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