I loved the claims from the cops after the big pot bust in Wgtn last week that marijuana is the illicit drug responsible for the most hospital admissions. I suppose if you include psych admissions, it could well be true. NO mention of alcohol-related admissions, or how many of those stoned patients were also drunk. You never see those comparisons in mainstream media here.
THANK you, everyone, for the Rothko love. I will be perving at those links later. Seriously, the feeling I get in that room is pretty much what I imagine other people feel in church (which is the intention, I believe). The NGA in Canberra also has one, next to Pollock's Blue Poles, so I can get my modernist orgasms in one spot when I visit.
As for Tate Modern, awesome space. ...Variable quality to the art. Last time I visited, there was some "work" that was about some nutcase cutting themselves, and featured video clips and the bloody detritus from the various cutting sessions (scalpels, gauze, etc). Absolutely NO warning as to the content of the "piece" before entering the room.
I don't mind a bit of blood myself, but I want to choose the time and place I encounter it, thanks.
And yay for the pointer to the music site. I'll be checking that out throughly too.
I'm a bit allergic to the word "polygamy", it must be said. Most people are not thinking of the more technical usage of it being about multiple marriage, but instead have visions of Old Testament patriarchs (or those who aspire to be them) and their harems.
Too much sexist baggage there for my taste. But then again, I am evidently allergic to the "marriage" word and all THAT baggage, so if it becomes more known and acceptable in the context of different gender configurations and equality, I might get over it. Polyamory works just fine for me.
Eliminating polygamy was "redefining marriage", and we know how fervently you're opposed to that.
And wasn't it nice to have the Herald take their first foray into discussing polyamorous relationships with that lovely article about the guy and the female twins? No, no slippery slope-ism there.
Anyway, abolish marriage, civil unions only for all at the registry office. Like in France and Germany (I think). If you want to have a church (or other) ceremony, that's nice, but it should have no civil/legal relevance.
Also, I think that the whole powers of attorney/family contracts/trustees thing should be overhauled and made much cheaper and streamlined for adult individuals. I might want to have one person as guardian of my child and another to be tenant-in-common of my house and other to have my power of attorney for health issues. If you want the all-in-one jobbie, sure, that can be your "civil union". But with no reference to the amount of people you enter into these various contracts with. At the moment, if you do it yourself, you need to get lawyers to draw it up for the associated megabux.
It's actually a fairly nice building inside. Although I admit to wondering if the basements - which contain various labs, including a computer lab I worked in - had some interesting torture gadgets and electric shock machines behind the sinisterly closed doors.
Fair enough re Clark. I've been trying to hunt down the figures from a quick Google, but the most recent I could find is 2006 (when it was Bolger and Shipley).
But I completely agree - they get a decent pension, and I think if they want to be globetrotters after they are out of office, they can pay their own way.
Why wouldn't she, if that fund is there for the use of former PMs? I believe Bolger is the one who's hammered it the most (can't be bothered looking it up right now)
Sure, it might be a stupid benefit, but why single out Clark particularly?
The tax base "needs" to expand in response to a growing economy?
At what point - with more sales taxes that disproptionally affect poorer households? When there is economic growth but no inflation so that goods and service prices remain relatively static? (Yes, it happens, but not most of the time) When the economy is just going to keep growing and growing and growing? (Not.)
I'm pretty far to the left on many issues, but I'm not sure why this contraceptives to solo mums thing has taken on a certain spin. Sure, National are doing it because they think they'll save money on welfare down the track - I HOPE they're not using Freakonomics to base policy on - but I knew plenty of DBP mothers when growing up who desperately wanted free accessible contraception.
And it's not like any govt is going to make it free to all, so why not target the worst-off groups? Like cheaper prescriptions for those on benefits.
There might be an element of slippery-slopism in play here- that women might be FORCED to take these things. Sure, I have bugger-all trust in National as well, but I can't see them taking the eugenics approach (or what might possibly be construed as it). ACT, on the other hand....
With you there, James. I don't seem to have the soapie gene, so I think I've seen less than an ep's-worth, all up.
But good on them for proving it can be done here, and even better in some ways (the early diversity Russell alludes to) than countries with much bigger audiences.