Tabs are bad.

I am writing today about the dangers of tabs.

Tab: n. an open order of items to be paid for in total later, such as drinks ordered from a bar.

Most people know the tab as an elusive beast, found most commonly in popular culture, or occasionally at a friend's birthday party (when the parents are feeling particularly generous). Tabs symbolise the wistful dreams of every student and other alcoholic in denial. The idea that beverages can be freely taken from the bar with no future financial or other consequences.

With this utopian ideal in mind, I opened a tab on Saturday night. Not once, but twice. It was glorious. At first.

Something about that first purchase, after exchanging a credit/debit card for a numbered piece of plastic, warms the soul. It's a feeling of freedom, that the night is limitless and that you are "the man". I am henceforth referring to this feeling as the "Tab complex".

Some downsides of the Tab complex include overconfidence, mild amnesia (particularly of any financial situations) and overwhelming generosity. As I returned to my table with the third round of shots, bought predominantly for people I didn't know or had only just met, the fact that within the short space of 30 minutes my tab had reached a healthy $120 was far from my mind. Money continued to be spent at this rate for some time. This possibly important piece of information was not discovered until the following morning, when I realised my bank balance was nonexistent.

The Tab complex is not all cons though. You are immediately welcome amongst all groups (probably due to the "good bloke" illusion) and, if you remain sober enough (which I was nowhere near) there is a chance to really make a connection with your new-found friends. There's also the bonus of being able to get absolutely sh*t-faced without ever having to hand over any real money - until it comes to the close of the night.

As a result of my experiences, I can set out some basic ground rules regarding the use of a tab, so that you avoid my unfortunate discovery the following morning:

Rule 1: Do NOT, under any circumstances, open a tab if you are already drunk.

Rule 2: Try and operate a tab with one designated friend in your group, so that they can police your spending when you do reach drunkenness.

Rule 3: Rounds of shots can seem like an excellent idea every time, but try and limit yourself. They are a very easy way to burn through money.

Rule 4: NEVER use a credit card. It's one thing to spend your money, it's entirely another to spend money that isn't.

Rule 5: If possible, give the bar staff a limit on how much can be spent on the tab. This is more to protect you from yourself.

These rules are by no means concrete, but if you stick to them, you will hopefully avoid the horror of realising you don't have enough money to get a cab home, let alone eat for the next week.

Yours in folly,

~Coops

Medicare is the pits.

Do I really need to expand beyond the title?

I suppose I should give it some context.

In the past few months I have started a new job, been promoted, and subsequently discovered the bane of all things enjoyable: Medicare. In two days I spent over 10 hours on the phone to Medicare. Admittedly I was being paid for those 10 hours, but still, that is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is Medicare's over the top stance on privacy. Yes, I understand if you can't give me someone's home address, but when I'm trying to track down missing payments it gets a teensy bit frustrating. Especially when the dialogue consists mainly of:

Random Medicare Demon 1: Well, that cheque has been presented.

Me: Ok, when?

RMD 1: I can't tell you that.

Me: ...can you tell me what bank account?

RMD 1: No.

Me: So despite the fact that my practice has every legal entitlement to that cheque, you can't tell me anything apart from it's been banked?

RMD 1: Yes.

Me: What can I do?

RMD 1: Pray?

...10 minutes later...

Me: Hi, I called up just before trying to track a cheque, when I called the relevant client and they never received it. *gives client details*

RMD 2: Oh, that was never issued.

Me: Excuse me?

RMD 2: We have no record of any claim being lodged for that date.

Me: ...

...following up a different cheque...

RMD 3: Oh, that cheque has gone stale.

Me: Excuse me?

RMD 3: Well if a cheque isn't presented after 15 months, it just goes "stale" and the whole claim is cancelled.

Me: I thought if cheques weren't presented after a few months they payment was EFT'd to the applicable bank account?

RMD 3: Oh, that's only for GPs. I don't know why they don't do it for specialists.

Me: So how do we get the payment?

RMD 3: Oh, you need to resubmit the claim. Then we'll send out another cheque.

Me: After 15 months, we didn't get the last one. What do you think our chances are this time?

RMD 3: Oh.

I guess I wouldn't have such an issue if things weren't so... confusing? I mean, if a system is in place where cheques that don't reach their intended GPs within 3 months are automatically banked, why can't the same be done for specialists? More importantly, why can't Medicare tell a provider (or representative of) where the money they are entitled to has gone? One RMD told me the only way to track a cheque was to go back to the date of the appointment and start looking through bank statements.

Recently I called up because of an issue with a client's Mental Health Care Plan. long story short, if you have a MHCP, you get a sizeable rebate from Medicare (so they're understandably quite desirable). The RMD I spoke to said there was an issue with the referring GPs provider number, but couldn't say what. I called the GP clinic and confirmed the provider number. The receptionist there then called Medicare, called me back and said everything should be ok. I called Medicare again, but no, there was an issue. After an hour of playing phone tag, it was finally worked out that the GP had billed a 2712 instead of a 2702. The difference? A 2712 is the MHCP billed by GPs who have had up-to-date vocational training in mental health. A 2702 is for those who haven't. The GP had up-to-date training, Medicare just didn't have a record of it.

