Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts

Revenge, on Insight - SBS. How far would you go?



On this week's Insight - to screen Tuesday, 6 September 7.30pm on SBS ONE - the topic is revenge.

It’s powerful, and it plays out in many arenas - the most obvious is in the area of bitter break-ups, and extends to neighbourhood disputes, friendships, and even to politics and sport.

Revenge can make people, well, lose their 'nana and act in ways considered not in character, leading them to act out against former partners, colleagues and companies.

In this episode, Insight asks whether humans are hardwired for revenge, and whether it can ever be justified (some of the examples on tonight's ep will make your head spin).

Some of those who take revenge say the wrongdoer is simply getting what they deserve and that justice is being done. But others say that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ – and that revenge won’t make you feel better anyway. Watch the various examples and see what side of the fence you sit on...

Host Jenny Brockie leads the discussion and tonight's interesting guests include:

Warren Mallard, a private investigator, who sees a large number of cases driven by revenge. He says he’s been threatened with death, had his car torched, tyres punctured, and windows smashed as payback for cases he’s worked on. He believes revenge most hurts the person who enacts it.

Paul Gyulavary, who lost his twin brother and only sibling, Peter, in the 9/11 terrorist attack on the twin towers in New York. Paul confessed to a sense of jubilation after hearing of the death of Osama bin Laden, but then he wondered whether his reaction was appropriate. He says neither revenge nor forgiveness are factors for him.

Mike McCullough, an evolutionary psychologist from the University of Miami and author of Beyond Revenge – the Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct. He says revenge and happiness both stem from the same area of the brain and that, in evolutionary terms, revenge was ‘created’ because of its value in deterring harm.

Pauline Clayton (perhaps my favourite), who racked up $20,000 on her husband’s credit cards after he left her for another woman. She also threw her husband’s beloved golf clubs in the swimming pool and cut the backs out of dozens of his Yves St Laurent shirts (ooh, nasty!).

Niromi de Soyza, who joined the Tamil Tigers at age 17 to avenge the government sanctioned atrocities against Tamils in Sri Lanka. After a year of guerrilla warfare and witnessing the violent deaths of many close friends, Niromi says she came to believe that violence and revenge are not the answer.

Dave Carroll: after United Airlines damaged his beloved guitar, Dave recorded a song “United Breaks Guitars” which went viral on YouTube. The song notched up 10 million hits on the video-sharing site and became a public relations headache for the airline (see the song on the show tonight). But Carroll doesn’t view his actions as revenge.

What would you do in the name of revenge? Better still - what have you done? C'mon, spill. Comment - and feel free to remain anonymous...

Insight is hosted by Jenny Brockie and airs on SBS ONE every Tuesday at 7.30pm.

For more, see: www.sbs.com.au/insight

And you can follow Insight on Twitter at www.twitter.com/insightSBS and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/InsightSBS

Shane Warne: metrosexual much? Do women always want to change their men?









































So, you've witnessed the recent evolution of Shane Warne.



And many of us have an opinion about it. A very vocal one.



But how many women have changed their men. Go on. Admit it.



You meet a bloke. You want to tweak. You know, maybe just a tad.



Soon, you're buying him clothes. Suggesting a new hairdresser, perhaps. Maybe even taking him to the shops, undertaking a makeover akin to an ep of Queer Eye For The Straight Guy.



He doesn't seem to mind. May he's even enjoying the attention.



And then, well... you go a step too far. You tell him those jeans are all wrong, those glasses just daggy, that jacket out of date, the shoes... well, they just have to go.



He repels, recoils... and you retreat. For now.



When the dust settles, you go subtle. Much more. No need to hurt his feelings, you decide. That comes later when you've been together for years. Ha.



And then there's Liz Hurley,



The chat is around how much pull she's had on Shane Warne's new look.



When the first photo of Warnie's obv transformation emerged she came to his defence, declaring that the sheen on Shane's lips was probs the transfer of her lipgloss onto his smacker. You know, when she planted one on him.



We didn't buy it. We let it go. For now.



Then new pics emerged. The dramatic weight loss. The cinched in waist. The OTT tan.



And then, the final straw: the colour coordinated golfing outfit. The perfectly coiffed hair. The overall Ken doll appearance. It's all too much, we cried.



When, oh when would we have our badly-bleached, zinc-covered, pot-bellied Warnie back?



C'arn, spill: why does Warnie's new look bother you so much?



And have you ever pulled a Hurley?



Go on, share... no judgement!

Reality TV: how much is too much? Russell Armstrong's sad death.



With the news overnight that Russell Armstrong - estranged husband of Taylor Armstrong from The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills - was found dead at his home, myriad questions are raised about the 'reality' of reality TV shows.



See a news reel here:







And read more of the story here:



http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-russell-armstrong-20110817,0,3391963.story



The interesting part of this reality phenomenon (the "Real Housewives" franchise launched in 2006, following five women living in Orange County, and has since spawned spin off shows in New Jersey, New York City and Atlanta) is that the appeal is around watching these women lead apparently fulfilled, opulent, often OTT lives.



