Haven't done this for a while. Random browsing of some news sites, followed by the devouring and spitting back up of said news to dissect it. This may have been spurred on by my 3am news feed session this morning when I couldn't sleep. I finally got to some article about how swearing apparently helps you more than softie words (oh, gosh darnit) when in times of need. Then my phone magically leapt to the floor from my outstretched hand and while sleep claimed me, my phone claimed all of its battery as compensation. Whoopsies. Anyway, here we go.
From the Herald Sun: Baby Bonus Blues
An independant MP wages war on the baby bonus after Anglican churches do the same.
"It concerns me that some people who aren't really in a position financially or in maturity see the bonus as a short-term gain but in reality it's a lifetime responsibility that requires much more," Mr Windsor said in a statement.
I don't have children meself, but I do think he's got a point about that. We're already taxing our natural resources and hey, money doesn't grow on trees either. Plenty of families I know of just keep popping out babies when they honestly can't afford the ones they already have. There are concerns about women using a loophole regarding stillborns VS aborted children to claim the bonus as well. I agree with the sympathetic baby bonus for parents that have suffered a stillborn birth, but if people are abusing a loophole when they get rid of the child the money is intended for and still get it - that's sick.
From Brisbane Times.com.au : Ute Man Forsaken For Beer
In which a Victorian man visiting NSW died after he fell from the back of a ute and hit his head. The people in the ute stopped - to pick up some beer that had also taken a tumble, doing nothing for the man.
All I can say is... really? That right there is what's wrong with society. Kind of reminds me of that story a few years back when some idiot strapped the beer into the car and left the kid hanging loose. I don't understand how you could just drive off! I'm guessing they were quite drunk but even so, that's no excuse.
These next two are kinda similar. It's a topic close to my heart.
Firstly, from the Daily Telegraph: School Recognises Porn Link
then from the Courier Mail: Rapist Is Evil
So in the first story, a new school program identifies the problem of porn culture. Boys especially are targeted through games, movies, television, music and the internet. The big issue is that it's so easy to access these things, but much harder to reach out and send the message that 'no, this isn't right.' Case in point, the news article tells a tale about a Yr 9 girl who had two boys lift up her skirt and reach down her shirt. In class. Those boys got detention, something they might also get for not doing the homework. Things only changed when the girl's father demanded action, resulting in suspension and an apology.
Reckon the boys understand what they did wrong? Probably not.
Which leads into the next story. Man rapes his young neighbour. Man gets 3 year jail sentence, suspended after 12 months. This is for, you know, rape and a bit of extortion on the side.
Judge Dorney, in sentencing the man, said the sexual assaults involved "some rough handling", but no "serious violence".
I know, right? I hate it when people confuse rape with something important. This man had been lusting after this girl. They were friends. He abused that trust, and abused her, but because he didn't break any bones, give her a black eye, send her to the hospital... it's nothing serious. Really. This will affect this girl for the rest of her life but he's skipping out, dodging the slap on the wrist on the way out. We need better laws than this. We need to show criminals that they are wrong and they will pay, but so far all I'm seeing is that violent crimes and assaults don't seem to attract much in the way of years behind bars.. however, rob a bank or deal drugs and you're up law enforcement river with a stolen paddle.
This has to change before we end up like these American stories of not-rape and victims are actually only accusers (via RH Reality Check)
Finally, on the lighter side - From ABC : Chasers Chase Comedy
First of all, good on the ABC for sticking up for themselves. Secondly, boo! I like the Chasers! Okay, fair enough, the royal family doesn't want people making fun of the wedding, that's understandable. I wouldn't like it, I would feel very vulnerable in my puffy dress, unable to run or kick people in the nuts. I would like Kate and Wills to have a nice wedding. I would prefer them to do it in private so I wouldn't have to hear about it every five minutes. They are in the public domain of course, so it's kind of unavoidable but jeez.
Restrictions on the use of royal wedding footage mean it may be used for news or documentary programs but not comedic or satirical programs.
This is where it gets messy. Where do you draw the line? Can you show royal wedding footage on the news, but not if the reporter is going to make a generic wedding joke? I mean, the Chasers do get headlines, and things they do can get blown out of proportion but I don't think that some commentary they do on the wedding is going to be any worse than the fashion commentary about it by some women's magazine.
It's a very Australian thing to do, poking fun at things, seeing the bright side. I used to grate at hearing 'toffee nosed Londoners' etc, but now I wonder if it could be true.
I suppose you wouldn't find much funny if you had toffee stuck up your nose, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment