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
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
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
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
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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
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
Thursday, September 11, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
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.
By Jessica McKendry.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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
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
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
Thursday, September 4, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)