View the Youtube video on the “Don’t stop it, swap it” campaign. What do you think was the program theory for this campaign? What possible reasons can you think of as to why the program was considered unsuccessful?
Ans) There are two John Howard press conferences - of the hundreds I went to while he was prime minister - which I'll never forget.
- The first, in early 2001, was the one at which he abolished the indexation of petrol excise - an unexpected and audacious move, and one so utterly surprising to me that I can still recall my heart actually beating faster.
I know. You don't need to tell me. The fact that my circulatory system actually responds to federal excise rates is worrying, much as I might justify it to you by arguing that Howard's decision that day has since cost the federal budget tens of billions of dollars in revenue foregone, even though motorists remain cranky, and Howard's inspired, mad, lavish gesture of self-preservation is long-forgotten.
- The day Howard announced the federal intervention is the other one that sticks with me. I remember getting into the ground-floor lift near the PM's office and travelling back up to the press gallery on the second floor, furiously unable to fathom what I had just seen - a conservative prime minister, and leader of a party historically committed to small government, sending in the army to aid in the most profound and intimate invasion of individuals' lives imaginable.
- Mandatory sexual health checks. Mandatory income management. In typically jut-jawed, unapologetic Howard style, he even called it "The Intervention".
- I can remember gazing at the lift walls and wondering. Was this the rabbit that Howard loyalists had been hoping their ageing hero would pull out of his hat to arrest what seemed to be an inevitable slide out of government? Was it a hairy-chested but compelling new way of approaching Indigenous disadvantage (Australia's deepest shame for so long that both parties had come to a sort of rough consensus on it; keep shovelling in the money, hoping things would get better)? Was it the greatest political wedge of all time?
- It certainly changed things. Neither major party, now, has any difficulty at all with the notion that a Federal Government can reach directly into the life of an individual and twiddle with the intimate process through which that individual decides whether to spend this particular $10 on beer, or food for his kids.
- The Gillard Government yesterday announced that it would extend the intervention's income management provisions to cover school attendance, withholding welfare payments from the parents of chronic truants. Tony Abbott's Opposition, meanwhile, wants to extend the principles of income management more broadly across other welfare recipients. In a political system where points of consensus are presently hard to find, this area is an unlikely oasis of agreement.
But there are exceptions.
Tony Abbott, for instance, wants the Government to be more involved in the household expenditure of welfare recipients, but also wants it to keep its grubby mitts away from anyone pouring their pay down the pokies.
- How can one party support such intimate interventionism on one hand, and yet - on the other - preserve its customary suspicion of the nanny state? How do the rights and freedoms of a problem gambler outweigh the rights and freedoms of an alcoholic person on the dole?
- I suppose the argument is that in the case of welfare recipients, the money comes from the public purse and the Government is within its rights to stop any given beneficiary from spending it on booze instead of school lunches, whereas a low-paid worker starving his progeny in order to tangle at length with the Black Rhino is simply exercising his hard-won individual freedom to be an arse.
- It seems hard on the kids, though, who get just as hungry in either case and could scarcely be expected to rationalise things along the lines of the public/private dichotomy.
- In part, the Coalition's opposition to gaming machine restrictions is a politically-driven one; why step between a struggling adversary and a well-funded, loud, powerful lobby group determined to finish them off for you? And in part, it's a gut response to a government whose term in office has seen an unmistakable advance of the nanny state.
- Under first Rudd and then Gillard, this Labor Government has increased taxes on bogan drinks and undertaken an internationally novel plan to remove all branding from cigarette packets. These crusades were driven by Health Minister Nicola Roxon, a woman of such saintly immunity to vices of any kind that the very glimpse of her face on television inspires, in your writer, the involuntary and mutinous craving for a gin and tonic.
Ms Roxon has not introduced fat taxes yet, but you can almost feel her wanting to; in the meantime, she has satisfied herself with an ad campaign entitled "Don't Stop It, Swap It!" - a heroically hopeful exercise in which fatties are encouraged to comfort-eat carrot sticks instead of French fries.
- The Rudd Government wanted - but got horribly mixed up in the attempt - to censor the internet. The Gillard Government wants to stop people gambling. Labor has no problem with interventionism. But for the Opposition, it depends on who you're talking about.
View the Youtube video on the “Don’t stop it, swap it” campaign. What do you think...
Go to one of the Web sites that contain video clips (such as youtube) and view some video clips about investing in money market securities. You can use search phrases such as “investing in money markets.” Select one video clip on this topic that you would recommend for the other students in the class. Provide the Web link for the video clip. What do you think is the main point of the clip? How might you change your investment in...
Watch YouTube video: Ask the Ethics Guy! Episode #6: Those Lazy Millennials do you think Millennials' ethics are different from generations born before them? John Locke' s Social Compact addressed the concern of what people might do in a state of nature. They might feel free to do anything they want. Sound good?! The problem is, their rights would not be protected. So Locke argued that people should cooperate, and thus give up some of their freedom, for security. This...
Visit YouTube and search for the video “Ethics in the Workplace to IT – Team 8.” Answer the following questions. Why do you think employers monitor their online behaviour at work? Name the policies the company has put in place in regard to ethics in the workplace. What monitoring technologies does the company use to keep track of sites employees access. Do you think it’s ethical for employers to monitor sites that employees access? Which is more expensive—firing an employee...
YOU CAN PICK ANY MARKETING CAMPAIGN YOU WANT Think about a marketing campaign that you have seen for a pharmaceutical product (prescription or over-the-counter). What was the product being marketed and where and when did you see the marketing campaign (TV, internet, etc)? What was the key slogan or message of the marketing campaign? What marketing strategy was being used (i.e. many times improved quality of life is depicted by showing the person taking the drug having a perfect, happy...
Why do you think that most people do not change they health behaviors when they are exposed to a health campaign?
Should we continue to measure GDP as we do now? If you don’t think it should be changed, explain your reasoning. If you think it should be changed, what changes would you recommend, and why?
What do you think is the strongest objection to Singer's position? How do you think Singer would reply to this objection? Do you think that the objection shows that Singer's theory is incorrect? Why or why not?
Which view of health policymaking do you subscribe to and why? What/who do you think health policy is for and why?
What anti-union practices do you think Amazon engaged in? Do you think that they violated the NLRA? Obviously, Amazon did not want this video to go out. Why? What would you have done differently? Amazon’s Disgusting Anti-Union Video For Company Managers LEAKED
What do you think about the following paragraphs? I really enjoyed watching the video about the ethical impacts that a code can make in real world. Clarissa explained many points with proper reasoning and examples that really persuaded me. The first point she made that I found appealing was that the programmers should think about the worst case scenario that their program can create and write the code according to it. She provided the example of the "Volkswagen Scandal" in...