Wednesday, 20 July 2005
@ 11.15 pm
White-tailed Spiders, oh how I hate you
The other day we found a White-tailed Spider in the linen closet. (I checked online after I'd trapped it - definitely a White-tail.) It was pretty damn huge, and as they are one of the few critters in New Zealand that I have even a passing fear of, it didn't last much beyond its positive identification. Ick. Interestingly enough, the long-term effect of finding the spider has been that now every time I get something out of the linen closet it gets a damn good shaking, just in case. My dislike of them, combined with reaching in to a dark closet, causing a shiver of disgust in potentia to travel down my spine - even though I know the chances of finding another are probably quite low (it's not like there are thousands living in there). (I hope.)
Now, this event actually happened a couple of weeks ago, and I was going to draw broad conclusions about how this was a great example of an existing, low grade fear that had been realised and heightened by the discovery of an actual spider in the cupboard, and how now that existing low grade fear manifests itself every time I open the cupboard for another clean, slightly warm, towel. Given the timing, occuring earlier that evening and all, I was going to use this to smoothly segue into a discussion on the London bombings.
See? Spider discovery? Bombs in backpacks? One of those back-of-the-mind fears, suddenly brought to the surface and cemented in place, now lodged in the forefront of one's mind? Ah, nevermind. As usual, my slack blogging habits have meant I've somewhat stuffed the timing. The analogy probably wasn't even that good...
Anyhoo, In the intervening period I've managed to randomly go on strike, adroitly avoid becoming involved in yet another University production, and uncover some must-see links for you all.
About two weeks ago I decided to really get in touch with my left-wing roots and joined the Association of University Staff (AUS) union. It involves a small fee that gets taken out of my pay packet each week (painless), and no doubt brings with it the chance to go to exciting union meetings (potentially painful) and vote on University pay package offers (potentially fun). However, unbeknownst to me said union was planning on industrial action (proving I hadn't actually read the emails I've received in the past) shortly after I joined as they are of the general opinion that University staff need more money.
The discovery of the pending strike left me in a bit of a quandry. My joining of the union had been on a bit of a whim (it's not everyday I get to do such a thing) and initially I was pro-strike almost purely on the basis of the rather persuasive "when's the next time I'm ever going to get a chance to go on strike anyway?" argument (in a week or two, as it turns out), neither of which are particularly strong ideological reasons to get involved. This general apathy was combined with the whole losing one day's pay, and the sneaking suspicion on my part that university staff in general are actually doing rather well, thank you very much, when compared with the vast majority of New Zealanders. (I know, international comparisons, leaving for greener pastures, etc etc. I still don't think they're living hand-to-mouth, and I reckon that the New Zealand lifestyle probably makes up for a lot of that difference anyway, so, um, yeah.) Another point against my supporting the action was that being right in the middle of doing the Centre's budgets for next year, and after talking to other departments around the University, I am painfully aware that there isn't actually that much money to go round right now.
However, in order to assuage my doubts, I was reliably informed by the Centre's own union agitator Matthew (who, ironically, due to being a post doc and having a different contract couldn't actually go on strike) that as it was a national action it was more aimed at getting the government to shell out some more dollars to universities than forcing individual universities to find more money for their personel budgets. Hmm, perhaps, but in that case has the strike damaged Labour's chances of winning the election even more? Cos I guarantee that'd be considered a case of blowback by most lecturers. I also decided that I could probably take a day's pay hit - it's only fair given the vast amounts of time I've not been at my desk throughout the year as it is.
So I decided to go on strike.
I was definitely not one of the keen ones - those souls who stood at every entrance to the University handing out flyers to people throughout the morning, and then drove round the University in a giant, circular convoy for a couple of hours with placards and flags and streamers hanging out of windows or off of aerials, demanding more money whilst blowing their horns loudly, to the amusement at first, then annoyance, of the comparative handful of students who showed up - and I even ended up doing a few hours work, just by dint of sitting at my desk in the course of the day (shh, don't tell the union). I also have a sneaking suspicion that for many (academic) staff, the day of striking actually involved more work than what they'd normally do in a day where they were actually working. The fact that Matthew declared he was unable to strike because his contract forbade him to was somewhat alien to me. He's an academic (more so than practically any other academic you're likely to meet), and if he popped out of the office for a few hours to hold a placard and hand out colour-coded flyers to passers by, then really, who's care? Or notice, for that matter?
Anyway, that was a good day.
Congratulations if you're still reading, here comes the hard sell. In the past few months, and rather more actively in the last few weeks, I've managed to avoid any huge level of active involvement with MuSoc's next production The Fiend. Now no doubt you've all been reading on Dave's blog about how they're burning both ends of the book trying to get this production ready to run on Friday night, and having wandered in from time to time and checked out the set (dressed by the lovely Mel) I can safely say it's gong to look cool. I've also had reliable reports that it's going to sound cool. What more do you need in a musical? Huh? Ben, Dan and Scott's voice on stage, great set, wonderful music! It has it all.
And so we're going to go see it, yes? I'm launching a mission to see it on opening night, and I'd love for people to come along with us if they can then to give the show a huge opening night buzz. Tickets are $8 for unwaged and $15 for waged and I'm in charge of the ticketing and booking system for front of house, so you can cut out the middle-internet form and come straight to me.
And on that note, I leave you with some links that people should go see, for they are good. If somewhat geeky.
First off, Pink Floyd at Live 8 playing Wish You Were Here. So good. Oh, as is the site One Good Move which this clip is hosted on.
Secondly, a link to the Crossfire interview with Jon Stewart from The Daily Show on it. The link to the clip is at the top of the page, I could probably explain, but you should just go watch it.
Thirdly, here's a page that links to a whole heap of George Orwell essays. Damn there's some good stuff in here.
Wait, there's one more thing. I think I've found the definition of a mealy-mouth politician: Don Brash. Come on Don, at least have the courage to stand up for what you so obviously believe in. Listening to him on National Radio this morning dodge the questions (oh so clumsily) about whether he would have sent NZ troops to Iraq with the US and Australia back when they invaded if he'd been the one in charge was positively painful. If you can't say an outright no to such a question, then the answer's probably yes. If you're on the record at that time saying that you would have done what Bush did, then I'd guess the answer is definitely yes. And if you thought that then, surely you had what you considered to be good reasons? And if you can't put those reasons out there now for people to hear and agree and disagree with, surely there's only one way of describing the amateur avoidance of the quetions: dishonest.
Damn it, I wish National would put some policy out for people to see and actually make statements they stand by and not hastily backtrack from alomst as soon as they've been uttered. Only then can there be some real debate.
Hell, at the moment National actually makes Winston Peters and New Zealand First look good - even though I disagree with them, at least I'm sure that people voting for them have half a clue as to what their policies are.
