The same loud mouthed woman who leaves you grinding your teeth will go out of her way to give you directions. Look it up on her phone and everything. Want advice? Don’t ask . Someone on the train will freely offer it and then spend the rest of the journey giving you tips only a local would know.

Americans aren’t the shy, retiring type. And they don’t do anything half arsed. Want an appetiser? Here, have a plate full of chicken wings. Feeling thirsty? They’ll mix up a sangria that will leave you humming all the way home.

If you want to get to know a city, ride its subway. Buy a ticket to somewhere, anywhere, sit down and open your ears. It’s amazing what you’ll learn.

In LA you pick up pretty quick that people talk a lot and loudly and they don’t mind who hears. On the train to Long Beach two women hop on, babies in tow. One talks, the other is a sounding board, along with the rest of the train. She’s 22, has a baby on the way and a sister who keeps stealing her money. “It’s not that she’s takin my money that bothers me,” she says, “it’s that she’s takin money from my baby’s mouth, ya feel me?” People here have a lingo, a certain kind of rhythm to their speech that sounds almost lyrical.

Halfway through the woman’s monologue a lady sitting behind us leans forward and asks how old her daughter is. People here tend to do that a lot too. Randomly and suddenly include themselves in conversations and ask questions without any self consciousness. Nobody seems to mind. Two people could be talking and then out of the blue a stranger behind them makes a comment about what they’ve been discussing. “Oh yeah, I remember those riots too, shit was crazy then”. There’s no prologue or excuse me, just jump right in.

On the way back from Long Beach a woman on the train suddenly starts talking about problems she’s having at the place she’s looking after. Who’s she talking to, I wonder? When someone towards the back replies I realise she’s talking to everyone, the whole train. People treat the subway like a very public journal. That’s part of what I love about this city, everyone is so open and honest and friendly. That’s not to say I feel completely safe here.

The first day we arrive in LA one of the first items I see on TV is about a grandmother who pulls a gun on a would-be burglar. The news broadcasts her 911 call. “Butt out of here…don’t you dare…! I got a gun here and I ain’t afraid to use it”. Later they interview the trigger happy nan. “I’m a Christian and my husband, he was surprised to hear me swear, but you threaten me and mine and I tell you what, you gonna get me angry”.

You get a sense, both from the news and the dirty streets, that there’s a lot of crime here. It’s not as bad a as it used to be, a friendly local on the train tells us, but you probably don’t want to be in some parts of downtown alone at night.
The city, you feel is a place of contrasts and contradictions. The rough looking guy at the bus stop could easily be your best mate or he could pull a knife on you, you’re just not sure.

Beverly Hills is beautiful and opulent. Perfectly manicured trees line wide, clean streets. Big but tasteful houses are home to celebrities including Heidi Klum and the Kardashians. It’s a life of privilege but head just 10 minutes down the road and you suddenly hit ugly, grey buildings and urine smelling, dirty streets.

The paradoxes are reflected in their approach to food and health. TV will air an ad spruiking $5 pizza but back it up with a commercial on eating green. Ads about health and medical conditions blare constantly  but the very thing that primarily causes these problems are served up in super sized sugary portions. Never mind, TV reassures us, they have a pill for that too…

In a feat of logic-defying verbal acrobatics, the PM recently claimed Labor was the saviour of women and the only party which would put their needs first.

At the campaign launch in Sydney, Julia Gillard warned of an Australia dominated by male politicians “in blue ties” if the opposition was elected and claimed abortion would become the “political play thing of men”.

She also claimed Labor was the “party of women”, and she used this list of ALP policies justify her claim:

• Putting paid parental leave on the agenda: “and get it done”
• Increase childcare rebates: “focused on higher quality standards”
• Increase tax-free threshold to $18,000: “benefiting low-income workers, predominantly working women”
• Increase to the pension: “particularly of benefit to single pensioners, disproportionately women”
• Reduce tax on superannuation: “for part-time working mums”
• Equal pay principle: “so women in social and community services can get the pay and recognition that they deserve”
• National Disability Insurance Scheme: “so women with disability and women who bear the burden of caring can get the support they need”
• National Broadband Network: unexplained
• Gonski funding for schools: unexplained

How any of these policies are directly related to women is anyone’s guess. Each of these policies benefits both men and women, so to say they are reasons for women to vote Labor beggars belief.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of the PM’s Women for Gillard campaign is its message that the LNP will somehow turn back the clock on women’s rights.

