Destroyed an economy recently? Have a bonus!

Despite the US Government handing out $125 Billion to struggling financial institutions across America, employees within these organizations are still being awarded hefty bonuses.

Companies such as the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers managed to shrewdly pocket millions of dollars ($20 million, in Lehman Brothers’ case) specifically to hand out as 2008 bonuses to their New York employees – keeping this money separate from bankruptcy filings in a perfectly legal way ensured the share holders and investors couldn’t get their destitute paws on any of it, and Lehman Brothers can still take a bite out of the Bail Out cash.

Now I’m sure it’s not just me, but something seems inherently wrong with this. Okay, so $20 million is a third less than Lehman Brothers’ bonus allocations last year.

But it really seems like a lot for a company that is totally bankrupt and desperately funneling state money into its system to prop the entire company up.

The excuse coming from both Lehman Brothers and the apparently floundering Goldman Sachs ($16 million in bonuses for those guys) is that dishing out bonuses of over $100,000 to each of their top employees will let the most brilliant minds in the business know how much they’re valued, and encourage them to stick around.

Given the state of the US economy, I’m not so sure keeping the guys largely responsible for the meltdown around is a great idea.

by Alex Caton

Injustice system for Terrorism

Terrorism has been a real life experience for many people around the world in recent years. And it is one of those things were justice is often never reached. Thousands of people lost their lives when the Twin Towers went down in September 2001, and then the Bali bombings a year and a month later hit Australia more closely.

With the Bali bombers’ execution scheduled next month, I wonder why it has taken so long for these horrendous people to be dealt their punishment?
The Bali bombings were in October 2002 – over six years ago, and we are still a few weeks away from Amrozi, Mukhlas and Samudra facing the firing squad.

I am aware that it takes time for cases to be constructed and brought against them, but six years is, in my opinion, excessive!

I’m not a believer in the death penalty and have held that opinion for some time, however, I do believe that there are exceptional circumstances when the death penalty is the only option. And when it comes to acts of global terrorism, when thousands of innocent people are killed, those responsible should die also.

Why is it that people who cause so much death and destruction in the world, like terrorists, are given an extra six years of life, when they didn’t give their victims a choice in the matter. A justice system is supposed to be give just that – justice.

And when you compare the sentence for an act of terrorism to that of drug smuggling, they are the same. Sure, drug smugglers can kill people as a result of their actions, but the deceased had a say in their fate: victims of terrorism don’t.

It took the Bali bomber’s trial three years longer to come up the same verdict as the Bali Nine – death. Surely an act of terrorism, where the perpetrators credit themselves for the act, is much easier to establish blame than for drug smugglers, who may actually be innocent?

By Lauren Weier

Is Brisbane a participant on Extreme Makeover?

Fortitude Valley's China Town mall is set for an $8 million redevelopment. China Town mall's most distinguishing figure, the pagodas, will probably be removed after being deemed a public safety risk. Authentic well-priced restaurants and teahouses line the mall, which also features prominently in Saturday markets.

As it stands, China Town is charming. It has this nostalgic, bohemian aesthetic only invigorated by its antique slightly out-of-date look. This is what will be squashed into the ground by an $8 million makeover.

The recent influx of fashionable incentives in the Valley are disconcerting. Town planners want to get rid of the area's bad image and create another TCB arcade, which was not a huge success.

Brisbane has become renowned for knocking down antique buildings in deference to sleek, modern architecture. Another current example of this is the CBD's Regent cinema, ear-marked for redevelopment.

Business owners have to close shop during the redevelopment, thought to take four weeks, and will be offered no compensation for lost revenue.

Written by Emma Carroll.

Passing the broken baton

Americans are just one week away from deciding who will inherit an economy in recession and a government with beetroot-red bank sheets of unparalelled proportions.

Since June, when Democrats chose Illinois Senator Barack Obama to wave the blue flag, it’s really been Obama all the way. The Republican camp scored a short ride of success when they plucked Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin from political obscurity and thrust her behind Arizona Senator John McCain as his running mate, but the country’s conservative party have faltered again in the polls. Now, it could be too late. Reports have surfaced of hockey-mum Palin’s rifts with the Republican camp and her family’s spender bender on the campaign trail.

While national security pushed the masses towards the incumbent Republicans in 2004, the biggest issue of this year’s election is an obvious one - Americans this will approach the polling booths on November 4 with their wallets a little lighter than they’d like. Bill Clinton was right. It’s the economy, stupid.

The tidal wave of economic turmoil has been visible since Bear Sterns collapsed in March, but its only now, at the meaty end of the campaign, that the debris is really starting to wash ashore. Home prices are shot, banks are prudent, growth is next to nothing and everyone is blaming everyone else.

So it’s obvious that what the world’s largest economy needs now is a hasty injection of common sense.

Barack Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the population. That other five per cent (you know, the ones who aren’t sure how many houses they own ), who have seen such massive gains over the past quarter-century compared to average wages, will face increased taxes. This is what Obama means when he talks about “redistributing the wealth”. Contrary to Republican rhetoric, this is not the return of socialism. It’s the return of common sense, something the US government lacked over the last eight years. It’s a tried and tested method. Robin Hood used to do it, remember?

This year’s Nobel laureate for Economics, New York Times columnist (and my pick personal pick for President of the World) Paul Krugman pointed out in his 2007 book Conscience of a Liberal that America’s Gilded Age of the 1920s has come hurtling back – once again greed is king, big corporate pay-packets fashionable and social and wealth disparity in America are at levels not seen since before the Great Depression. It’s been a new golden era for the supply-siders among us – those that believe a 'rising tide lifts all boats'. But it’s important to be weary of such claims. As Krugman points out, when Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average salary in the room goes through the roof. But nobody actually gets any richer.

The flailing economy has been a gift for Obama in this election, because I think Americans are starting to realise what this startling disparity of wealth is doing to them personally. They see their weekly expenditures rising while their wages stay stagnant. They see their debt rising, their home values depreciating, the price of fuel soaring and they know it’s going to be a bleak Christmas if something doesn’t change soon.

I think common sense will prevail. Common sense will put the best man in charge. And it has to, because America: The ship is sinking. We can all see the holes. You need to give the steering wheel to the one with best plan to steady ship, otherwise you’re going down. And you’re going to bring us all down with you.

by Paul Donoughue

Memo to Rudd: Gen Y misses out

Your generation of greedy, big spenders missed out in last week’s $10 billion economic Rescue Package. Gen Y, coined as the most materialistic yet, didn’t receive a cent to stimulate the economy. It’s ironic that those most likely to spend up big in the eyes of society weren’t considered in Rudd’s nationwide shopping spree.

Three quarters of Australian families will receive a once-off, tax-free payment of $1,000 for each child in care, and pensioners will receive $1400. While families with children who receive the Youth Allowance or Abstudy will share in $3.9 billion allocated, it seems independent students, those just graduating and entering the workforce on starting salaries, and young professionals working their way up wont benefit at all.

Either choosing to ignore the youth of Australia was a huge mistake in his attempt to boost the economy, or Kevin Rudd knows something the rest of society doesn’t. Maybe Gen Y isn’t the selfish, consumerist youth predicted but genuinely living it tough.

When university students camped out overnight in the streets of Brisbane to protest exorbitant rental and living costs, it became apparent that many young people have more important concerns than the latest fashion trends.

How about abolishing that HECS debt (no wait, now a HELP debt), that will total $40,000 by graduation. Eliminating payments of $100 out of each week’s pay check for a decade would certainly provide an opportunity for frivolous spending among those apparently most likely to do so.

But it seems Rudd intuitively knew that the youth do have the ability to manage their money properly. Australia’s generation of spenders would have made sensible choices if given a handout in last week’s package, and this is probably why they missed out.

The true motivation behind Rescue Package is for families to spend on toys and pensioners to spend on pokies. Whichever, it’s not fair to group all young Australians as part of the selfish, insatiable Gen Y.

By Freya Longhurst

Is Diving cheating Australia out of soccer acceptance?

In a recent article on www.foxsports.com.au discussing the widespread issue of diving or simulation in Australia’s National soccer league, the Hyundai A-league, some issues came to light regarding the fact that in the fight for legitimacy of football (soccer) in the eyes of the Australian public, diving has to be stamped out even if it means post match reviews and penalties.

Anyone who watched Australia’s efforts at the last world cup remembers the controversial penalty issued against Australia to Italy in the dying moments of the crucial game. The end result of that was Australia being kicked out of the cup after Italy won 1-0 and went on to claim the world cup title that year. Diving in soccer has always been a contentious issue, as often the referee cannot see the exact goings on, on the field, compared to television viewers who get numerous playbacks from pretty much every angle possible.

