Did anyone watch Today Tonight? The story that's got me riled up is the single mothers (9 in total...I was too distracted by their stupidity to count them properly) WHINING about not getting enough free money from the Govt.
Excuse me for breathing, but I should have thought $1143 a fortnight before you factor in subsidised housing would be sufficient to feed one adult and one child. Or maybe it's because they're such HEIFFERS that they're spending a great majority of that money on food. And for the ones that don't have asses the size of tobacco plantations, perhaps it's the cigarettes you were sucking down during the interview (how classy) that's affecting your budget. I'm pretty sure the pension isn't set up to ensure the ongoing smoking habits of slappers who got pregnant when they were 15 or 16 years old.
As if that wasn't bad enough, after being asked who was still with their baby's father only three girls raised their hands. The slag-in-respectable-drag who interviewed them then asks "What's wrong with Australian men?" I beg your fucking pardon crack whore? Shouldn't the question have been "What's wrong with you silly little bitches who fell flat on your back with your legs in the air as an open invitation to the underage drinkers at that street party to get you knocked up?" Yes indeed.
One girl then went on to whine about how Australian boys are part-time parents who "think" they can just go on living their lives, travelling overseas, meeting new people and having new experiences that she now knows she "CAN'T HAVE". Dumb ass. When you were at that party, didn't it occur to you even once that if you got knocked up you'd have to deal with it? Didn't it occur to you in the slightest that the dud who impregnated you didn't get to make a choice about becoming a parent? YOU made that choice. There are options. You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement. YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures. In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent. YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single. YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
Probably so many boys have been through those girls that we need to establish a Maury Povich style show so that all Australian teen mothers can find out who their "baby daddy" is. (while I'm here, what the fuck is up with Maury Povich? Isn't there better topics to discuss? Don't you get bored watching fat whores run screaming from the stage when the DNA test comes back? And "Baby Daddy"...what the fuck is that? Did people forget to brush up on their english? "Babys' father" people!).
Sidetracked. Regain focus. Whinging teen mothers. Dumb ass journalists. So anyway, when the girls were asked what they are going to do with the thousand dollar per child bonus being issued this Christmas, one had the nerve to say "I'm going on holidays". WTF? Don't go crying to centrelink when you get back and can't afford to feed your hefty ass you slack tart.
When asked whether or not they thought they should get real jobs and support themselves and their children, one moron responded with "Why is it different for people in their 30's who decided to start a family? Why can they decide to stay home and raise their children? They don't have to miss out on watching their children grow up. Why am I expected to go out and get a job?" BECAUSE you retarded freak, those same people in their 30's have worked until they decided to start a family. They are generally secure enough financially to not have to drain the system the way you no-hoping-high-school-dropouts are.
So bitches, You may not believe in abortion and conversely I don't believe in giving handouts to slappers with poor judgement.
YOU decided to have sex without preventative measures.
In so doing, YOU decided to become a parent.
YOU decided to bring your child into the world knowing there was a very good chance you would be single.
YOU decided to be a sole parent and rely on handouts when you had your legs in the air.
So don't go around bitching about how you need more money to support your hopeless lifestyles. Get off your asses, get a job, get an education and make sure your children observe the most important thing you can teach them...RESPONSIBILITY.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Human roadkill
If anyone watches ANTM (Amrecia's Next Top Model. Come on...catch up!), please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK???? Did I change channels to "Skank hour with Gay, Gayer and Gayest??
Tyra - Gay. She's not just gay, she's a bloody drag queen. Some women can pull off "Ghetto Fabulous" but Tyra makes it look like she's constantly posing and mincing for ANTM (this time it's America's Next Transsexual Male). Come to think of it, who the hell is Tyra to be judging models and whining about personality deficiencies and the difficulty that creates for capturing great shots? I don't think I've ever seen her face change from that wide-eyed, mouth slightly open, slightly raised right eye-brow statue.
Jay - not just big gay Jay, biggER, gayER Jay. Silver hair? Silver....serisously? I mean really, he's pretty, very pretty. I can see him with a mouth full on gay porn. Several in fact. He is so hot, he reminds me of a cross between Madonna a-la "Who's that girl?" and Jessica Alba a-la anything, Ru Paul in general. If he wasn't so camp he'd be perfect.
J. Alexander - HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCKSHIT! Who broke that fart? I don't get it, what the hell is that? Silver eye-brows. SILVER...FUCKING...EYEBROWS. Coloured glitter eyebrows? And it's probably not even the most ridiculous thing I've seen him trying to wear. Dude, get a clue. It's never going to work. There is no such thing as Jay chic. Somebody has a lot to answer for there. I reckon he's the sort of queen that says "man-pussy" or some such shit. He is the love child of Oprah and Chris Rock in Fifth Element.