So far, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has made no policy announcements which would negatively impact women in particular.

And her shameful reference to abortion might be interpreted as a reference to Mr Abbott’s Catholic faith, marginalising yet another section of Australian society.

Furthermore, at the campaign launch Ms Gillard failed to acknowledge that Julie Bishop is Deputy Opposition Leader and likely to soon be deputy leader. And she is, in fact, a woman – not just another blue-tie wearing man.

During her infamous Blue Tie speech at the launch, Ms Gillard claimed when as a prime minister Tony Abbott went on holidays, he would be replaced by “a man in a blue tie”. Another complete fabrication, typical of the lies and trash we hear from this government on a daily basis.

Actually, if an Abbott prime minister did go on holidays – should his party win the election on September 14 – Ms Bishop, a woman, would take the reins.

The arrangement is the same as the one we have now, whereby the “World’s Best Treasurer”, Wayne Swan steps in for Ms Gillard when she takes leave or goes overseas.

For the whole shameful charade, I say Ms Gillard should lay down her gender card and realise we Australians will vote for a government based on its performance – not the gender of its leader.

Western media were quick to link the Boston bombers to Islam. Source: commons.wikimedia.org

MOHAMAD ABDALLA: Western media was quick to associate the Boston murders to the fallacious fact that the brothers were ‘devout Muslims.’ This means, by extension, that Islam is to blame, again.

By definition, a ‘devout Muslim’ is one who abides by the laws and dictates of Islam, including the command not to murder.

Islam is explicit in its prohibition of the killing of any innocent human whether Muslim or not, during times of peace or war.

Islam declares that the killing of even a single innocent person as tantamount to the killing of all humanity (Quran 5:32).

There is no justification for the killing of innocent people. Full stop.

Therefore, associating murder or the killing of innocent people and bystanders to ‘Islam’ is not only abhorrent but is a contradiction in terms.

Interestingly, most academic research shows that most violent radicals know little or nothing about Islam and that they are driven by emotions and not the scripture.

Empathy with their murdered and humiliated brethren in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan is often the motivating factor. This is what the surviving Boston brother has recently told authorities.

It is the absence of Islamic values and the ability to restrain one’s negative emotions that lead to murder.

The tragedy, and hypocrisy, of western journalism (with some exceptions) is their hunger to associate such crimes to Islam.

Of course, no association to Christianity, or any other ideological convection, was ever made when James Holmes massacred 12 people and injured 50 others at the 2012 Colorado Dark Knight cinema shooting. This was the deadliest U.S. shooting since the Fort Hood massacre in 2009.

According to the police and the media, Holmes was, of course, “a deranged individual”.

Other western media suggested that “the violence of the films be blamed for inspiring the massacre.”

No mention of religion anywhere.

Further, the Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates was quick to announce “We are confident that he [Holmes] acted alone.”

In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik massacred 77 people in cold blood. Breivik hated Muslims and Islam and subscribed to a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian ideology.

Of course, little to no mention was made by the media about Breivik’s ‘religious’ association, or that he was ‘devout’ of any sort.

Equally, in May 2006 the Brisbane police arrested John Howard Amundsen, 42, after uncovering 53kg of explosives, embedded with nails, at his Aspley home in Brisbane’s north. A former Brisbane school teacher, Armundsen threatened to detonate bombs at the workplaces of his ex-girlfriend’s parents.

The reporting and sentencing of Amundsen was interesting. First, the media reported that his ‘defence lawyer Paul Smith told the court Amundsen had recently been assessed by a psychologist and found to have Autism Spectrum Disorder.’ Second, he was sentenced to only six years in jail.

No mention of his religious convections or associations. No media bothered to find out which church he attended sometime during his life.

Imagine for a second if Amundsen was a Muslim in whose house was found 53kg of bombs. I will let you envisage the media headlines.
In the case of the Boston bombing the association was made, directly or indirectly, to the faith of the Boston brothers.

Contrary to the reporting about Holmes or Breivik who killed far more people than the Boston brothers, the media was quick to report that “Tamerlan is believed to have instigated the attack after turning devoutly religious and possibly reading radical Islamic dogma.”