The A-league’s top referee Mark Shields, who has refereed at two world cups retired last week and voiced his own opinion on the matter. He said that if Football (soccer) in Australia was ever to gain the credibility that it deserved, simulation would have to be dealt with. In comparison to other prominent Australian sports that are perceived to be rough and tumble with big bulky men of men, football players cannot be seen falling over at the slightest touch and appealing for penalties.

The Football Federation of Australia has already showed an incline to include powers of review in cases of other actions, so why not simulation?

Is McDonalds the new Marlborough?

This week (which is coincidently National Children’s Week) the QLD government is calling for people to comment about their proposal to restrict junk food ads on television - and particularly to ban them during the hours kids are most likely to be watching.

With childhood obesity a very real and growing problem in our country (we are now the fattest per capita nation in the world!) the proposed ban is timely, if not a little overdue.

This type of restriction on advertising a certain product draws parallels to the 1992 Tobacco Advertising Prohibition which banned all forms of advertising tobacco in Australia.

Which therefore leads me to think about the similarities between McDonalds and Marlborough cigarettes.

-Both have the capacity to kill you
- both are addictive
-both give an immediate positive feeling followed soon after by feeling terrible
-people often lie about how frequent they use both
-people can have both out of habit rather than actual enjoyment

We are already well aware of the health problems related to smoking such as cancer, heart disease and emphysema but is it common knowledge that around 100,000 Australians a year are diagnosed with diabetes and if the current rate of obesity continues, by 2010, 70% of Australians will be clinically obese?

So if we wouldn’t give children cigarettes..?

By Kay Picton

Killing crocs is not the answer.

The past few weeks have seen calls for crocs to be culled. And this time the focus of this statement isn’t on those fluoro clown shoes, but rather on the reptiles that have become an iconic part of the Australian identity. It seems people have forgotten the legendary characters of the Crocodile Hunter and Crocodile Dundee, famous for creating awareness about these animals that lurk beneath our murky waters. And one thing that was always made clear by these men is to never harm the animal, which is now apparently the solution to preventing croc attacks.

The death of Queensland holidaymaker Arthur Booker in Cooktown has sparked a heated discussion about the right path of resolution for these attacks. And more recently, reports have surfaced about an angry croc who is stalking labourers working on the Albert River Bridge, in Burketown.

Independent MP for Kennedy Bob Katter says the crocodile is threatening humans, therefore humans should have the right to threaten the crocodile.

But what he is failing to understand is the crocodile is only threatening the humans because they have entered its territory. Every animal, including humans, feels the need to protect their home.

These angry crocs are clearly protecting their territory. Mr Booker went into an area that was clearly marked as a crocodile habitat, and the croc retailated. Similarily, the crocodile in Burketown is agitated because its mate was killed and decapitated by trophy hunters. Not only is this act despicable, but it is also illegal.

Koorana Saltwater Crocodile Farm spokesperson Lillian Lever says people need to leave these animals alone or at least be aware of the areas where these creatures live.

If people advocate the killing of crocodiles there is the chance that they will be wiping out sectors of the ecosystem. The killing of these predators means their prey, further down on the food chain, will be able to breed and become the new large predators. This group then has the potential to completely wipe out their prey by outnumbering and overpowering them.

The killing of crocodiles is not the answer, because the flow-on effects are a lot deeper than they appear. These creatures were around long before humans, and we must understand their behaviours and respect their environment in order to protect this species. They are a part of Australia’s identity, and an important part of the natural order of things.

Read more about the recent crocodile attacks at QUT News.

By Elisha Hulme.

Is technology killing the younger generation?

A recent study has found that over use of technology and lack of sleep is increasing the rate of anxiety in children and that one in five kids, as young as the age of three, will suffer from some form of disorder.
We are constantly hearing about what technology is doing wrong. When will we stop and realise that technology is in our own hands. It doesn’t have a mind of its own. Is technology killing children? Or could it be more likely that parents just don’t have enough time these days to monitor their children’s behaviour.

Now, there is no doubt that current rate of technological advancement has created problems both within the household and as society as a whole, however who can we blame but ourselves.

These figures are on the rise and until and unless we realise that the power is in our own hands, society and in particular the future generations will continue to suffer as a result of the negative effects of technology.

Technology is such a massive part of our lives and without the advancements that we are witnessing today, the world would not be the same. It’s impossible to imagine life without our iPods, computers, mobile phones and other such devices, workplaces would not even function, yet we continue to hold society’s technological advancements responsible for everything that goes wrong and out of our control.

Parents should take full control and responsibility for the development of their own children and realise that the negative effects can be limited or eliminated through the art of discipline.

If a five year old child is anxious due to over-exposure of technology, who is to blame? The child who can’t make any decisions on its own, the television that gets switched on in the morning and off at night or the parents who have complete control from both sides and are able to make decisions to limit and moderate the use of such devices. All they have to do is flick the switch at the right time and they can save their child’s life.

The advancement of Technology is a sign of growth in the society we live in. We have to learn to adapt in order to be able to survive in this generation. This is just the beginning.

The use of any anything to extremes, without moderation will ultimately create a negative effect. If I have a headache, two panadols will get rid of the pain. If I pop ten pills instead, I’ll overdose, my liver will fail and could die within days. Food is great. Everyone loves a good meal at least 3 times a day with a few snacks in between. If we eat more than this, if we consistently stuff our faces with every kind of food that comes our way, we’ll get really sick and will also have a string of health issues to deal with. Does this mean that food is bad for us? Is food killing us? Could we perhaps be killing ourselves?

Technology can also be used in a way to create positive benefits. With parental intervention and guidance technology can also increase the quality of life in many ways. The most important thing to remember is moderation. If parents minimize the exposure of all forms of technology and monitor their child’s absorption than they’re on the right track.

As access to technology to increases, the concerns of the negative effects and over-exposure also increase. Parents must become a part of their child’s culture and take an active and positive role in monitoring their access to all forms of technology. In this way our future generations will learn these skills for themselves and in turn lead happier lives.

by Sepeedeh Daliri

Read article

Let intelligence decide, not an inquiry.

Universities are not intended to be closed-in worlds. They should reflect the real environment as a place for students to learn different ideas and challenge existing ones. So it seems worrying that some of our universities’ academics are now the subject of a Senate inquiry into supposed left-leaning prejudice in their teachings.

The inquiry into academic freedom in universities began in Sydney this week, after the Young Liberals movement claimed some professors are inflicting cultural and ideological biases on students. The group has submitted blacklists to the inquiry, naming those they believe frequently teach left-wing ideas. A number of academics are now facing the investigation, which the NSW Greens are calling a ‘witch-hunt’ threatening the academic autonomy of the tertiary system.

Indeed, this inquiry into academic freedom seems an attack on freedom itself. Professors should be given the independence and the trust to present ideas fairly, in the way they deem they are best taught. Now, a number of academics have to justify this independence, when clearly their years of service to education should warrant their positions as qualified teachers. Such an investigation sends a serious message that academics are being watched, and could face retribution if they teach what some students do not want to hear. The Young Liberals are now calling for an academic bill of rights dictating how courses should be formed and presented. Does this not contradict academic diversity? Telling universities how and what to teach suppresses scholarly freedom and the nurturing of new ideas.

The mere fact it was set up at the request of students from a single political persuasion signals a distorted approach to academic examination. Surely, students of other ideals should also express concern before such inquiries are even deemed possible. Would these students be so concerned if the views being taught aligned precisely with theirs? Earlier in the year the Young Liberals ran the ‘Make Education Fair’ campaign, asking students to report staff expressing anti-Liberal views. Surely a movement seeking to expose anyone with a conflicting view is a direct example of the political control they seem so eager to condemn.

Undoubtedly, university courses should be taught on the basis of ideological pluralism and accurate context, and students marked by the merit of their work rather than their political beliefs. And indeed, some academics do share their political views with students. But this should not be a cause for alarm. There is a big difference between sharing a view and forcing it upon others. By the time young people enter tertiary study, they have the intelligence to pick and choose the ideas they will accept. University is not meant to guide you along the status quo with values corresponding to your own. The real world is not like that. It is not always comfortable. This seems quite obvious. Everyday various conflicting ideologies meet us which we must process and deal with. University should be a place to hone this skill. Strong minds are formed by hearing an opinion, processing it alongside one’s own beliefs and life experiences, and choosing to believe or reject it.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the standard of teaching at our universities. Yet, this inquiry appears impulsive and one-sided. It demeans the integrity of professors and the intelligence of students. I remember when a teacher once told a class to consider voting for Labor at the next election. At first, the words seemed overly direct and uncomfortable. Yet, I chose to accept the point of view as one of many I face every day and left it at that. No offence taken. At the next election I will be voting by my own views, on what I’ve learned and understood from myriad experiences. That class will be long forgotten.

