Not Buying It

We’re told a lot that there is a great divide in health due to a person’s low socioeconomic status (SES).  That is that someone’s low income and education affects their ability to make positive health choices.

This is rubbish and I’m not buying it.  Low SES people can’t avoid the same campaigns as the rest of us.  They are everywhere.  Most low SES people have televisions and watch the ads, they see the billboards, and they see the warning posters that pubs and clubs by law have to display.

Low SES people know that smoking is bad for their lungs.  They see the warnings on every packet they purchase.  But they smoke willingly and expect the health system to fix any health concern.

Low SES people know that fatty foods are bad for their heart.  But they eat it willingly then expect modern pharmaceuticals to keep their heart pumping forever.  Were told that fresh food is expensive, yet I saw broccoli for 99c and a 1kg bag of carrots for $1.49.  Plus there’s an Aldi supermarket everywhere that could help you create dinner for four people for less than $10, probably with leftovers.  That is, if you could be bothered.

You can’t even say that basic dental care isn’t accessible.  Toothbrush and toothpaste available anywhere for less than $3 and would last for a month.

The problem isn’t really education or low SES.  The problem is our lazy culture.  People cry poor yet can spend upwards $20 per week on cigarettes and $40 per week on beer.  There are some major priority issues.

They know better, they just don’t want to.

Our Turn

Further to my post on charities crying poor. 

I received a letter from a charity I support regarding their government grant being cut.  The shortfall in their budget meant that 1 in 4 children could not be assisted by their programs.  This of course is a shame.  But neither individuals, nor organisations, nor corporations ought to become dependent on government handouts.  Their government assistance was called a grant, but it may as well have been called welfare.

It points to the sad truth that our generosity has declined as our government dependence has increased.  This situation was portrayed as a travesty of compassion.  Instead it could be the best thing to happen to the charity.  There will be a financial shortfall, but if their service is considered necessary then the community will step up and contribute greater than the government ever would. 

The financial hole for charities isn’t for the government to fill.  It’s a reality check to us as a community.  It’s our turn to step up.

All Envy

I had a conversation with a colleague about the big banks.

It came up because I mentioned how my wages get paid into my account late in the evening.  My colleague told me that it’s because the banks hold onto the money as long as possible in order to make some money off my wages.

Of course the vibe of his speech was ‘how dare the banks earn a profit from wages’.  I retorted by saying that I don’t begrudge banks earning big profits.  I prefer this to a profitless bank.

If it’s true that banks hold onto my money for profit, then how clever of them.  As long as I get paid the right amount at the end of the day and the bank doesn’t go broke.  I’m not missing it, as long as it comes.

Then his theme turned to the fees charged by banks.  But what do we really want from our banks?  We want them to look after our money.  They are doing that well and truly.  The varying levels of success in achieving this depends on opinion.

Then came the topic of large salaries received by bank executives.  People would say they could do the job.  But really they couldn’t, and wouldn’t.  They earn a lot of money mainly because it’s a hard job and to get the best person the banks need to offer remuneration.  Of course we would all like to earn that money, but it’s pure envy to insult the bank bosses based on their salaries.

We call the banks greedy for earning profits, charging fees and paying executives large salaries.  But we don’t look at ourselves and our greed and envy.

Contrast

Finally watched the episode of 'Q and A' featuring Peter Jenson, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.  I had been told previously that Jenson performed well particularly as he was under fire frequently from outspoken writer and comedian, Catherine Devany.

Peter Jenson was indeed classy.  He was very considered in his answering of questions on rather touchy topics such as 'marriage equality', meaning of submission, asylum seekers and health of homosexuals.  All he wanted was for people to be able to civilly discuss these issues without being shouted down.  It's a fair request.

But in typical 'Q and A' style there was one who was the antithesis to Jenson's class and respectfulness.  I'm referring to Catherine Devany.  She was classless, brash, disrespectful, discourteous and mannerless.  She has a harsh voice to which it is difficult to listen.  She interrupted frequently, which was just plane rude.

No mention yet about what she actually said.  But if someone is going to behave in such a manner then what she says essentially becomes irrelevant.   Her actions are saying enough.

Although Devany's view on marriage as "a mistake I think everyone should be allowed to make" leads one to wonder who it was who hurt Catherine so much earlier in her life.  She is just so angry, something must have happened.

Jenson stated his view very well.  He was calm and considered, especially when explaining the biblical meaning of submission in marriage.  Yet Devany interrupted rudely and labelled the notion misogynist, archaic and medieval.

On the health of homosexuals, Jenson requested a civil discussion of bringing out facts about the issue.  Facts are in dispute as to whether or not homosexuals have a lower life expectancy, and if so, why?  He was very open though clear on his doctrine.  He welcomed discussion. 

Devany on the other hand is closed minded.  She claimed the church was intolerant.  Yet based on her performance on this night one wonders where the intolerance truly lies.

Niche to Fill

Must have been a slow news day.

Channel 9 News claimed that new retail fashion house, Zara, is missing out on part of the market as they don't stock 'plus size' clothing.

This is a pointless thing to say!!

It's not as if Zara forgot to send the specs for 'plus size' outfits to their manufacturer.  This is not a silly mistake that needs correction from the self-appointed fashion police.  No, this is a deliberate act from the retailer to target a specific part of the market.  They are obviously confident that they can sell a lot of clothes despite the narrow size range.  It's their prerogative and good luck to them.

The 'niche' of 'plus size' women's fashion has largely been filled by other fashion houses such as sixteentwentysix and mysize.  If there is a hole in the market then it will be filled.  For if there is money to be made then there is always someone who will want to make it.  It is one of the joys of the free market.

This news story though was just a chance for 'plus size' women to play the victim-of-discrimination card.  Perhaps the Zara stuff won't suit larger body shapes anyway.