I made a small poem:

M is for morons, manning the lines.

E is for exasperating, all of the time.

D is for death, what I wish would come.

I is for ingrates (that word's just fun).

C is for c*nts, all RMDs are.

A is for anger, this blogpost's star.

R is for raqequit, an option I wish was there.

E is for everlasting, any call to Medicare.

Nyargh.

/rant.

~Coops

Anyone have Satan's hotline? Need to trade soul.

I have to say, I'm loving the new spate of historical/fantasy dramas that are pouring out onto the TV.

Admittedly it started off several years ago with the likes of Rome and The Tudors, but now we are seeing such things as Spartacus: Blood and Sand, as well as its prequel, Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, Camelot, The Game of Thrones, and The Borgias - just to name a few that have caught my eye over the past few years.

Personally, I drool at the thought of seeing the streets and plains of Ancient Rome, Medieval Europe and other fantastical areas being brought to life on the not-quite-big screen. And for the moment, considering the quality of productions being turned out, it's far from overkill.

Now that I've vented that (and procrastinated from a Psychology assignment), hopefully I can go back to concentrating on selling my soul to the devil in exchange for a decent FoPaC grade.

Now in the ICU: Campus Culture

Ladies and gentleman, I have a heart-breaking announcement to make.

Our dear friend and loved one, campus culture, has fallen terribly ill. For those of you who did not really get a chance to meet CC (as I have of this moment affectionately named it), it was a fun-loving, generous creature that brought joy and merriment to all who encountered it, always up for something different and exciting, the type of thing that always made new memories - however hazy they may be. For those who already knew CC, you can only be as distraught as I am at its decline. There may be some who are shocked at an apparently rapid plummet in health, however I can only say it has been coming for some time. The exact cause is unknown - whether it be the move to Voluntary Student Unions, or just general lack of interest - and the doctors are stumped.

Some of the earlier symptoms included:
- Low involvement in on-campus activities, such as O'Week
- Decreasing patron numbers at UniBar
- Decreasing interest in off-campus activities, such as O'Camp
- Increasing numbers of "study-only" students

In my opinion, too much time has been spent pointing the finger at potential causes of what could have caused these issues, and not enough in actually resolving them.


I guess the first thing to do is ask, why? Why is campus culture so important?

It's quite simple. What makes the University of Adelaide different from Flinders University and UniSA?

Enough said.

But for those of you who didn't quite understand that, let me explain. The UofA is the only university in South Australia that people go to for a 'student experience'. UniSA has a bazillion campuses (well, six), and yet none of them have anything close to what UofA offers at its North Terrace base. Flinders, admittedly, tries quite hard, but it's falling prey more and more to the "study-only" students (yes, that phenomenon I mentioned before); that is, students who walk onto campus, attend their classes, borrow a book or two from the library if needed, and promptly leave. And they'll spend the entirety of their 3 - 5 year degree repeating this.
UofA, on the other hand, has the whole package. It's a 5-minute walk from every form of public transport (because no-one likes being forced to drive to and park in a car-park so far away it's labelled 'Siberia'). It has multiple cafés on-campus, as well as being adjacent to not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR food courts. It is also the only word with a true-to-its-name UniBar, one so appealing in fact, that Flinders students would rather take a 30 minute bus ride to drink there, than visit their own, questionable establishment. Add to this around 20 different sporting clubs, an almost ridiculous number of clubs supporting other interests and hobbies (ranging from political parties to The Society for Creative Anachronism) and you have a university that offers not just an education, but an experience, if not a lifestyle. It's probably one of the reasons so many students are content to stay studying at Adelaide for a decade or so. But even for those who want to do their degree as quickly as possible and get out, it's an opportunity to try something you always wanted to, excel at something other than studies, or just meet some people that you normally wouldn't.


The second (and more important) question that needs to be asked is how? How can we treat the decline in interest?

Unfortunately this is something I can only hypothesise about. There is no quick-fix solution, and there is nothing that can be done by one person. To be honest, the UofA needs to take a hard look at itself, and ask what does it want from its students? Is the money of international students enough, or does it want to retain the title of the only university in SA offering more than study? I would hope so. It needs to offer more support to activities that promote this culture. O'Camp for one. This year, O'Camp was canceled, due to lack of interest. Personally, I disagree with this. I say it wasn't allowed to happen, because so many limitations are placed on its advertising that there is no possible way it can generate any interest. Excuses such as, "we can't promote an event where alcohol is served to schools" is, to be blunt, absolute bollocks. Yes, you don't want to be describing O'Camp as a drunken orgy (no matter how close to the truth it may or may not be), but it has to be recognised that this is a responsible event, where alcohol is handled as it would be in any bar, club or bottle-shop. No ID, no service.