Natalie Alexander

Energex deny power lines link to cancer

Energex energy company has made a proposal to upgrade power to the Tugun Desalination Plant on the southern end of the Gold Coast and for a predicted 60,000 future homes.
This upgrade will see 110,000 volt overhead power lines built through residential areas from Mudgeeraba to Tugun. There has been concerns from community groups who argue there will be impacts on environment, property values and the health of residents.
The health concerns are in regards to electromagnetic emissions from overhead power lines as there is no conclusive research to prove the power lines are safe. Energex deny there are any serious health effects as a result of their power lines yet due to the lack of conclusive research, the route for the power lines has been altered to avoid a local school.
If Energex are so sure that their overhead power lines are safe then why have they changed the route so that the power lines aren’t near any schools? This appears to be an indication that they are not confident that their power lines are safe, despite their statements that they are.

Australian Oncologist Ray Lowenthal believes there is a connection between high-voltage power lines and serious health issues such as cancer.
is responsible for a study into electromagnetic emissions and their relation to health issues such as leukaemia, depression and suicide. His study shows that children living near high-voltage power lines are more likely to develop cancer. It was found that people who live within 300 metres of power lines when they were children are more likely to suffer from cancer.

Energex should take responsibility for their role in the health of communities and at least have an open mind in regards to the research that is presented to them.

For more information about Ray Lowenthal’s research into the relationship between electromagnetic emissions and cancer visit the following web addresses which may make this a little clearer and understandable.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/research-underlines-powerline-cancer-risk/2007/08/21/1187462266196.html

http://www.emfmeter.com.au/electromagneticfield.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/22/2011993.htm

By Natascha Schwartz

Mirror mirror on the wall who is more real than me?

Madrid’s move to ban overly-skinny models from its catwalks received world-wide applause last September, inspiring Italy to follow suit, with Paris and London fashion bigwigs at least discussing the issue. Australia, never far behind, is now attempting to introduce a national fashion industry code of conduct. The proposed code forces magazines to feature normal-sized models and confess when photographs have been airbrushed.

Youth Minister (yes a Youth Minister) Kate Ellis plans to attack the portrayal of stick-thin women by glamorous, fashion, media and advertising industries which she says is “contributing to a generation of children suffering from eating disorders”. Ms Ellis wants a transparent system where people realise models in those pictures don't look like themselves. Well Duh!

Magazines, just as they are placed on racks, can be categorically organised. Woman’s Day and New Idea type magazines are entirely founded on “real people”. Sports mags feature the athletic, toned, sculpted bodies of those who excel in their field. Teen magazines like Girlfriend and Dolly showcase young, bubbly, flirtatious personalities housed in energetic bodies. In recent year’s teen mags have done well introducing healthy bodies to its glossy pages. Yes, Mary-Kate Olsen, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie make several appearances but not without the Magazine’s own criticism of their less than “appetising” behaviour. Australians are seeing more of themselves on the pages of glamour magazines and naturally that’s a good thing.

Australia's number one women’s lifestyle magazine Cosmopolitan Magazine feature fuller figured women frequently. They endorse the hightly popular Dove campaign promoting healthy sexy bodies in all sizes. Australians and Australian publications are clueing on to the real-size phenomenon, so why force feed an unnecessary regulation?

The problem seems to be the waive-thin models in high end, designer-orientated, fashion forward magazines. It’s unrealistic to suggest these publications need to surrender to the proposed code. We shouldn’t glorify eating disorders or parade them about as images of beauty; say no to dehydrated-near-collapsing models. Ban and refuse to use the current breed of size-double zero, unhealthily thin models but don’t strike down the image of thin models all together- they serve a purpose.

Needless to say, it would be nice to see Janie, who lives next door, on the shiny pages of a fashion magazine, or alternatively Janie’s mum with all her beautiful imperfections and human like qualities- but who wants to see real people in Vogue?

In a nation of women averagely size 14-16 it certainly is difficult to justify the difference between a healthy size 8 and anorexic size 8. It does exist. Skinny and unhealthy, though hard to believe, are severable.

Editor for Vogue Kirstie Clements told the Courier Mail this week she believes beautiful young people belong on the escapist pages of a fashion magazine, not real women of different sizes. "It's about beautiful young girls creating beautiful fantasies; it always has been it always will be.” Flipping through Vogue takes you to another world, the same world where you believe Aladdin will whisk you away on his magic carpet. A size 16 woman in a four hundred thousand dollar Karl Largerfeld for Chanel, haute couture, diamond encrusted gown, defeats the mesmerising fanciful vision altogether. Aside from that, what real person can afford the clothes? Not only is the model’s form unrealistic but so is the affordability of almost all garments and novel play things featured in high end fashion magazines. Logically what’s next then, real healthy price tags?

Regulating the size of models in fashion magazine is only a band-aid, feel-good, superficial approach to addressing more a serious public health issues. Understandably any little step helps but attacking magazines that rest on the unrealistic appearance of women is not a certain fix.

Society isn’t imperceptive it deserves more credit, people know waive airbrushed bodies are unattainable for a reason; they’re not real they’re edited. If the Government wants to test Australia’s intelligence and assent to the code of conduct go right ahead. The identity of high end fashion magazines will revolutionise into a picture of “me in an outfit I can’t afford, with a haircut I could never maintain, in a house I could only dream of”- an emulation of real people in unreal situations. Mission accomplished.

Nashneen Mohammed.

America, where personality wins over policy

Politics can be defined as the activities and policies involved in managing a government. The definition does not include the fame or personality traits of the person behind the policies yet continuously in election campaigns we see the public voting for a personality not the policies.

This can be seen in the current American Presidential Campaign with the Sarah Palin action figure, and Barack Obama being called a terrorist sympathiser because he had worked on legitimate community projects with a 1960s activist.

Is any of this relevant to what these politicians plan to do for America and its people if they become president?

Most of the political campaigns in the United States have been focused on character assassination and manipulating the public into refocusing their attention on the personalities of each party, instead of the critical policies. America faces many issues that have no end in sight with the financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the numerous health care calamities and global climate change. With their country in such a state of affairs it is especially significant at this time that America people elect a government based on policy not on personality.

The Times wrote today “those giving the thumbs-up [to Sarah Palin] must also believe Americans to be simple suckers for a wink, a dropped “g” on a verb, and the use of the odd folksy phrase. You betcha. Doggone it. She’s a bump on a log. Darn right.”

It appears as though Sarah Palin has managed to dodge every threat of answering a question on policy without an autocue and Americans know this. The media are talking about it; the Democrats are talking about it but her charming pit-bull with lipstick, hocky mum persona wins again.

Although this is so, Palin did lose her battle of dodging the ‘real questions’ when she was faced with a CBS interview. It is clear that personality wins over policy when Sarah Palin remains popular despite her comments to CBS journalist Katie Couric. Palin was asked about the very important bailout package offered by the American Government to save their financial market and her response was this quite concerning. As a CNN reporter said, if the Republicans are voted into government, Sarah Palin is only one step away from becoming president if John McCain at 72 years-old becomes incapable of his presidential duties. Keep this firmly in your mind when you watch Palin’s comments.

Let’s just hope that the American people use some skills in common sense and good judgement and wake up from the nightmare mistaken for a dream that is Sarah Palin. The reality is the true Sarah Palin won’t live up to her action figure. She won’t save the America and the world. She will instead, just like George W. Bush Junior, lie and fumble her way through her position without concern, spending most of her time shooting moose and using Air Force One to take the kids to hockey.

By Natascha Schwartz

Rhetoric wins over the world

Obama fever is sweeping the globe. The latest Reader’s Digest poll shows that if the world could vote, democratic candidate Barack Obama would make history as the first black American president.

The results of the 17-nation survey are quite astounding. All but the United States say they would vote Obama into the White House by a landslide, with republican candidate John McCain trailing in the popularity stakes by wide margins. Australians have eagerly caught the Obama wave, with 76 per cent saying if they had a vote he’d be their pick.

