Comments on: Riiiggghhhht

By: shishkin

shishkin — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:08:08 +0000

the more important social problem permeating all levels of society and requiring an immediate federal government response (involving the trammelling of validly enacted state laws and the disposition of legal rights with no compensation other than from the warm glow of the smug self-knowledge that GOOD is being done by thee) is the addiction to a fantasy belief in an afterlife and in the existence of some all-knowing, omni-present non-material entity, which these sadly afflicted delusional types often call “God” (the phrase “fairies in the garden” having fallen into disrepute).

Now i wonder what Ms Bishop is doing about this very real, horrible blight on society. And of course the most horrible thing of all is that these sad pathetic addicts are spreading their addictions to their very own children!!! no civilised society should stand for such wanton abuse of the young and vulnerable. think about the children!!! act now Bronwyn!!!

By: paul walter

paul walter — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:05:57 +0000

Have fought this manfully and now succumb, finally got the better of me.
OK Darlene, what is, “…this Feliway diffuser thing…”?

By: sublime cowgirl

sublime cowgirl — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:27:46 +0000

SO is the point to debate the issue, or debate BB’s appearance and/or role on the committee?

By: amphibious

amphibious — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:00:04 +0000

Sublime – in a just & decent world, absolutely but look around. The likes of Beehive & her ilk aren’t anymore concerned about junkies’ kids than they are about NT kids, it’s typical moral panic, wedge, dog whistle, call it what you like, it’s about fracturing commuity not uniting it.

By: sublime cowgirl

sublime cowgirl — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:49:00 +0000

Surely drug use per se is not the issue, its the neglect that sometimes follows in its wake, and draws the attention of teachers, doctors, welfare.

By: amphibious

amphibious — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:11:06 +0000

So many different points, I hardly know upon which to comment. (An aside, and maybe i should nip across to Hoyden for this, but has anyone ever seen a post in which the women were so strong and undivided? Forget the ‘names’ anyone who couldn’t pick the ovary owners ought to shut up.)
I cannot speak on their area of expertise (these damm chromosones) but trust their judgment(on any issue really, stressed concrete or toilet training, both vitally important to a functioning society) but I would like to take up the ‘addict’ point.
Who qualifies, cancer sticks, workaholics, IKEA freeks or ‘Sam Stone’?
The hypocrisy of addiction treatment using Methadone (a proprietary product – hint, hint)is gob smacking. Far more addictive and a dangerous withdrawal, compared to heroin (“like bad ‘flu – only a couple of days of climbing the walls” according to the very experienced Human Riff aka the world’s most elegantly wasted human being – can’t see it myself but he’s still around).
The only reason the Establishment funds Methadone is that there is (relatively) little PLEASURE in its thrall. That’s what they are most exercised about – unearned pleasure, can’t be having with that.

By: greg mcfarlane

greg mcfarlane — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:10:40 +0000

One can only hope that ‘Brassy Bronnie’ includes alcoholic, pill popping politicians on her hit list. The neighbour’s dogs are barking……….ah…at least that’s something that makes sense, unlike the doggerel this vile, opportunistic politician asks the Australian people to swallow whenever she opens her mouth. The instant any politician speaks those appalling words,”but what about the children!!!!”, we’re all in the pooh.

By: melaleuca

melaleuca — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:43:20 +0000

As to Tigtog’s smarty pants gotcha question:

“Finally, what are the implications in conjunction with the indigenous emergency interventions, in communities where we know drug addiction is a huge problem?”

If she were to take the time to inform herself better she would know that we already have an apartheid child protection system. Aboriginal children need to be in a substantially more abusive environment than a white/asian/whatever child before welfare authorities will intervene.

By: mole

mole — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:19:38 +0000

Whatis the upside of leaving a child with a negletful and/or addicted parent then? In my own opinion it should take more than the ability to bump uglies to allow you to engage in behaviour, which if was done to a dog, would see the dog removed from you.
If the ties of a mother/father to a child are so strong and should never be broken then why take children even on a short term basis?
Isnt an addict as likely to take action to straighten out if they have lost their child, as when it is removed for a short while over and over?
Its not simple, any action applied as a “this is whats best” template will fail a percentage of either refoming parents or abused children.
Who in peoples opinion should make that call?
And who in peoples opinion should lose their offspring?
Should children ever be left with severely addicted/neglectful parents?
Should “unworthy” parents be steralised? (reversable) until they demonstrate the ability to look after a child?
All michevous questions, but i hope a few people will indulge me by attempting to answer them.
PS: I dont know is a valid answer, because i sure as hell dont.

By: Doug M

Doug M — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:57:38 +0000

Ah for the days when i used to bump into our Bronny at the Kingston IGA, coiffure frosted and amazingly short. In fact, it fueled my suspicions that she is in fact suffering from the little-known ‘short-woman’s syndrome’. TV does not tell the full tale.

Naturally she wasn’t doing anything as plebeian as purchasing milk or bread.. in fact she rarely seemed to be found other than in the checkout queue or the liquor section.

I sometimes wonder how I resisted the temptation to tip her headfirst into the freezer…