Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Politics Vyoos Editorial - Vyoos

Another Latham grotesquerie

February 4th 2011 05:53
: Vyoos news
mark latham

VYOOS EDITORIAL
Former Australian Labor Party leader and Prime Minister wannabe Mark Latham says incumbent Prime Minister Julia Gillard is incapable of empathy because she has no children.

Writing in a magazine column, Latham said Gillard comes across as wooden talking to the public because she chose a life without kids.


This is not an honest opinion. It is the sort of tabloid headline-grabbing, sensationalist sewage which people like Latham rely on to make a buck.

Having famously failed at a real job, they get a peroxided agent and a botoxed publicist and proceed to play the tabloid celebrity game. What you do is bad-mouth people and take extravagantly opinionated stands on any issue which suits your purpose, and watch the offers come in to appear on mindless TV reality, talkback and tabloid affairs shows.

Having your thoughts ghost-written for the redneck press and your (paid-for) picture appear in the front cover of supermarket shock sheets are the next step up the slimy slope.

It's a living. If you're outrageous enough, you can create your own cult. Think Sarah Palin.

Common sense and carefully considered opinion have no place in this game. Snipe, gripe and shoot from the lip. Hit hard, and as far below the belt as you can reach, before running to the next make-up call, via the bank.

It's like the bad loser on a football field, the guy whose side's getting beaten so he gets defensively angry. Nothing is his fault.


Gillard is a winner in the political game at which Latham proved a blundering no-hoper. Look at the scoreboard, Mark.
news.com.au




31
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
   


Lolly pops and violent video games

November 3rd 2010 08:14
: Vyoos news
video game violence

VYOOS EDITORIAL
They are trying to make the sale of video games containing graphic violence illegal in California to people under 18.

Plenty of people are pushing the process, saying kids of all ages play video games these days and who in their right mind could be comfortable with a legal system which condones eight-year-olds having unfettered access to games which contain violence?

Who could dispute that?

Well, one group which is isn't convinced, and which is putting up some interesting counter-arguments, is the judges who comprise the United States Supreme Court.

They don't like the "vagueness" of the proposed California law, which sounds like something which can be discussed and addressed. But secondly, and much more crucially, they fear the law conflicts with the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it this way, "If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games?''

Justice Antonin Scalia said, "You're asking us to create ... a whole new prohibition which the American people never, never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment.''

What the judges are concerned about is an apparent free speech double-standard, in that the California law appears to limit violent video games while ignoring the violence minors experience in other media such as online, in movies, in music and in books.

Justice Scalia repeated a crucial point: many children's books use violence to demonstrate that being bad doesn't pay. "Some of Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth,'' Scalia remarked.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to a study said that watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon had the same effect on minors that playing a violent video game did.

"So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?'' she asked.

Think also comic books. Think kapow! Think comeuppance factor.

As often is the case with these debates, there can be legal, political or social mandates on both sides, and common sense can get squeezed out the back door.

There aren't enough headlines in common sense.

So let's let common sense have a say here. Is it common sense to leave violent video games around for kids to find? Of course it isn't.

Is it common sense to think kids will access violent video games despite the best efforts of parents, teachers, politicians and police to prevent them doing so. Of course it is. The more you hide something, the more attrractive it becomes.

Is it common sense to do everything you can, including legal imperatives, to ensure that any underage kid can not access violent video games? No, it isn't.

Apart from the legal arguments above (and in the US anything that might compromise the First Amendment is a very serious legal argument indeed), and apart from political self-agendas from the Our Kids Are Pure and Sacred lobby, one has to ask what a law banning access by minors to violent video games would achieve.

It certainly won't prevent access by minors to violent video games. The games will still be out there, legally accessible by parents, older siblings, and anyone with an internet connection who knows where to find free copies on the net. Which is, like, you know, every teenager.

Then there's the life lesson argument. If this law is passed, and we somehow effectively prevent every individual viewing video violence until the day they turn 18, we are going to have some shocked and shaken 18-year-olds walking around. Is this the way to prepare kids for the rigours of the real world?

Kids are tougher than many people give them credit for, and they need to be. Surely it is common sense to let them learn some of life's harsher, uglier lessons in their time and in their space.

If an eight-year-old is old enough to find a violent video game, he or she is old enough to start learning perspectives associated with it. The first lesson, that the world isn't full of lolly pops and mum can't, in fact, kiss everything better, can be a hard one, but it's better learned sooner rather than later.





57
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
   


Australia’s multicultural tomorrow

October 22nd 2010 02:24
: Vyoos news
multculturalism

VYOOS EDITORIAL
I have lost interest in the multiculturalism debate which periodically consumes Australia.

The debate springs to life every so often, invariably with passion and earnest argument from all points, usually started by old politicians finding support waning or new politicians needing to build support.

I’m sick of it.

Former conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard made global headlines last month by claiming the English-speaking world had generally confused “multiracialism and multiculturalism”. It’s Howard that’s confusing, but I don’t care.

Australian-based, British journalist Pallavi Jain said this week that multiculturalism is dead. If she really believes that, it’s her brain that’s dead, but I’m over it.

In a speech in the Australian parliament yesterday, the Federal Member for Calwell, Maria Vamvakinou, accused both major political parties of abandoning multiculturalism and leaving “the field open to its enemies”.

Maria, I don’t care any more, and neither should you.

The only concern I have is that Australia will change its immigration policy. The politicians can grandstand all they like, so long as they don’t meddle with our current immigration mix.

I see the results of that policy when I walk through the Footscray pedestrian mall. Muslim head scarves. Jewish beards. African faces. Vietnamese shop signs. Indian supermarkets. Chinese restaurants full of Chinese-speaking people.

Not all urban malls are as colourful and diverse as this – probably few in the world are. I’m just lucky to live close by.

That’s where multiculturalism is alive and well. That is where we can see today the vibrant, rich and culturally diverse landscape which is the Australia of tomorrow.

They are building that tomorrow in the corridors of the Department of Immigration. Down there, away from the bright lights and glaring egos, they are getting on with the job.

They probably don’t care any more about multiculturalism than I do. They don’t need labels to describe what they’re achieving, because the labels just become political footballs.

No labels, no egos and precious little acknowledgement. Just achievement. And that I care about.

multculturalism



89
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
   


No gay marriage. Forget the honeymoon

June 30th 2010 04:46
same sex marriage gay equality
VYOOS EDITORIAL
Julia Gillard’s honeymoon period is over. For me at least.

[ Click here to read more ]
245
Vote
Read MoreRead More Comments (8)Comments (8) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
   


Getting to the bottom of the graffiti problem

March 8th 2010 06:35
VYOOS EDITORIAL
Sometimes, the best decisions in law are innovative moments of colour splashed on grey areas of inefficacy.

[ Click here to read more ]
57
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
   




[ Vyoos Home ] [ Create A New Post ]

Chris Champion's Blogs

10899 Vote(s)
756 Comment(s)
121 Post(s)
4302 Vote(s)
33 Comment(s)
39 Post(s)
5388 Vote(s)
193 Comment(s)
72 Post(s)
3729 Vote(s)
204 Comment(s)
44 Post(s)
15734 Vote(s)
1466 Comment(s)
232 Post(s)
Moderated by Chris Champion
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]