But what is it about Obama, and the US elections in general, that awes so many foreigners? The United States may be one of the most powerful nations in the world, yet there is something different about this year’s election. It seems countries with no say in the vote are waiting with even more excitement and expectancy than ever before to see who will take the leadership of the free world.

Certainly, the grandiose manner of both candidates’ campaigns plays a part in their foreign appeal. Australians seem fascinated by the soaring rhetoric and huge election rallies that have taken place across the many states. Never in Australia do we see thousands crowd into sports stadiums filled with singing, cow boot-tapping citizens for a campaign speech. The process is so far removed from our own that even their dramatic television ads seem fascinating.

Yet it seems this rhetoric is working. In many ways the candidates' personalities, not necessarily their policy, is winning over the world. The news reports we see and hear in Australia do not always have the detail needed to fully understand each candidate’s position on policy matters. In a news story limited by time and space, it’s always the best and sharpest quote or fact that makes the final cut. Obama’s charm, soaring speeches and calls for change are making the world tingle with excitement like never before.

Many Americans are also captivated by the Illinois senator. Yet, the poll shows the US is the only country that would not lift Obama to the presidency. Perhaps the focus on personality is wearing thin. Perhaps Americans, at first so excited by a change in leadership, are not so sure after all. Perhaps America, a country well-known for speakers of colourful rhetoric and symbolism, isn’t as convinced by Obama’s words as the latest polls suggest.

November’s election is proving one of the most widely anticipated in history, and Obama has four weeks left to convince American voters he’s the right man with the right policy for the job. Too bad we can’t vote.

Natalie Alexander

What climate crisis?

New survey results have found Australians are losing interest in climate change and almost 2 million are denying the problem even exists. The Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute's third annual climate change survey also found one in 10 Australians strongly agreed with the statement "I have serious doubts about whether climate change is occurring".

The Australian media have made a big deal about these new figures, implying Aussies are simply bored with the issue and have called on government bodies to further enforce the problem. It may seem like startling information but aren't they over exagerating a bit?

We're in a global economic crisis right now and of course that will be playing on everyone's mind. It's taking a big toll on our pockets and has consequently pushed many other important issues aside.


The financial market will eventually improve on its own (with the help of governments and financial institutions of course) but the climate crisis will not. We as a population are directly responsible for many of the earth's environmental problems and people will still take responsibility for their actions.

Climate Institute cheif executive officer John Conner says climage change and water are still the top issues in terms of people's long term concerns.

Organisations like Oxfam also haven't found any decline in interest. They're currently running a climate change campaign titled 'Canvas For Change', focusing on the global impacts of the issue.


And it's programs and awareness campaigns like these that will forever remind us of the situation we've put ourselves in.


People may have lost interest now but when the economic problems resolve, people will once again take notice of the climate crisis.


Emily Mobbs

Public servant deserve what they ask for

Public servants are some of the hardest working people in this country and the fact the State Government are so complacent about their wages is just ridiculous! That is just part of the issue, they are not all payed the same, public servants in health for example get payed more than those in education despite working in the same position. Furthermore those who work in the private sector as against the goverment sector also get paid more.

The Government need to step up and do something soon before the Queensland Public Sector Union and public servants walk off the job completely. These workers have been rallying for so long just to get the slightest increase in pay. I think they have every right to get what they are asking for, no matter what the inflation rate is. 3.25 per cent, I think is very reasonable and that is just the minimum so the least the Government should do is give them that.

Everyone knows what went on with Work Choices and now the Federal Government is turning this around. Public sector wages are just as unjust as Work choices so how can anyone be so different on the two issues. If government’s kept Australian workers happy and treated them more fairly, the country would be in a far better position.

There is no point describing our country as the best country in the world and continuously talk up our standard of our working environment when the Government cannot deliver. Just look at the global credit crisis, in particular Wall Street and the state of the US economy; they have got into the position due to greed. If the State Government are not prepared to give public servants what they deserve, simply because they think they are asking too much than it is a real shame and sooner or later it will have greater consequences.

By Stephanee Muir

Wage increase: a bandaid solution?

It’s about time the Government pulled their socks up and topped up the pockets of the minimum wage worker.

The number of people I have met who have had to move back home or defer from uni because they could not afford to support themselves continues to grow.
We all know the price of living is going up – we only need to look at our grocery bills to see that. We also need to acknowledge that the price of petrol and owning a car is becoming astronomical.

And what about students living out of home? Trying to juggle full-time uni classes with work commitments – work commitments that need to be substantial enough to afford rent (the rates of which are on the rise), food, electricity and the other plethora of bills that come with supporting yourself. It really is becoming ridiculous. It almost seems like an extra $26.66 is only a bandaid solution for a rates issue that, from what statistics show, is only going to continue to skyrocket.

I personally am fortunate to be living at home - even though I am not on the minimum wage, I still can barely afford to cover my life expenses. With an unfortunate combination of uni classes resulting in quite an unreliable schedule, I am only able to work two shifts at my job this semester which leaves me with $200 per week. Deduct from that a $50 tank of petrol plus mobile phone expenses, public transportation to work, food and living – it doesn’t go very far.

So Government, thank you. But what plans or strategies do you have in place to combat future rises in the price of living? Some retailers are already feeling the effect this has when applying the wage increase to a full staff list. Yes it is easy for us to look individually at our back pockets with a smile, but these increases affect the employer too. So it seems this $26.66 is only a temporary solution for the minimum wage worker and a current problem for the employer.

By Tys van der Drift

Got sleep?

The idea of having sleep guidelines for under achieving teens and children in Australia sounds ridiculous. Yes, sleep is important but surely having the government consider sleep guidelines for teens, brings to light a few issues.

Firstly, should this issue of teens and children having trouble with living up to their full potential in school be resolved by sleep guidelines, there’s a matter of how following these guidelines would be monitored. It’s just like the law released this year of banning parents from smoking in the car with children. It only seems to make sense to that this law be passed and is just common knowledge not to smoke in such a confined space with children present, yet there are those who continue to do so. Surely not every offender of this law will be caught by police or at least it would be difficult to do so unless police are at the ‘right place at the right time’. Same sort of idea may be applied to that of sleep guidelines.

In regard to possibly having sleep guidelines in the future, the issue basically comes down to the influences children and teens have at home. After University of South Australia professor Timothy Olds conducted the research of teen sleep patterns, they found the link between sleep patterns and weight gain, saying children and teens that have less sleep are more likely to develop problems. The parents and caretakers of these teens and children who are not doing well academically are perhaps to blame for not setting the example. From my point of view, it’s down to home environment and influences away from school. By the age of ten, surely young people would have a fair idea of how their bodies work and know when they’re tired and need rest. Yet another thing to ponder...

By Teza Altez

North Bank: No Way

With more than 1200 public submissions opposing redevelopment plans for the Brisbane River pouring into the Queensland Government’s mailroom, Anna Bligh is apparently still not getting the message.

Brisbane citizens do not want the proposed North Bank.

As yesterday marked the deadline for the public to submit their views on the $1.5 billion proposal, academics, architects, and residents are practically falling over themselves to tell the Government why the riverside development should not go ahead.

Earlier this year, University of Queensland Associate Professor and award-winning architect Peter Skinner described the project as an unwelcome intrusion on the river and that development company Multiplex was treating the river like a “vacant lot”.
In a city ravaged by roadwork’s, eyesore sky scrapers, and more half built tunnels and bridges than one can keep track of , the Brisbane River is one of the city’s defining landmarks. The plans include covering a wide stretch of the river under seven high-rise buildings.

Even back in June last year, National Trust of Queensland executive director Stewart Armstrong opposed the plans. He said North Bank would severe the historical links between Brisbane’s CBD and the river. The Queen’s Wharf and Commissariat Store, built in 1829 using convict labour, is among the sites set to be replaced by high rises.

With so much history at stake, Brisbane is under serious threat of becoming a faceless city, lacking character but boasting enough ugly modern developments to rival the most over-developed and under- appreciated cities around the world.

Liam Parsons

Vote 1 Common Sense

Watching the interviews with Sarah Palin on ABC with Charles Gibson, I am slightly fascinated with the latest instalment to the Republican campaign.

I soon realised while watching the interview, McCain wasn’t looking for the most experienced running mate in America (I guess thats obivous). He was looking for what I would call, a strong political statement that is going to reach a large contingent of America.