What the hell is my point now? Why do people have to be so camp? It was bad enough in the old days trying to pick a queen in a crowd without this lot making me think EVERYONE is gay.
Tyra - Gay. She's not just gay, she's a bloody drag queen. Some women can pull off "Ghetto Fabulous" but Tyra makes it look like she's constantly posing and mincing for ANTM (this time it's America's Next Transsexual Male). Come to think of it, who the hell is Tyra to be judging models and whining about personality deficiencies and the difficulty that creates for capturing great shots? I don't think I've ever seen her face change from that wide-eyed, mouth slightly open, slightly raised right eye-brow statue.
Jay - not just big gay Jay, biggER, gayER Jay. Silver hair? Silver....serisously? I mean really, he's pretty, very pretty. I can see him with a mouth full on gay porn. Several in fact. He is so hot, he reminds me of a cross between Madonna a-la "Who's that girl?" and Jessica Alba a-la anything, Ru Paul in general. If he wasn't so camp he'd be perfect.
J. Alexander - HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCKSHIT! Who broke that fart? I don't get it, what the hell is that? Silver eye-brows. SILVER...FUCKING...EYEBROWS. Coloured glitter eyebrows? And it's probably not even the most ridiculous thing I've seen him trying to wear. Dude, get a clue. It's never going to work. There is no such thing as Jay chic. Somebody has a lot to answer for there. I reckon he's the sort of queen that says "man-pussy" or some such shit. He is the love child of Oprah and Chris Rock in Fifth Element.
What the hell is my point now? Why do people have to be so camp? It was bad enough in the old days trying to pick a queen in a crowd without this lot making me think EVERYONE is gay.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Burn baby, burn
We all know the dangers of tanning either by way of natural UV light or use of solariums. We all know the inherent risks of exposing ourselves to rays in the pursuit of vanity. Whether or not we choose to heed those warnings is entirely an individual choice. Not only is it an individual choice, but it's a yet another choice that certain organisations would like our government to take away from us.
The Queensland Institute of Medical Research have ESTIMATED the number of cancer diagnoses that they SUSPECT are caused by the use of solariums. Evidently the research they've conducted is "based on a British mathematical model" (whatever the hell that means). What is this model? A model of what? Why use a British anything to run statistics in Australia? Logic would define that if this "model" is at all accurate in Britain it won't be accurate for Australia's purposes given the difference in climate. Have they used this model because it resulted in the most terrifying statistics? Why not use a NZ model, a Canadian model, an American model or like everything else in Australia an Indian model? Until I know what the hell the model actually is, I can only assume it's scare-mongering.
So the QIMR has proposed changes in the Federal Govt regulations with the preference to completely ban the use of solariums. Pretty bloody rude I reckon. But how keen will the government be to implement such changes? I reckon they'll be fanging for the opportunity because it means less government money going to the public health system to treat skin cancers. It's exactly the same reason (or half of it) that they increase the price of cigarettes every five minutes.
As much as they hate treating the problems associated with smoking, they LOVE collecting the billions of dollars in tobacco tax generated each year from tobacco sales. So my guess is that one of two things will happen:
1) the proposals will be given serious consideration because unlike cigarettes, skin cancer treatment costs the govt money but they can't collect any skim from tanning unless...
2) they impose a tax on solariums which is probably the way it will actually go. They'll see another opportunity to collect from the people, ten times more so than the amount they will fund (approx $3M according to Dr Louisa Gordons' contribution to the Medical Journal of Australia) towards treating the problems coming from it.
I'm actually really surprised that the Howard Government never spotted that opportunity given their penchant from sticking their grubby hands in our pockets.
Back to my point. Professor Simon Chapman, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health is pushing for a complete ban on solarium use and cites the death of Claire Oliver in 2007 resulting from excessive tanning. I've said before that I absolutely empathise with the plight of Claire Oliver but by the same token, she made EDUCATED choices as to her tanning habits. She was a woman who, by her own admission, spent countless hours laying in the sun OR at the solarium. Claire started tanning at 19 and died at 26. Again, very sad but she ignored the warnings that were issued even back then in the pursuit of narcissistic satisfaction that we all indulge from time to time. I'm as guilty as anybody, I know the risks and I make my choices.
And that's the bottom line. Choices. I make choices and I know what the consequences are. Why then, should my choice be made for me? If people who develop conditions from risky behaviour and the treatment for those conditions is a strain on the public health system, why do we not have waivers included in memberships to solariums making an individual seriously consider the choice they're about to make?