That being said, there is only so much the UofA high-up can do. And that's when the students need to take a good long look in the mirror. You may not think there are enough events on campus - well, I have a shocking revelation for you: events cost time and money. And money doesn't grow on trees. There is a reason that becoming a member of the AUU has a price (a terribly high one of $25, ohmygawsh - not) and that is so they can try and provide events, services, etc. to the students. If every student at UofA became a member, hell, if half of the students became members, you'd be looking at $200k minimum that could be spent on events, discounts, services, perks, you name it.

Even if (for some reason) you're horribly against unions of any kind, spending money at university facilities, funnily enough, benefits the university. That is, if you go up to the UniBar and buy a $10 jug, some of that $10 is going back towards other things that help you, as opposed to going to the Austral/Exeter/Elephant/Botanic, where no matter how much money you spend, you're probably not going to get anything beyond dehydration and a substantial gap in your memory of the evening's events - not that that doesn't happen at UniBar. But you get my point.
That being said, I wouldn't force you to eat at Mayo, because let's face it, that food is more often than not, terrible. But instead of grabbing your FUIC from the K-Foods, maybe poke your head in Mayo, or Briefs, or the Backstage Café.


Campus Culture is dying. We, the students, need to step up and revive it, and push for the UofA to do the same.

Modern Reality TV - All About Sex?

The 21st century has seen a huge increase in reality-style TV shows. Building from the competition-based Big Brother, American Idol and Popstars clones, more and more shows are beginning to move away from the competitive nature, and focus more on real-life situations, where drama does not need to be manufactured and forced through a group of people living in restricted space (because let's face it, drama is arguably the key audience winner for most of these shows). The main network to push out these new shows is without a doubt MTV, and for some time had a near-monopoly on the concept. Shows such as My Super Sweet 16 and Exiled are front-runners in setting the benchmark, however it was soon realised that a diverse range of shows was needed in order to fully capture the reality feel. The creation of the infamous Jackass franchise (and other related shows such as Viva la Bam and The Dudesons) is one example of this, as well as Ashton Kutcher's Punk'd, and the often laughable Pimp My Ride. What really seemed to provide everything an audience wanted, however, was Jersey Shore.

Jersey Shore copped a lot of flak for various reasons on its debut. Multiple Italian-American organisations felt that the show was bordering on racist, and the Governor of New Jersey expressed annoyance at the negativity thrown on New Jersey by the show, despite the fact that none of the cast members were from New Jersey. Needless to say, the show's popularity is undeniable, with multiple American spin-offs being produced, as well as Canadian and British versions. Whilst the first season only averaged 2.7 million viewers (keep in mind that 4.8 million watched the season finale), the second season averaged a stunning 5.252 million, and the third season premiere hit just under 8.5 million viewers - making it MTV's most viewed telecast of all time. That is until the second and fourth episodes were aired, garnering 8.57 and 8.87 million viewers respectively.

But what is it about Jersey Shore that makes it so appealing? Yes, it is rife with the drama that brings out the schadenfreude in all of us, but surely that can't be the only factor. It's openness towards sex, nightlife and general party aspects are undoubtedly as enticing as the constant disagreements, arguments and outright conflict.

And it's those last factors that really need to be looked at closely. In particular, sex. Today's society is far more open about sex and sexuality than it has been in decades. It's interesting to note that this openness is almost cyclic; by all accounts the ancient world was more open than today's, as well as the Renaissance world; however today the subject is far more acceptable than it was a hundred years ago. And TV programs are following this. Programs in the '70s - the age of 'free love' - were heavily censored, and it was not really until the late '00s that nudity and blatant sexual activity became acceptable to air - prime examples of this would be Rome, The Tudors, and Spartacus, just to name a few. While these are examples of fictional shows, the same has begun to happen in the reality world. My Super Sweet 16 has now become 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom. Sex is even spilling into competitive shows, with The Bachelor and The Bachelorette being replaced by shows such as A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. Whilst drama is again a key factor of these shows, I'm unwilling to suggest they'd be as successful without the blatant sexual overtones - and in some cases, sex acts.

A more recent show that has just finished airing is the product of the UK's Channel 4. Titled The Joy of Teen Sex, it is a semi-documentary, filmed in similar a format to 16 and Pregnant. The show aims to answer various questions that British teens may have regarding sex and their bodies, particularly focusing on questions that are likely to cause embarrassment. Through the use of real-life stories, a team of actors demonstrating sex acts, and investigative journalism (there is a teenage journalist with her own section), the show aims to provide as much information as possible. In some cases, quite graphic information.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. But there is a huge difference between suggestive silhouettes and full frontal nudity. And I'm still fine with full frontal. When it gets to the point of watching a bloke receive a Prince Albert piercing, or an in-depth examination of a girl's STI-ridden genitals (or picture thereof), I do have a little bit of a problem coping.

I suppose the question I'm asking is, how much information is too much information? Are we so desensitized that we need fully confrontational material in order to get the message home? Or do we just enjoy being confronted, or shocked?

More than anything, will we ever have a chance of breaking free of the grip of schadenfreude, or are we doomed to forever find the greatest joy in the distress of others?