Despite her insular existence up there amongst the captivating peaks and troughs as the female version of the ‘governator’ of Alaska, Palin represents something pure to those who choose to listen to her speeches about 'god given rights'. And yes these are the ‘hockey mums’, the pro-life, church going, 4WD wielding white women who despite what anyone says, are alive, well and kicking (there are others Im too scared to mention).

Despite the recent polls (see The Age) showing ‘the Palin effect’ is on the wane, she maintains a level of popularity that surely cant be justified.

Realistically Palin isn’t particularly media savvy which may end up being her downfall, but she has the charm when it comes to standing up and pleasing the masses with catchy one-liners and getting the big wild cheers from adoring fans. But she fails to answer the big questions when in the hot seat.

She ain’t suitable on the world stage and she may just plunge the US back into the depths of despair, where it has been for quite some time now. Matt Damon referred to her as ‘terrifying’ but probably not as scary as the dinosaurs she referred to that walked the earth only 4000 years ago (true story).

The worst part about all of this is for intelligent Americans, it doesn’t really matter what she says, she’s already got half of the US on her side than doesn’t mind the old pre-emptive strike or carrying a gun in case you need to 'shoot first then ask questions later'.

If anything, this woman has reaffirmed the inherent problem with America: the demos, the mob, call it what you will, puts in power who they want (the majority seem to want to their protect their right to life by carrying a gun - Palins all for it). Unfortunately this election (like the last) will come down to the people pulling their heads in and putting their vote where it counts.

Can I just say when the time comes, "Vote 1 Common Sense".

Written By Daniel Challis

Tax the polluters, don't pinch the pennies

It seems Kevin '07's luxury car tax is back with a vengance, with Family First Senator Steve Fielding backing the Bill.

If it goes ahead, the tax means almost $400 million in the Government budget coffers to spend on whatever they please.

We hope they'll spend the money on public education and health, but they may just end up spending it on fixing an environment that their tax does nothing to help!

Kevin '07 harps on about saving the environment - but where's the action?

This luxury car tax COULD be changed to a high carbon emission vehichles tax, charging people for polluting the planet and rewarding those who don't.

Instead, Kev's aimed his tax at those who can afford to line his pockets.

Some would call this penny-pinching.

The Government retaliates that by not supporting the tax, we're taking money away from public schools. Aren't we bastards?!

So here's the predicament: a person could, if they were so inclined, import the latest top-end, high performance electric car from overseas, reducing their carbon emissions considerably and hopefully starting a trend.

The cost of this endevour would incur a tax for being a luxury vehicle and for the same combined cost of car and taxes, one could purchase two V8 sedans and personally punch an extra hole in the ozone layer or melt a polar ice-cap.

But at least the kids will be getting smarter.

Perhaps they will realise the error of our ways.

-By Andrew Halliday

Disgraced Broncos embroiled in sex allegations

Someone should tell Police and Sport Minister Judy Spence she's got her wires crossed. We all know that you should never mix sport with politics. But what about sport with police matters?

It seems this week Ms Spence has had a major conflict of interest between one 24-year-old woman's sexual assault claims and boosting the profile of this weekends finals clash between the Broncos and the Melbourne Storm.

Ms Spence told Brisbane Times on Tuesday, fans needed to get behind Bennett and his beloved Broncos and put aside the sex allegations.

The Police minister seemed to be missing the point when she played down the severity of claims made against the three players: Sam Thaiday, Darius Boyd and Karmichael Hunt.

She said it was "far too early to start saying that their image is tarnished..." But lets face it, who is she kidding?

Their image has been tarnished and Ms Spence has probably done more bad than good by coming out and saying a game of football is more important than speeding up an investigation to get to the bottom of the alleged incident.

She makes the point that we cannot jump to conclusions based on what we know so far, but I ask the question. Who does she represent?

She clearly in this instance has taken the side of promoting sport over a hard-line approach to combating a big problem in Brisbane: a sport/drinking culture.

The ABC's The World Today revealed sexual health workers were questioning the minister’s judgments.

Vocal 2GB radio host Ray Hadley also spoke out against the minister in an interview with Professor Catherine Lumby from the Education and Welfare Committee for the NRL, saying "she (the minister) sounds like she's a candidate for the cheer leading squad at Brisbane."

In fact there has been general condemnation across the state of Queensland over Ms Spence’s lack of forethought in addressing the allegations.

According to a news poll containing 84 comments on the Daily Telegraph website, a resignation is in order for not only the three players accused but also the minister herself.

This may be going too far.

But while Darren Lockyer (who is facing some unwanted media attention of his own) palms off tricky questions at press conferences and Broncos boss Bruno Cullen sweats over yet another incident involving his players (four players in the last two years have been sacked due to poor conduct, not to mention one of the alleged, Karmichael Hunt being banned from the Uber Lounge in West End), it seems someone, somewhere has to draw the line in the sand.

Broncos haven't sacked their players (if they were second-grade players they would have been out the door Monday morning).

Ms Spence has well and truly confirmed her stance on the matter.

So if neither of these two bodies will step up and make an example of these three (or four) louts, then who will? Maybe Melbourne's up for the task.

Written by Daniel Challis

HIV and sex workers

A Canberra man has been jailed for three months for acting as a sex worker with HIV and hepatitis C.

Hector Scott never transmitted any diseases, but ACT law forbids any HIV positive people from working in the sex industry.

The laws here in Queensland are similar - and to make sure, we've even got mandatory health checks and blood tests for sex workers.

So should laws like this be implemented in every state?

The ACT's Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, reckons the laws should be reviewed and says being an HIV positive sex worker does not pose a danger to the community.

But how can that be true?

Safe sex practices may reduce the risk of transmitting sexual diseases, but we know condoms aren't 100 per cent safe. It says so on the box.

If we resign to the idea that condoms will completely prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and allow HIV positive people to work in the sex industry, we're playing with loaded weapons.

If by a small chance the practice of safe sex fails and a sex worker transmits HIV to a client, that client could go on to spread the virus, falsely believing their practices kept them safe.

The chances of infection may be negligible, but is it really worth the risk?

Why not remove it all together and legislate against HIV positive people working in the sex trade?

by Andrew Halliday

Please don't label me conservative

Feminist icon Germaine Greer has long been an easy target for the rantings of Australia’s conservatives, and that’s a group I like to stay clear of. But with hesitation I join their ranks now in deriding Greer's latest diatribe.

Greer has used Britain’s The Guardian to dymythologise Australia’s so-called 'progessive' choice of Governor-General, Quentin Bryce.

Firstly, a concession. Greer makes some good points in her article. Racism in Australia lives on and Aboriginal disadvantage is a national shame. Australia is also well behind other countries in recognising its non-Anglo citizens.

But Greer, unless Australia adopts two governor-generals then we can only take one step at a time. Would you be arguing that Australia is sexist if we instead made an Aboriginal man governor-general?

The truth is, she probably would. But she would be wrong to do this.

Greer should instead be celebrating Australia's first female Governor-General. They make up half of Australia’s population. Indigenous Australian’s make up roughly 2.6 per cent of the population.

Yes, both women and Aborigines deserve to be governor-general. Women have gotten there first. Does this in itself reveal dark intentions against Aborigines? No.

Greer shouldn’t be complaining that an Aborigine isn’t governor-general. She should focus on questioning whether an Indigenous Australian even could be governor-general. Because on that point she has a strong, perhaps even a winning argument.

She should know better than placing symbolism above reality though.

Written by Michael Collett

McCain pales in the shadow of newly appointed vice

It’s the new show everybody’s talking about. And this week a new character has really turned up the heat, turning ratings on their head.

No it’s not Gossip Girl, nor is it the revamped Beverly Hills 90210.

It’s the Republican race for the White House… and this week a new star was born.

Sarah Palin has captivated audiences and critics alike; who would have thought a pro-life, gun-toting former beauty queen would be the one to steal Barack Obama’s thunder?

The Republican vice-presidency posed a make or break situation for Senator John McCain; many commentators were sure he’d make an easy decision and pick an old faithful like Mitt Romney. But McCain obviously thought it was finally time for ‘change’.

And change it’s definitely brought, with Obama on the defence for first real time in this Presidential campaign. With the Democrats scrambling into damage control ahead the November 4 election, political commentators are admitting it’s no wonder Obama got caught on the back foot.

In true soapie-style, Palin emerged as vice president nominee among a swarm of rumours that she faked her own 5th pregnancy. Liberal rumourmongers clogged the blogosphere with conspiracy theories Palin’s youngest son Trig was actually her grandson, the whole story concocted to cover her own daughter’s teenager pregnancy.