And what's next? Will we have the cancer council suggesting the criminalisation of women having sex (yay...more man on man action) to decrease the risk of cervical cancer or avoiding exercise to decrease the risk of breast cancer? Telling men to avoid ageing so as to decrease the risk of developing breast cancer?
Such things may be a stretch of the imagination, but nothing would suprise me from successive governments whose agenda to extract more money from it's constituents is evidenced by it's contradictions of it's own public health "commitments". When you take into account the alleged bribery and corruption that surrounds the state governments contracts and "investigations" of companies like X-Strata who now face a class action lawsuit from residents of Mt Isa following the exposure of the companies disregard for public health and subsequently high levels of pollution.
The governments who presume to be able to make better choices for us are the same entities who know which companies are poisoning us and our children for the sake of the kickbacks that we have long suspected they are in receipt of. So no, we as the general public don't have the right to make choices. With each new day there is a new idea being formulated and presented to government that will take some rights away from somebody somewhere in the country.
Anarchy anyone?
The Queensland Institute of Medical Research have ESTIMATED the number of cancer diagnoses that they SUSPECT are caused by the use of solariums. Evidently the research they've conducted is "based on a British mathematical model" (whatever the hell that means). What is this model? A model of what? Why use a British anything to run statistics in Australia? Logic would define that if this "model" is at all accurate in Britain it won't be accurate for Australia's purposes given the difference in climate. Have they used this model because it resulted in the most terrifying statistics? Why not use a NZ model, a Canadian model, an American model or like everything else in Australia an Indian model? Until I know what the hell the model actually is, I can only assume it's scare-mongering.
So the QIMR has proposed changes in the Federal Govt regulations with the preference to completely ban the use of solariums. Pretty bloody rude I reckon. But how keen will the government be to implement such changes? I reckon they'll be fanging for the opportunity because it means less government money going to the public health system to treat skin cancers. It's exactly the same reason (or half of it) that they increase the price of cigarettes every five minutes.
As much as they hate treating the problems associated with smoking, they LOVE collecting the billions of dollars in tobacco tax generated each year from tobacco sales. So my guess is that one of two things will happen:
1) the proposals will be given serious consideration because unlike cigarettes, skin cancer treatment costs the govt money but they can't collect any skim from tanning unless...
2) they impose a tax on solariums which is probably the way it will actually go. They'll see another opportunity to collect from the people, ten times more so than the amount they will fund (approx $3M according to Dr Louisa Gordons' contribution to the Medical Journal of Australia) towards treating the problems coming from it.
I'm actually really surprised that the Howard Government never spotted that opportunity given their penchant from sticking their grubby hands in our pockets.
Back to my point. Professor Simon Chapman, from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health is pushing for a complete ban on solarium use and cites the death of Claire Oliver in 2007 resulting from excessive tanning. I've said before that I absolutely empathise with the plight of Claire Oliver but by the same token, she made EDUCATED choices as to her tanning habits. She was a woman who, by her own admission, spent countless hours laying in the sun OR at the solarium. Claire started tanning at 19 and died at 26. Again, very sad but she ignored the warnings that were issued even back then in the pursuit of narcissistic satisfaction that we all indulge from time to time. I'm as guilty as anybody, I know the risks and I make my choices.
And that's the bottom line. Choices. I make choices and I know what the consequences are. Why then, should my choice be made for me? If people who develop conditions from risky behaviour and the treatment for those conditions is a strain on the public health system, why do we not have waivers included in memberships to solariums making an individual seriously consider the choice they're about to make?
And what's next? Will we have the cancer council suggesting the criminalisation of women having sex (yay...more man on man action) to decrease the risk of cervical cancer or avoiding exercise to decrease the risk of breast cancer? Telling men to avoid ageing so as to decrease the risk of developing breast cancer?
Such things may be a stretch of the imagination, but nothing would suprise me from successive governments whose agenda to extract more money from it's constituents is evidenced by it's contradictions of it's own public health "commitments". When you take into account the alleged bribery and corruption that surrounds the state governments contracts and "investigations" of companies like X-Strata who now face a class action lawsuit from residents of Mt Isa following the exposure of the companies disregard for public health and subsequently high levels of pollution.
The governments who presume to be able to make better choices for us are the same entities who know which companies are poisoning us and our children for the sake of the kickbacks that we have long suspected they are in receipt of. So no, we as the general public don't have the right to make choices. With each new day there is a new idea being formulated and presented to government that will take some rights away from somebody somewhere in the country.
Anarchy anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