The hypocrisy in reporting is alarming. And ethical reporting demands a balanced approach to news coverage.

Simply put, a murder is a murder regardless of who commits it.
It is highly unethical, however, to implicate an entire faith and its followers for the evil actions of a few.

Mohamad Abdalla is the Founding Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit, Brisbane, Australia; Director of the Queensland node of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies; Vice-president and spokesperson for the Australian National Imams Council and the author of several books including ‘Islam and the Australian News Media’. 

Five years later, and much had changed. Mum had decided she wanted in on football bonding time, so we relocated to the lounge room with its mercifully bigger TV, and the chips and coke were swapped for salad as I fervently, (and foolishly,) pursued a private dream to one day appear for the Broncos on a Friday night game, and there was much more chatter as my sanguine mother replaced my melancholic father as the dominant person in the room. Despite this, the palpable sense of togetherness that coursed through us all on Friday nights was the happy constant.
Five years on from then, and it’s all changed again.

Now, my wife reads on the couch next to me while the Storm belt the bejesus out of whichever team has the ill fortune to play them, my parents’ monster television and Foxtel provides us with a football experience like never before, and the Twisties and coke have made a reappearance. Despite this, the cheers are less raucous, and, (curious that this would disappoint,) the losses less bitter.

At halftime last Friday, I turned and asked my dad if he enjoyed the footy as much as he used to.

“Nope,” the reply, with no hesitation. “It’s not the game it used to be.”

I reflected on this as I turned back to the TV and watched a 40-inch Tom Waterhouse head tell me that he knew what I wanted. I wanted the best odds on all my favourite sports.

No, Mr Waterhouse. I want those old Friday nights back.

Even if Dad was talking about the speed of the ruck and the banning of the shoulder charge, his words struck a chord with me in a very different way. Rugby League has lost some of its soul, and gambling is the modern succubus.

Jamiee Rogers, as far as I know, knows nothing about rugby league or it’s wonderful intricacies, and yet I know her name as well as Lockyer, Johns, or Lewis, because SHE’S ALWAYS ON DURING THE BLOODY BROADCAST.

Tom Waterhouse even admits he has no idea in his television ads. “I wasn’t born to wear the green and gold, or a baggy green cap…” Well then, piss off, you nonce.

I have no problem with people having a bet. My objections do not come from an imagined moral superiority or a code of ethics that I feel is being violated. It is just that it has got to a point where gambling pervades every nuance of the sporting experience, changing it from something that promotes togetherness into something that rips people apart.

I remember those pre-Waterhouse Friday nights with such fondness because in a world of grey, it was nice to be indoctrinated into a world of black and white by my father. Canterbury were always the good guys, the rabbits were always to be backed if Canterbury wasn’t playing. Under no circumstances did we barrack for Manly, Easts, or Cronulla. Why? Who knows? Who cares?

When I decided Brisbane were my team, it added a new element of excitement to the weekend. I’d wake up with the back page of The Courier-Mail taped to my bedroom door if the Broncos lost badly the night before, while I would make puppy noises all day if the Dogs had been beaten. I learned to take losses on the chin and celebrate hard the victories. I never had a conversation with Dad that went, “Well, I WANT the Broncos to win, but I’ve had a bet that Melbourne will take them down 1-12, Billy Slater will be the first try scorer, but Corey Parker will win man of the match. Whaddya reckon, Pop?” Dad never taught me gambling was wrong, he just taught me that the time and place for it wasn’t during those hallowed Friday nights. It was a lesson that shaped who I am.

I’m sure there are people who bond over the gambling experience, but it is essential that people realise that when there are so many things to bet on in one game, so many institutions ready to take money for ridiculous, exotic outcomes, the institutions need to advertise to their markets. When they do that, you’ve essentially pulled focus from what made sport great in the first place, and you’re teaching the next generation to do the same.

And that’s really the worst of it. We are indoctrinating our children into gambling in the same way the Winfield Cup of the 90′s introduced them to smoking. Meanwhile, politicians sabre rattle and claim that things will be done, but in the meantime we are losing the next generation to Gambler’s spell.