Yet in a twist of fate, Palin dispersed these rumours with a hard truth – her own 17 year old daughter was pregnant, out of wedlock and was keeping the baby. (Note: Palin is staunchly pro-life, not even supporting abortion in cases where the mother has been raped.)

Obama spoke out in Michigan that “people’s families are off-limits”, but for the Democrats the damage had already been done. Although Obama commented that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy “has no relevance” to the vice president nominee’s performance, in reality it was the ultimate commitment to the Republicans campaign.

While Palin’s teenage daughter has undoubtedly been dragged into a political sphere she should never have entered, in essence the family drama became the ultimate playing chip in the Republican campaign’s comeback.

No-one made the point better than Dr James Dobson, founder and chairmen of Focus on the Family, a US Christian evangelical organisation. “They (the Palins) should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances”

First come the evangelical conservatives, and then the voters (wait, is there difference?)…

In fact the latest ABC Washington Post poll shows a 20 per cent swing in white women’s votes for McCain since he chose Palin as his VP, fortunate given the number of political editors predicting that despite the demise of Hillary, the next Presidential term could include a woman after all.

As Phillip Adams quipped in the Australian this Tuesday, quoting a TV comic, “Palin is pro-life while McCain’s fighting for life.”

And as the Washington Post reported this week, “The fact is that Ms Palin has an astonishingly thin resume – mayor of a small town, governor of a sparsely populated state for less than two years – for someone hoping to ascend to national leadership.”

Nevertheless, with the attitude of Palin emerging such as it is, McCain would do well to remember what John Howard’s constant denial of Peter Costello’s bid for leadership did to the Coalition in the latest Australian election…

Because something tells me Palin will stick to her guns.

Obesity: all roads lead to parents

Australia’s waistline is bulging. And its price has now reached super-sized proportions, costing the country more and more each year.

Latest statistics from Diabetes Australia reveal obesity is a $58 billion a year burden, up from $21 billion just three years ago.

New figures detailing the number of people with type II diabetes is also confronting with a 137 per cent increase from 2005. It is interesting to note how society has come to accept this so called "epidemic".

There is no denying society is becoming sicker and sicker each year. It is worrying, but also frustrating for health authorities as type II diabetes can easily be prevented.

It seems the days of fit and healthy children drinking milk in school yards have vanished. Nowadays the playgrounds are filled with overweight children, scoffing on chocolate bars, packets of chips and various other junk foods.

Parents need to step-up and take responsibility for their children’s diets to give them the best chance to be healthy later in life.

When I was growing up, it was an extremely rare treat to buy a pizza from a fast-food chain. But in today’s society, where laziness is stopping many people from preparing fresh food in their homes, fast-food is a large part of many household diets.

When I worked for one particular chicken fast food outlet during my high school years, it only took a few weeks before I was well acquainted with many of the regular customers. These parents would let their children, some as young as four-years-old, select anything they wanted from the menu, no matter how fatty or unhealthy their food choices would be. Then they would encourage their children to go to the fridge and guzzle down soft drink and top off their meals with an unhealthy dessert.

In the latest State Government advertisement to curb domestic violence, it revolves around the concept of children see what parents do. This same concept applies when it comes food choices.
And with so many cancers now linked to obesity, it is time many people seriously consider their daily eating habits and if it will eventually kill them.

Cancer Council Queensland executive manager Anne Savage says obesity causes colon cancer and post-menopausal breast cancer.

“A high body mass accounts for 3.9 per cent of the total cancer burden and causes and estimated 7.5 per cent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia which is really significant,” Ms Savage says.

When the risks are so high, but the cure so simple, why risk a shortened life?

By Brenton Garen.

Britney Spears' triumphant return: But for how long?

On Sunday night in Hollywood, Los Angeles, at the 2008 MTV Video Musical Awards, Britney Spears stepped out looking tanned , fit and healthy. Her long blonde hair set in waves, her spangled dress short and plunging.

Two years ago, the sight would have been typical, boring even. However a tumultuous 24-months that has seen Spears divorce back-up dancer and wannabe rapper Kevin Federline, lose custody of her two young sons, shave her head in a fit of tears and rambling, enter rehab a number of times, be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, reportedly attempt suicide and be publicly shamed by the judge presiding over her custody case as a “habitual and frequent drug user” - all feverishly detailed, analysed and spat out by the media - signals her most recent behaviour as exultant.

Her triumphant return to pop cultural favour saw her rewarded with three Moonmen: Best Female Video; Best Pop Video; and the gong of the night Video of the Year, officially legitimising her relevance to the music industry on one of its celebratory nights.

The media has swarmed over this most recent development, eagerly awaiting her next appearance, song or acting attempt. It is like she never “left”.

This begs the question: Why was she torn down in the first place only to be placed back high upon her pedestal once her nightmare became too much for the public to bear? When the sights of her mangy hair, racoon eyes and stained clothing, cigarette dangling from lip or bitten fingers became common the media coverage remained unanimously negative. It was only when she fell past the proverbial last rung that the media retreated and waited for her to return so the blaze of glory that once surrounded her could reignite.

When she first exploded circa 2001 amid a virginal haze of blonde curls, plump pink lips, bikini tops and provocative dancing she was positively Nabakovian. An intoxicating blend of baby-woman the public delighted in indulging.

Her growth into real woman, with husband and child, saw the beginning of her slide to ill-favour. She was no longer Lolita, but woman - and the public did not like it. So began a myriad of negative reports and coverage on her demise from icon to has-been, her destructive behaviour and her less-than-pop-tastic image.

However her star has sparkled again and she is glowing in the public’s newfound good graces.

The question is how long will it be until the shimmer fades?

By Jessica McKendry.

Binge-drinking or pill-popping

The 70 per cent tax increase on alcopops have been criticised ever since the Rudd Government introduced it in April this year. The latest verdict is that young Queenslanders turn to harder drugs such as ecstasy for a cheaper buzz. Is a few dollars saved really a good enough reason to ditch the liquid for the chemicals?

Firstly I would like to make it clear to anyone in doubt; alcohol is a drug. Just like ecstasy. The main difference is that ecstasy is illicit. One would think ecstasy is banned because it is more harmful than alcohol, but apparently not. According to a report by the UK’s Science and Technology Committee ecstasy is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco. It was rated the 18th most harmful drug, compared to alcohol on number four, after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone. So if young Queenslanders are popping pills instead of slurping “pops” it seems Rudd might be leading his war on binge-drinking.

Surely many young, cash-strapped merrymakers are tempted to try a happy-pill. But is this really a problem strengthened by the increased alcopop prices? I don’t think so. Ecstasy was in style in Australia long before Mr Rudd was. Australia has topped the ecstasy category in the UN’s Drug Reports for the last four years, proving there were many keen ecstasy-poppers around before the announced binge-drinking epidemic.

On the question as to whether the expensive pre-mixes discourage youth from getting hammered, the answer is no. There are other alcohols out there. We have to give the party-goers a little more credit. They are binge drinkers after all and spirits are spirits, whether you buy it premixed or mix one part whiskey with two parts of coke. According to The Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia (DSICA) people bought 30 per cent less alcopops in June than they did before the tax-hike. However sales of full strength bottled spirits rose 46 per cent. They’ve figured it out. I’ve heard goon does the trick as well…

I’m not saying binge-drinking is no big deal. It is. In fact alcohol is the second biggest contributor to Australia’s chronic disease burden. Harm caused by alcohol is estimated to cost the community more than $15billion per year. I am from Norway; a country where the government have made money off people’s love for alcohol for as long as I can remember and believe me binge-drinking still exists. Like with tobacco, alcohol is taxed because it is harmful. It doesn’t stop people from drinking excessively though; rather, it provides money to clean up the mess that follows. So stop whinging, learn to mix your own cocktail and educate yourself on what you consume and how to be a responsible drinker.

By Live S. Pedersen

Too many babies not enough carers

The need for more carer in childcare is not new. The population is growing and in order to accept most of the demands, there is no choice but too have less carer for more babies.

This means carers have less time for each babies but do they really have a choice? The ratio for children under two needs to be reduced but is there really enough carers around to support this argument?

Childcare centres have always been crowded and the waiting lists huge. The demand is certainly important and centres are already reduced to eight babies per room.

As Creche and Kindergarten Association of Queensland chief executive officer Barrie Elvish says the new ratio would reduce the number to six babies per room and consequently more families are going to miss out.

