of a rubbish removalist on a wage of $50,000? Which one would disrupt society more if they stopped doing their job? Who is more valuable to a functioning society?