However, we are not powerless in this. While I don’t pretend to understand gambling addiction, I know that there are many people out there who bet with the big betting companies who aren’t addicts. So let’s take it out of Waterhouse and co’s hands. If you must bet, do it with a group of mates – that way, your lost funds are helping a friend put food on the table, not buying Mr Waterhouse a yacht.

As I said, it’s not like I’m pontificating from up on high, looking down my nose at those foolish enough to participate in these comps. Last year, I finished third in my work tipping comp, missing out on money by only one place, but in order to finish so high, I had to cheer for Manly. MANLY. I honestly didn’t enjoy season 2012, and even though a lot of it had to do with the way the Broncos limped out of the finals in week one, even more of it had to do with the fact I felt dirty for cheering for teams I’ve hated since I was a teenager.

Kids are starting up their own tipping comps in the schoolyard, I know teachers who have even experimented with it in classrooms, (“Not for money, Benny,” they are at great pains to point out. “I just give the winner a new highlighter or pencil case…” talk about missing the point,) and all the while in my mind’s eye I can see that 42 inch Waterhouse head grinning over steepled fingers and muttering “Eeexcellent,” in a Mr Burns-esque baritone.

As for me, well, I’m not in a footy comp this year. A lot of people think it’s because I’ve quit my job and have no one to gamble with, and I’m happy for them to think what they want to. But if you see me around the Brisbane pubs or clubs on a Friday night, screaming my brains out or sobbing into a beer, (in both cases as happy as a man who has nailed the perfect round,) you’ll know it’s because the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad again. I’m back to watching footy, and cheering for the teams I love, like I did on those Friday nights when I was young.

1. Baz luhrmann - the man who introduced the world to Moulin Rouge and Strictly Ballroom is bringing to life one of the most classic novels of the 20th century. Yeah, so his movies are a tad over the top and frenetic but you’ve got to admire his vision and creativity.

2. The costumes – dust off that feather bower and get ready to rock a bob, the roaring 20s are back in vogue thanks to Luhrmann’s retelling of this classic tale. Whether its Gatsby, played by Leo DiCaprio, looking suave in a vest or Carey Mulligan gracing the screen in a sequined number, this movie makes you want to hit those op shops soon.

3. F Scott Fitzgerald – for those of you who don’t know, the movie is based on a book by one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century. He finished four novels: This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, Tender Is the Night, and his most famous, The Great Gatsby. Today, the book is widely regarded as a “Great American Novel” and a literary classic

4. The themes – the themes and issues that pulsate through this piece are as relevant today as they were back then. The endless quest for the American Dream; the thoughtlessness and excesses of the rich in contrast to the downtrodden poor; and the tragedy of lost loves are sure to strike a chord with viewers today. In a world where the gap between rich and poor grows wider and the dream of owning your own home seems to get harder, the GG reminds us these struggles have been fought before.

5. Carey Mulligan - this doe eyed beauty who first graced our screens in The Education is the perfect person to play the protagonist, Daisy. She has just the right mix of endearing vulnerability and annoying vacuousness.

The origin’s of April Fool’s Day are uncertain, but have been traced back as far as 1392, in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Others believe it stemmed from the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, which was ordered by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, while others see it as a celebration of the turn of the seasons.

Regardless, April Fools is celebrated across the world, and although not a national holiday, it is a day when the pranksters come out to play and the most gullible among us fall for every trick in the book.

With this in mind, I thought I’d scour the Internet to bring you the funniest, thigh-slapping hilarious pranks out there, to get those creative juices flowing, or create fair warning for those inevitable victims.

1.       Mentos + Diet Coke = Best prank ever!

It’s one of the oldest tricks in the books, but no matter how many times you do it, it never gets old. This is a must-watch for a creative way to get away with it.  

2. A proposal gone horribly wrong

Cruel, but hilarious! I wonder if she actually ended up marrying the guy?

3.       Teachers can have fun too, right?

This math teacher knew how to use humour to get the attention of his class! And, he taught them something at the same time.

4. An arachnophobia sufferer’s worst nightmare

This guy would have lost a fan in his girlfriend after this trick!

5.       An oldie, but a goodie

It’s one of the oldest tricks in the books, but it’s still just as popular come April 1 every year!

Source: Mozzercork’s photo stream via Creative Commons.

