This is my new writing blog.
I wrote and published this article on OnlineOpinion over 11 years ago. It is troubling to me that nothing much has changed over all that time.
I am still trying, even though I’ve got 1/4 of the abilities I had back then in 2008. That means now, I am constantly pushing the boundaries of my remaining abilities to speak against injustices. I want to achieve so much in a personal, social and academic sense and all I ask is to be given the opportunity to do so.
The adjective bipartisan can refer to any bill, act, resolution, or other political act in which both of the two major political parties agree about all or many parts of a political choice. Bipartisanship involves trying to find common ground, but there is debate whether the issues needing common ground are peripheral or central ones. Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version of legislation or other proposal. Failure to attain bipartisan support in such a system can easily lead to gridlock, often angering each other and their constituencies.
Under a Bipartisan approach, in Australia’s two-party system where both parties are ideologically opposed, we have the socially and economically conservative Liberal/Coalition parties and opposed to them is the egalitarian approach of the Australian Labor party who can both agree on the need for the NDIS, however, they are both ideologically opposed, in how to get there. Continue reading “THE POLITICS OF THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (NDIS): BUDGET, WELFARE & INSURANCE”
Readers might assume that this title is the introduction to a humorous piece but believe me what I am writing about is no joke. The “dunghill” I write about is the “provider” of the facility in which I live. I am provoked to write in this angry tone because of the strong impression I receive in the responses from “those above”, those in charge of my residence, are excessively calculated, constrained by a mentality in which a cost benefit analysis has precedence. To treat people through a sieve of costs and benefits is something I have come to hate. Continue reading “EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS ON A DUNGHILL”
This year, I turned 57 years old. As an individual with Friedreich’s Ataxia, I have been severely impacted by the limitations it places on my physical capabilities. The most notable and devastating damage has been done to my ability to communicate. For example, today I find it impossible to use my keyboard. The only way I can use my keyboard at all is with the help of specific academic support workers, who with training and experience, have learned to understand most of my speech. Even so, my speech dysarthria still hinders my ability to communicate with my support workers, and to dictate what I need to say in my academic or everyday writings. Continue reading “THE NEED FOR HUMAN INTERACTION”
I can still remember some events quite well of my early life when I was seven. For example, let me tell you about trying to ride a bicycle. It took me a while and took me some time before I got to master it. It was no easy feat. Also, at 7 years old I entered a new primary school and there in the playground was a balance beam. This gave me an early lesson in the difficulties I would confront later when Friedreich’s Ataxia took hold. But I’ve always been very determined to live life to its fullest.
By Peter Gibilisco and Christina Irugalbandara
“Nothing About Us Without Us!” (Latin: “Nihil de nobis, sine nobis”) is a slogan used to communicate the idea that no policy should be decided by any representative without the full and direct participation of members of the group(s) affected by that policy. (Wikipedia)
What I aim in this piece is to explore the process of marginalization that excludes people from political, social, and economic opportunities. Of course, there are many forms of exclusion but my focus is upon the marginalization of those with disability, or at least a grotesque example of this.
This is an older article, but I feel its message is a very important one that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. So I am reposting this article on my blog.
The Government is taking money from society’s most impoverished and vulnerable group of people. How low can ScoMo go? This is not something we should be keeping quiet about.