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…

By: Christine Keeler

Christine Keeler — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:42:35 +0000

Ms Bishop’s comments betray her innate prejudices: “There are hundreds and hundreds of parents who are desperate to adopt children…’

See my comment above http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/23/riiiggghhhht/#comment-386812

This has precisely nothing to do with the well-being of children and everything to do with the ugly prejudices of a particularly nasty human being. Bronnie would be right at home running a concentration camp or, to bring matters up date, a detention centre.

By: Alison

Alison — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:43:48 +0000

Ms Bishop’s comments betray her innate prejudices: “There are hundreds and hundreds of parents who are desperate to adopt children…’

Note she says ‘parents’, not ‘people who want to be parents’, or ‘potential parents’. What she really means is that people who are more like her should be entitled to be parents. Unfortunately for them, wanting to be parent doesn’t make you one, it’s actually having the child which makes you a parent. But in Ms Bishop’s world, if you’re white and middle class, you’ve got that entitlement, but not if you’re poor and struggling with addiction. This debate will never be resolved on the issues if the Senator who is leading the enquiry won’t acknowledge her prejudices.
.

By: Tiny Tyrant

Tiny Tyrant — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:00:36 +0000

Right, we’ll need a list of those things which automatically rate you as unfit to parent:

1 - Workaholic (say.. more than 38 hours per week);
2 - Fan of Michael Buble;
3 - …

If we can incorporate DNA sampling perhaps we can determine those with ‘unfit to parent’ tendencies and have them made barren/castrated. Of course this won’t help the adoptable baby supply problem..

By: St Margaret

St Margaret — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:21:55 +0000

I chanced to see Bronwyn Bishop talking about this very subject on 4 Corners last night, her portly form swathed in well-heeled North Shore matron gear, coiffed to the max, oversized pearls around her neck and with that gracious crocodile smile of hers telling everybody that we should go back to the 1950s and start ripping those kids away from those undeserving, wicked parents right now and give them to deprived couples (presumably with money and good morals) who are just dying to have a child of their own. There’s just too much political correctness in the world these days, she sniffs, oh if only government had the power we had in the old days, things would be so much simpler…

Honestly, how could anyone take her call seriously?

By: Darlene

Darlene — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:49 +0000

Paul, there is only one Darlene, my sweet. Tee hee. Yes, I have had a nice little breaky from blogs, and have returned to make comments that make little sense. Don’t have time for my own blog though. Too much effort trying to keep a blog going on your own.

Puss is doing well. Contradicting my previous point, puss aka Jess has got a lovely little tiny tent she sleeps in, she has responded well to this Feliway diffuser thing, she’s got tons of toys: in other words she’s an over-induldged brat from the inner-city of Melbourne.

By: paul walter

paul walter — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:32:34 +0000

Good one, tig tog.
SC, last time they started farming kids out, that was called “the Stolen Generation”.
Like Lesley, I mourn for the demise of the “community” and “locale” many of us grew up in.
It’s been necessary for the system, to break down these notions and sentiments, to provide “opportunities” for business through electronic Macmedia against those weakened by cultural and social atomisation. And, of course there is further government “efficiency”.
Which brings us to Bishop. Big government micromanagement helps ensure small government for the few. So be grateful, someone benefits from all the control freaking, even if it isn’t you and even if they don’t deserve it.
Finally, let’s not forget that bluecollar losers sit just behind aboriginals on the coalition carousel of scapegoats. Prepare yourself for weeks of self righteous guff from TDT and ACA aimed at the female element of the mortgage belt concerning their slightly poorer sisters in the government housing areas. Textor and co know their demographic; dont you worry about that!
PS, Bishop’s last appearance before this op engineered effort through the now Stepoforded “their” ABC, was about five or six months ago to say that something or other Howard had tried to dump on the electorate ” didn’t pass the Nazi test”. Surprised me, that.
PPS, is that THE Darlene?
How’s the cat?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:10:04 +0000

Does this include those addicted to the good ol’ cancer stick?

By: kim-campbell

kim-campbell — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:07:10 +0000

Like Aussie Bob I have a mate who has taken the responsibility for raising his grandkids over the years.
The father is now back on track and helping more and more with the kids, the mum is still a write off.
The wider family unit is what has helped with this and hopefully the kids and the dad will be able to settle back together. We need to encourage and help this type of intervention where the kids do not leave the wider family unit and do not lose their identity.

But the only thing I got from Bishops comments was an eagerness to take kids away from thier parents and give them to strangers, it may be OK in some circumstances but the priority should be looking at alternatives to keeping the kids within that wider family unit.

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:35:06 +0000

Because complex problems call for dimwitted populist simplification, CK.

By: Christine Keeler

Christine Keeler — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:20:33 +0000

sublime cowgirl is right - it is a complex area.

So precisely why the Human Beehive has been let within 10 miles of it takes a bit of explaining…