“Held on the last Sunday in March every year, it’s the perfect day to say thanks for being a great neighbour and for being there when I needed you most.”

Now, thanking nice neighbours is all very well, but the reality is many of us can’t stand those we happen to live near. The only way I’d invite the people across the street for a ‘cuppa’ or a ‘barbie’ as the good people at neighbour.org suggest is if I had the local police on standby.

You might think this is a bit harsh, but chances are you haven’t met my neighbours. They hail from what my flatmates and I like to refer to as the ‘ghetto’. The ghetto is not just remarkable for its frequent visits by the cops and screaming matches, but for its complete contrast to the rest of the neighbourhood. Walk down one side of the street (our side) and you will be greeted by white picket fences and cute dogs playing on manicured lawns. Venture over to the other side, toward the cop shop, and it’s like stumbling into an episode of The Wire.

The other night I was watching said show with my partner when we heard an awful screeching. Peering out our balcony we noticed one of our lovely neighbours stumble out of a taxi, drop her dacks and start peeing on the sidewalk, all the while hurling abuse at the man (her partner we presume) who had got out of the taxi ahead of her. “Hold up ya c#*t!” she screamed. “Where the f#*k are you goin’ you rude c#*t!”

My partner thought the scene unfolding in front of him was hilarious. Why would we watch The Wire when we can see it all just by looking out the front window?

It turns out we’re not the only ones with bad neighbours. A survey of 2200 people by Quest Community Newspapers last year revealed noisy neighbours was the third biggest concern for Brisbane residents, just behind animal noise and potholes.

But rather than get to know your neighbours and give them a pat on the back, experts suggest we keep them at an arms-length.

Associate Professor Lynda Cheshire, ARC Future Fellow in Sociology at UQ is involved with The Australian Community Capacity Survey of 4500 across 148 suburbs in Brisbane that examines neighbourly problems and complaints.

She told Quest Newspaper’s keeping neighbours at a polite distance could avoid repercussions.

“The figures in the UK are something like three out of five people do hear their neighbours.

“You can hear your neighbours through the wall and sometimes even having sex, so just saying hello and pretending they are not there is a way of managing that,”’ she said.

“Friendly distance becomes important because it’s a way of managing social proximity.”

Besides, with the rise of social media, flexible working hours and more transient populations there was less need to get to know your neighbours, Prof Chesire said.

“We don’t get time to interact with our neighbours, people are working more flexible hours, you could be working nightshift or casual hours so not everybody is at home at the same time,” she said.

“We do have a more privatised existence, it’s much more home-centred, but also the people that we connect with can live outside of our suburb, so we don’t need those local forms of support as much as we used to.

“Everybody agrees that informal, good relations are important.”

So it seems to me rather becoming best buds with our neighbours, we’d all be better off nodding politely and keeping the hell out of each other’s way.

If you think your neighbour is bad, check out this guy:

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald in February this year, workplace bullies could face fines of up to $33,000. This is sure to prompt some sniggering among those who pride themselves on their emotional toughness, along with remarks that we all need to harden up (expletives omitted). In this instance, no thanks at all goes to Chopper Read. 

While the idea of claiming a $33,000 damages bill might sound a bit far fetched, the article in the Sydney Morning Herald will surely be of some comfort to people who have been on the receiving end of bullying in the workplace. In the following paragraphs I have constructed the story of Gemma based on my own experiences and those of friends and co-workers. 

Gemma, aged 21, started work as an administrative assistant at a law firm while studying part-time for her degree in Criminal Law. She was placed on a temporary contract, but was assured by her new boss that he had every intention of making her a permanent employee.  

Unfortunately for Gemma, and for so many others like her, workplace bullying usually isn’t so easy to identify as at school. The bullies aren’t necessarily the ones hanging people upside down in the toilets for their lunch money, or the ones who dish out insults and overtly sarcastic remarks. These days, bosses don’t usually yell and scream at their employees. Usually, the tactics are much more insidious. For the first couple of months, Gemma had no idea that she was being carefully manipulated. She believed her co-workers when they told her they knew everything there was to know about being a legal secretary. Eager to appear willing to learn, she hung on their every word.    