Right now, some families are already missing out because of the high demand, so what would be the consequences of this new ratio? Families will have to keep their babies at home and wait before going back to work.

As Child Care Queensland vice-president Peter Price says the ratio would cost more to families.

“The private shock is that they don’t receive any sort of government subsidy at all so it’s a cost that would be borne totally by the parents,” he says.

The Government is said to invest in the sector concerning the prices but what about the demand this new ratio would create?

My main concern is that nothing in this article speaks about whether or not this would be possible not only for the centres but would there be enough carers to support this new regulation?

By Lucie Prost

The war against fatty food

Campaigns promoting healthy lifestyle and how to include more fruits and vegetables in our diet have been around for some times. But yet, fast-foods and on-the-run lunches are still popular.

Hungry Jack’s new burger raised concerns about its nutritional value. It contains 71 grams of fat with four meat patties, four slices of cheese and a rasher of bacon, but no salad.

Despite their great advertising to attract people to eat their burgers, Hungry Jacks is not forcing anyone to eat them. It is just that people are too lazy to cook or to prepare their own lunch. Everyone’s excuse is life is getting busier and no-one has the time to sit down and eat proper food. This is not a valid excuse as dieticians have plenty of tricks to eat well and healthy quickly.

As Solutions Food Management Julie Gilbert says the promotion of such food is irresponsible and could be dangerous for our health.

“If you are consuming this as a regular food then you’ve also got the risk of gaining weight, which could lead to obesity and all the health problems that come with that,” she says.

The government is said to do little in helping the population to improve their health. As far as I am concerned, no-one else except my parents were responsible of what went into my mouth when I was little. People should not blame others but themselves for teaching wrong eating habits to their children.

Teenagers are the ones tempted by what they see on television. They do not have much money either to spend on their lunches and consequently they are the ones eating burgers when they should be eating good food for their development.

By Lucie Prost

New school ID cards kick up a fuss

Do schools really believe they can stop students who don’t care about doing the wrong thing?


As it is not that long ago that I myself attended high school, I feel adequately equipped with adolescent knowledge to comment on the latest trend in the era of identification overkill.

As far as I know, every high school student in Australia is issued an ID card upon enrolling to their chosen institution. And if we needed a pass-out of school during the day we had to go to the office anyway, sign out and then sign back in again when we returned. Surely that’s a simpler, far more cost effective way of keeping track of all those naughty students.

Does anyone know how much it would cost for all Queensland schools to implement this system?

For an enrolment of 1800 students, to run the system for one year would cost $2300 not including the server. Times that by however many Queensland schools there are…and it's money that doesnt need to be spent on upgrading ID's.

The Courier Mail online included comments from Australia Fair (in Southport, on the Gold Coast) centre manager Kerri Jones saying how great the system has been so far.

"The program has been a success. I can say we have far less problems with the children. They're more aware of what they can and can't do," Ms Jones said.

I’m fairly sure every student, by the time they’ve learnt how to read and write, knows that skipping school to hit the shops is wrong.

I can’t help but be skeptical of just how effective this system will be if it is rolled out around the state. I sure know, particularly after 5 years of going to school with teenage boys, that if they want to do something “bad” then not much can get in their way. Teenagers are infamous for their attraction to rebellion and I think this new ID system won’t do a thing to deter those who don’t care about the consequences, as child psychologist Kylie Sawley predicted.


By Ashleigh Stallard.

Spy camera's in Victorian schools?

Is being watched 24-7 the solution to tackling our nation’s problems?

Apparently so, as Victorian schools have suggested spy cameras are the “key” to stopping disorderly behaviour in the school playground.

Last week the Victorian Principals Association president Fred Ackerman said “we live in an environment now where our behaviours are under scrutiny.”

Mr Ackerman said the cameras would be used for security, to monitor vandalism, theft and graffiti and poor behaviour in general.

While it might be a quick fix to the situation, the reality stands with the argument raised by Queensland Council of Civil Liberties president Michael Cope.

He said fitting security cameras would only fix the problem in schools, but push the behaviour outside the playground and onto the streets.

Despite this I’m sure one would agree it would be a positive to at least have this behaviour cease occurring in schools.

While children are at school, their safety and behaviour remains the schools responsibility.

Therefore I think if schools believe this is the right step to take and have enough money to back the idea, then why not test it and see what results it produces.

Brisbane billboard deemed too sexy

With so much on our minds these days, you wonder really just how much one billboard could truly affect our day or corrupt our minds.

Last week Elizabeth Tilley reported on the reaction of family groups to pull down an Ambra billboard underwear advertisement in Brisbane’s CBD.

The argument was raised advertisers are using sexualised images offensive to women and giving children the wrong impression.

I had not seen the billboard until Sunday, when returning home from a walk with my workmate.
From my own perspective as a young woman I found the advertisement non offensive and my friend agreed because we liked the overall design.

We both could not understand how displaying the waist down of a women’s body could be offensive as it is clear the billboards intention is to promote underwear products.

The Australian Families Association branch president Mark Holzworth said the billboard could encourage sexual predators. In particular concern was the recent spate of violent sex attacks against women.

Let’s be honest now, does one billboard truly have the power to impact further or add to the recent attackings?

The fact is we take in so many messages a day from so many different mediums, I think it is unlikely we would recall one billboard, we all have more important things to worry about.

The point is the billboard is in no way overexposing women, it is showing one feature of the female body, the legs, and how you can compliment them with an Ambra product.

The overall layout, use of background colours and the slogan ‘let your legs do the talking’, effectively suit the products intentions.

The advertisement could instead be seen positive for women. If you’ve got the legs and the confidence why not be proud of them. Women are powerful and have every right to feel good about themselves and their body.

In response the argument about the billboard giving children the wrong impression, my question is what about the effects of content through television commercials and programs, adult magazine covers in newsagents and supermarkets, mannequins modeling lingerie in shop windows, internet pop up advertisements, websites and youtube.

If you really think about how much sexual content we’re exposed to throughout the day, it can get a bit ridiculous to say one billboard is going to affect children terribly.

The billboard is going hand in hand with how the world is. More television shows are about accentuating what you’ve got and improving how you feel about your body and your life.

Carson Kressley’s ‘How to look good naked’ television series is an example. He takes the photograph of his contestant in her lingerie and places it on a large billboard for the public to see and comment on. Naturally the contestant is stunned to discover people actually think she’s hot.
It’s only been a few weeks now and the billboard has been removed and replaced by another ‘want longer lasting sex’. I don’t know which is worse.

-ends-

University of Free Speech

(see related article)

Where does free speech begin? Does it start with pro-feminist movements pushing for continued support of 90,000 terminated pregnancies a year?

Or is free speech the ability to advertise counseling services for women suffering depression?

Once again, the debate has hit the fan with the University of Queensland banning a Catholic student group (Newman Society) for 12 months for advertising support for women in strife.

It makes my blood boil when I hear of the battering people get when trying to stand up for all things life.
The petite girls at the Newman Society stall were promoting help for women suffering post-traumatic stress as a result of terminated pregnancies and they got the boot!

As reported on The Australian website, union president Mr Joshua Young said the University of ‘free choice’ voted 15 years ago to support women in their rights to choose abortion.

“I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand.”

All I can say is they’re just lucky their parents weren’t ‘pro-choice’ (anti-lifers).

It’s been proven (although not agreed by some) that the nightmares and post-traumatic stress of an abortion takes a tremendous toll on a would-have-been mother.

A report in the London Daily Mail said abortion is the new contraception; saying 1,300 British women who admitted to having an abortion, claimed it was at least their fourth time.

I think if we found out the Japanese were ripping calves from the womb of pregnant humpback whales, we wouldn't be as complacent as we are about terminated pregnancies.

The federal baby bonus was meant to encourage an incline in the Australian population, but no one’s questioned why one in every four Australian feotuses don’t make it out alive.

It’s all very well to encourage a woman to make her own choice, but who’s there to pick up the pieces? The Newman Society? The Priceless Life Centre? Of course not, these help lines have been kicked out of universities like Galileo.

I find it strange that for decades, the men and women campaigning for life have been called ANTI-abortion, whilst feotus killers get labelled PRO-choice.
Maybe we should take note of our Slovak counterparts, who just recently eradicated abortion, (except in the case of a woman’s life being at risk).

Jana Tutkova, a spokeswoman for the Centre of Bioethical Reform (CBR Europe), says their successful campaign was based on airing out the dirty laundry of abortion.

“No one with a functioning conscience who sees these images can support abortion," she said.