Gemma experienced several of the common tactics used by workplace bullies. Some of the women (and a few of the men) were simply content to assert their superiority over her and imply that she wasn’t capable of reaching their degree of technical competence. This passive form of bullying is possibly the most common within the modern workplace, and usually goes undetected. Others chose to exclude Gemma from meetings and neglected to pass on vital information. Before long, Gemma noticed she had fallen out of favour.  Every minor mistake she made was publically criticized, even when much more serious errors were made by her co-wokers. Several of the women around her began highlighting her mistakes to the managers, and painting her as lazy and incompetent.  

As in Gemma’s case, several factors are necessary to allow bullies to thrive within the workplace. The complicity of the larger workforce is absolutely necessary. Often, the victim’s co-workers behave like a pack of sheep blindly chasing after the leader, for fear of becoming the next target. Many of Gemma’s colleagues, while not involved, also chose not to intervene on her behalf. Others were complacent, ignoring the situation or remarking that it happened in most workplaces. 

In part, the rise of workplace bullying in recent years can indirectly be attributed to the influx of women into the workforce. It is still the case that, in most organisations, the lower rungs of the hierarchy are mostly female, while the management layers are predominantly male. In such a climate, the male managers have a tendency to dismiss such problems in their workforce as “women’s issues”. The down-turn of the economy has definitely played a part, as low morale provides a kind of moral vacuum within the workplace. In such an atmosphere, negative behaviours such as bullying tend to be overlooked. 

In Gemma’s experience, as in so many others, when she finally asked for help from her manager, it was not forthcoming. Her manager bluntly remarked that maybe she wasn’t a “good fit”, and later accused her of being a trouble-maker. He was unwilling to deal with the perpetrators for fear of losing good workers. One manager was due for his performance review and did not want any reports of “issues” in his section to tarnish his image with his superiors. 

In the end, Gemma’s contract was terminated early. Her manager sheepishly stated the economic downturn as the main cause, and failed to make any eye contact. Any complaints she might have pursued through official channels would then have been attributed to the angst of an ex-employee. The personal consequences for Gemma were severe: she suffered from depression and had to take time off from her degree.

 As is the case for most victims of workplace bullying, Gemma’s experience was made possible by three groups of people: the bullies who made her life miserable, the complicit bystanders and the managers who failed to intervene.  The response to workplace bullying needs to be a community response, a network of people united against the negative attitudes and behaviours of a few.  For all victims of bullying, the message is simple: there is help, there is healing and there is always hope.

Source: http://www.xdr.com via Creative Commons.

Some blame Kevin Rudd (and his supporters) along with the media. Of course others blame Gillard’s style or the fact this is the longest election in 70 years – I think that argument is weak, because regardless of the election day being set, all politicians have been in campaign mode for some time. But there is also a more fundamental problem that I will come to later.

Rather than adopting the view of the editorials, I prefer to take judgement from the mood ‘on the street’, the average person who perhaps doesn’t write letters to the editor, call talk back radio or even take much notice of the news of the day. That mood indicates an even bigger fall for the government. Perhaps Queensland is somewhat different due to the Rudd factor and my comments are based purely on what I hear discussed locally (in Queensland).

Having experienced Australian elections since 1992 when I migrated to Australia (Brisbane), I can’t recall a Prime Minister this unpopular. By the same token, I can’t recall an opposition leader who was also deeply unpopular, yet who is on track to be the next Prime Minister. For now, he simply seems to have to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Of course if we had a Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull, we would have a completely different scenario where anything would be possible. Both these men are popular in the eyes of the voting public and their respective party memberships, just not with the majority of their fellow parliamentarians.

The simple problem for Gillard is that few outside the “true believers”, know or understand what she stands for and many consider her less than honest and controlled by the so called ‘faceless men’. Importantly as anything, she fails to connect. Abbott is considered ‘Mr No’ and out of touch with female voters and driven by policy that reflects his own moral (religious) beliefs. These observations may appear harsh, but that is what I hear from the wider community.

With the latest challenge that wasn’t a challenge, voters now need and deserve a focus on policy and how it will be implemented. After all, this is not an episode of Big Brother. However, the public seem to have completely switched off, as if they’re waiting to do to the Prime Minister what Kevin Rudd couldn’t.

In terms of policy debate, many blame the media for not creating the debate. But it is not up to the media to create the debate. The government has a serious problem with an inability to connect with voters and sell its political message. This is underlined by the fact that compared to the rest of the world, Australia is in reasonable good shape in terms of issues such as the economy and unemployment, yet this message is not getting through,  mainly because the government has been consumed by internal factors ever since Rudd was first removed – and it has never let up.

Julia Gillard fails to connect with voters. Source: Wikimedai Commons.

It is largely the government people judge, not the opposition, with governments losing elections rather than oppositions winning, and recent history underlines this. Probably a reason why Abbott is avoiding debate and detail like a child does a dentist. And if it is working, why would Abbott change tactic? The leader of the opposition is very clever at making people feel insecure and vulnerable and the government is feeding this perception.

Many ALP members I know wonder what has gone wrong and why this is the case, despite the economy continuing to grow each year and the passage of the likes of the national disability insurance scheme.

There is no doubt the brand name ALP is in negative territory, a situation not helped currently by the corruption issues in NSW under the former state government.

I was previously an ALP member for 14 years, including as a branch president for nine years, so I have a reasonable understanding of how things play out. The current problems of the ALP run deeper than the issue of leadership and process. There is a fundamental problem in the ALP in that some see their own egos and protection of their own ‘power bases’ as more important than the greater good of the ALP.  Where the enemy within is the focus rather than the real opposition on the “other-side”. While this is a ‘disease’ that all political parties and indeed organisations can be subjected to, it is magnified in some parties and organisations more than others.

There is also the problem that the ALP currently is not representative of the wider and increasingly diverse community, both in terms of membership, office bearers and elected representatives. Therefore, many in the community do not feel a sense of connection and inclusiveness. There are many in the ALP who agree with this view. In fairness that comment could be directed at all political parties, take a look at all political parties and you will get my drift. But the ALP seems to have withdrawn from some traditionally supportive communities and the LNP seem all too happy in trying to fill this vacuum.

Can the government under Gillard survive? Governments have come back from the dead before and as they say, it is the mood of the people on election day that will answer that – so anything is possible. But realistically, it would appear this election is all over and only the most optimistic political romantic could think otherwise. Labor is heading for an absolute disaster.

However, if somehow the government could match some good policy with politics in selling the political message, then there is a very slight ray of hope that it can minimise the defeat. This hope is increased if Abbott is forced to release policy detail. But again, voters seem to have completely switched off. It is as if voters feel let down and for that they will punish Labor in September

The TV war between feisty contestants Angela and Melina, and Ashlee and Sophia, has been slammed on social media sites like Facebook, with some users even going as far to comment that the Channel 7 hit show promotes “bullying and racism” and is outright “disgraceful”.

The rivalry between the Asians (as they have become labelled) and the feisty Italians began back in the instant restaurant rounds, when the two teams collided, in what was plugged as the showdown catfight of the season.

Since then, the show’s producers have played on the rivalry and the growing animosity between the two teams, continuously plugging both teams’ snide remarks and dirty looks, with on-air comments from Ashlee and Sophia described as “vitriolic”, “bad-mouthed”, “nasty” and “advocating bullying”.  

While the bitchiness does create a certain level of drama, that DOES keep the show interesting, it got to a point where it blatantly became bullying and slander, and made some parts of episodes difficult and cringe-worthy to watch. Nevertheless, Channel 7 continued to push the storyline, resulting in some very angry viewers and inevitably, a fall in ratings.

Since Angela and Melina’s departure, angry viewers have taken to Facebook suggesting the newly eliminated contestants should “sue Channel 7”, with many regular fans now deserting the show, claiming the competition is rigged and that what is being aired is “totally unacceptable”.

The anger has continued on Twitter, with the show’s most avid follower Grant Alexander (who is behind the show’s biggest fan account) even boycotting the show, claiming he wasn’t “happy with the direction the show has gone in this year”, and switching alliances to Channel 9 rival, The Block.

This latest incident is not the first time this season of the popular cooking show has come under fire.  The first team to be eliminated, the ‘Spice Girls’ accused the show of misrepresenting them, which resulted in an onslaught of racial abuse on social media.

Could this be the case with the “Asians”, or are they really just that mean? OR, is Channel 7 deliberately portraying ethnic contestants as villains and therefore condoning bullies?

Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below.