Until then, it looks like onward Christian soldier for the rest of us. But hey… there’s a whole lot of trees we should be saving before we even think about the babies... right?

By Josh Bavas

Related Links:

PULSE: http://www.myspace.com/pulseqld

Newman Society: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7175

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23700857-5006786,00.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=539728&in_page_id=1774

http://qutnews.qut.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=543&Itemid=1

SEX sells

Are we really surprised?

The Australian Families Association is outraged at Ambra billboards showing bums and sexy legs held together by strands of lingerie. (see related article)

Mark Holzworth from the Australian Families Association says he thinks the billboards should come down because it’s defaming Aussie women.

“It is a representation in a very sexual context as to how women are portrayed," he says.

But should we be pulling the billboards down because they say women are floozies… or because the ads are darn right distasteful?

The other day I counted the word ‘sex’ 15 times on the news.com.au homepage, not to mention the myriads of links to stories about promiscuous activity.

We’ve come a long way this century; the easy access to porn…thriving adult stores…and sexpo has ‘opened’ our eyes and raised our eyebrows.

But is this really healthy?

For me, the term ‘adult’ now holds ideas of depraved sexual activity.

Let’s face it; every soapie is just a game of musical beds.

It’s no wonder why the crickets start up and the tumble weeds roll past whenever someone finds out I’m ‘waiting’; just like everyone was shocked at Guy Sebastian.

How far will sexualised marketing go?

I find it amusing to watch movies pre-dating the 70’s, when women and men wouldn’t even dare sleep in the same bed – even if they were married.

How funny to think people would shudder at Elvis’ controversial pelvis thrust.

It’s like a Sunday school pic-nic watching it against something like Underbelly.

I suppose at the end of the day it’s not worth getting all ‘hot under the collar’.

But there will always be someone crossing the line, going that extra step to be just that little more risqué.

It looks like we’ll have to put up with car accidents under the Ambra ads.
By Josh Bavas.

Whether to spy or not to spy … that is the question?

It’s been about ten years since I last read George Orwell’s 1984, where the infamous Big Brother snuffed out the notion of privacy by keeping the novel’s populace under constant surveillance.

The theory was if a population knew it was always under scrutiny, then they would never act out of order.

No criminal behaviour.

No aggressive acts.

Just passive, law-abiding citizens.

Very easy to control.

This idea was adopted by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham when he created the Panopticon, a prison that allowed an observer (guard) to watch the prisoners but the "inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so." (Foucault)

Now it seems the Victorian school system have decided constant surveillance is the best way to curb bad behaviour in the school ground.

Victorian Principals Association president Fred Ackerman says the primary reason for the security cameras is to monitor vandalism and theft, but he acknowledges the cameras could be used to monitor school children for anti-social behaviour.

Of course civil liberty groups have thrown their hands up in the air claiming children’s rights to privacy are being stripped away.

It’s not unusual to walk through the public spaces of the world and see closed-circuit cameras recording all of our movements, but do we really need to expose the children of the world to 24 hour surveillance, especially in a place where they’re already supposed to be safe from harm?

Surveillance would probably lower the incidents of bad behaviour in schools, but wouldn’t it be due to the children’s sheer fear of being caught.

A child should never learn through fear, but through example.

A lesson of what is right and what is wrong.

When I went to school the playground, which by the way was no bigger than a small field, was patrolled by teachers I knew and learnt from.

Not by a sentinel camera.

Children learn through action, they learn through example, and I think if we continue down this road, they’ll learn nothing but obedience to a faceless camera.

Kids can get out of hand and the anti-social problems that exist within their age bracket need to be addressed, but I was always taught lessons were learnt through mistakes.

I find it hard to see mistakes being made when they’re so worried about making them.

By Quinn Jones.

Journalists, check your facts before publishing!

This is a line that have been said so many times. But some people just never get the true meaning behind it.
In the May edition of Inside Sport, a jourstlist Peter McAllister has denialled his mistakes on the article published two months ago when a reader pointed out the errors.
unfortunately I could not get a hold of the march edition of the magazine. But according to some quotes the reader selected from the article "20 reasons to boycott Beijing", Mr McAllister really needs to get his facts straight.
The date Spring Festival was been questioned by Mr McAllister in his article. When Weh Yeoh pointed out the reason, Mr McAllister turned around and said, "is my unfamiliarity with the Chinese calendar a sin? At least I took the trouble to read up on what I was talking about".
I have to admit, I hav never seen anyone with an attitude like this. When you make a mistake, correct it. Why even bother to cover it up when it is so obvious that you are the wrong one?
Speaking on the journalistic term, when reporting a story about a country and its culture, it is a sin when the journalist is not familiar with the calendar the country uses. If someone writes about the Islamic main festival Eid Al-Fitr and questions its date, I believe that is the silliest mistake a journalist could make.
Other than that, Mr McAllister questioned the Chinese Government's policy on two children only for the Urghur families in North-west of China, saying the government is trying to breed out the nation. He ignored the fact that the Hans are only allowed one child per family but let the minority groups have special consideration.
When Mr McAllister was proven mistaken again, he pulled out the fact that Urghur people favour large family for up to eight children per couple. I would like to question him, if Australia has 1.3 billion people on its land and every couple still wants eight children in their family, would it be okay with him. The reason the Chinese Government restricted birth for its people is that the nation can no longer handle the capacity of such large number and still at growth. Mr McAllister ignored the fact again and accused the Chinese Government without investigation. Or perhaps Mr McAllister just wanted to make himself sound good and manipulated the truth.
There are more error and debate to that article. I can not point them all out or it will take too much space and time. In general, I just wish everybody remember to check their facts before you decide to publish your story.

By Nancy Huang

Paid maternity leave should be a given

As a young woman who is just about to embark on her career, and knows that at some point in the future I will be a mother, the proposal for tax payer funded maternity leave I heard this week has been a huge relief to me. Even at 22, the problem of how I will afford to have children and pay a mortgage does play on my mind.
It’s pretty clear that no one likes paying taxes or believes they should pay for someone else to have children, but think of the future.
Having two working parents these days is a must for most people. So having one person off on maternity leave is bound to be a struggle. A maternity wage means fewer struggles for new mothers and, strange as the idea is, the opportunity for you to raise your own children, as opposed to a stranger.
How easily people become narrow minded and concentrate solely on how this will affect them rather than the big picture. Everything costs more these days, housing prices, petrol, clothing, food, the list goes on. I can no longer afford housing in my home town, and I shudder to think what the price of real estate will be when I am looking to buy. In the past paid maternity leave was not a high priority because it was not a financial necessity as it is today.
Australia needs a larger working force to pay for the ever increasing retired population; therefore sensible benefits to encourage population growth can only be good for our country.
I want progress. For a developed country Australia has very poor parental benefits and support, Sweden has 18 months paid maternity leave, the UK 39 weeks and even many African countries have around 14 weeks. Our children are our future and it is all of our responsibilities to improve lives. Small mindedness and the argument ‘just because I didn’t benefit’ is not the way forward.
I am happy to pay a levy to fund paid maternity leave and help get our ‘lucky country’ out of the dark ages and into the real world of modern society where things such as paid maternity leave are a part of basic awards, regardless of whether or not I have children of my own.

Dr Nelson's stance on same sex legislation?

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson just cannot seem to get anything right. Even when he is being positive, he is being negative. He is like the Mr Men book, Mr Muddle. The story goes that whenever Mr Muddle tries to do the right thing, he does the wrong thing. This was the perfect opportunity for Dr Nelson to agree that yes, the legislation was perhaps a bit too draconian and yes, same sex couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples. But, he could not help himself. He couldn’t just stop there.

Mr Muddle, I mean, Dr Nelson did raise a few valid points though. What of same sex marriage? What of adoption for same sex couples? What of IVF for same sex couples? What of the leadership of the Liberal Party? I thought I might just throw that one in there.

Ultimately, what is the big deal?

Why is it that same sex couples can drive, drink, vote, have a mortgage, enlist in the Armed Forces, pay taxes – let’s not forget about paying taxes, and yet, they can’t get married?

The Australian Marriage Equality website says that many same sex couples wish to marry for the same reasons as opposite sex couples do. They believe that getting married is an intensely personal choice and a basic human right – one that is granted without fear or favour to heterosexual couples.

It follows that by denying same sex couples the right to get married, they are being denied an intrinsic human right – the right to choose.

Joan Rivers (the comedian) said she thought gay couples should be allowed to get married, because then they could also get divorced, and be as miserable as the rest of us.