The real reality of these reality shows is that at least six "Housewives" have instigated divorce proceedings since being on various versions of the shows, and around the same number have filed for bankruptcy since filming started.



It all begs the question: how much of the show is staged (nooo, impossible!) to suit the template of the show's [affluent] premise. And is it all a little too much, in every respect?

Broken Britain and the New Age of Anarchy: by Laury Jeanneret







Laury Louise Jeanneret is a talented, UK-based writer who has her own blog, http://aroomofonesown-llj.blogspot.com/



We are old work pals and when I asked Laury to write a piece on the London riots, she told me she was already planning one. This is a thought-provoking, passionate piece, and I invite you to read it in full, and comment.







Broken Britain and the New Age of Anarchy: by Laury Jeanneret



For the past week I, like many other Britons, have watched in horror as my capital city has burned and countless other cities across this once green and pleasant land have turned into war zones. Images of young people adorned in hoodies, faces covered, pelting police with stones, packing their cars with goods looted from local shops, throwing Molotov cocktails onto centuries’ worth of heritage have been broadcast across the world.



The wanton savagery has taken my breath away, other nations watching the destruction from afar, must surely wonder what has gone so wrong in British society, what is so rotten here, that our citizens would be incited to revolt in such a nihilistic way. But amidst the carnage one thing seems startlingly resonant to me, the fact that I am not surprised by the depths that my countrymen have sunk to. Disgusted, yes, but surprised, sadly, no.



The trouble started on Thursday night when in a 29-year-old black man, and father of four, from Tottenham in north London was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police's Operation Trident team. I mention Mr Duggan’s race because I believe it is paramount to understanding the violence that his death provoked.



Mr Duggan had allegedly been under surveillance by the police for some time, he has widely been touted in the more right-wing British press as a “gangster” and a prominent “elder” from the notorious Broadwater Farm estate. Known by the nickname “Starrish Mark” it is alleged he had links to infamous north London gangs such as the Broadwater Farm Posse and Tottenham Mandem. A claim that his girlfriend, Simone Wilson, vehemently denies.



Initial reports following Mr Duggan’s death stated that he had been shot by the police after opening fire on an officer from Scotland Yard’s elite firearms squad, the bullet from his firearm having been lodged in the police radio. This week the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found that Mr Duggan had not opened fire on police.



In a statement released on Tuesday the IPCC said that the bullet lodged in the radio was, in fact, a police issue bullet “consistent with having been fired from a [police] Heckler and Koch MP5”. It transpired that during events last Thursday two shots were fired, both by police. An inquest into Mr Duggan's death was opened on Tuesday but has now been adjourned until December.



Following this fatal shooting last Thursday night a peaceful protest began in Tottenham, around 100 people marched from Broadwater Farm to Tottenham police station and held a vigil there, demanding answers, and justice for the death of a popular member of their community. The significance of this cannot be underestimated.



London’s ethnic communities have a bloody history with the Metropolitan Police; many have compared the scenes of the last few days with the riots that swept the capital in the eighties, which also erupted during a recession. The 1981 Brixton riots were sparked when Michael Bailey, a young black man who had been stabbed, was perceived not to have received adequate medical attention from police officers on the scene.



In 1985 more riots raged in Brixton when Dorothy “Cherry” Groce was left paralysed after being shot in her bed by police as they searched her house in relation to offences they suspected her son, Michael Groce, of committing. Days later tensions flared between the black community and the police north of the river when, following the arrest of a young black man, Floyd Jarret, over a suspected motoring offence the police raided the home of his 49-year-old mother, Cynthia Jarrett on the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham, during which she suffered a stroke and died.



The topography of events precipitating such outbreaks of violence is pivotal. Areas such as Brixton, Hackney and Tottenham, are high density inner-city areas with large Afro-Caribbean populations, what permeates these streets is the long-running resentment between the authorities and local communities who feel that they are constantly harassed by police using stop and search powers and unreasonable force without just cause.



Unemployment is high, opportunities are few, the stench of poverty is all around. The London borough that houses Tottenham has an unemployment rate double the national average, resources are thin on the ground, child poverty and deprivation is rife.



Thirty years on from the Brixton riots the black and ethnic community’s relationship with police has not changed. As Nina Power of The Guardian commented this week “when you look at the figures for deaths in police custody (at least 333 since 1998 and not a single conviction of any police officer for any of them), then the IPCC and the courts are seen by many, quite reasonably, to be protecting the police rather than the people”.



But of course the 2011 UK riots are not just a case of race clashes between ethnic communities and the establishment, over a decade in to this new millennium; it is more complex than that. It is about a whole sector of our society so disillusioned with their lives, and their lack of prospects, that they feel they no longer have a viable stake in that society, and are therefore, not governed by its laws.



Britain in 2011 is a bleak place for all but the privileged minority. The gap between rich and poor grows ever wider, it has been reported that the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest. Why are we surprised that a cultural and financial backdrop such as this would eventually provoke hostility? Social mobility in the UK is one of the lowest of any other developed nation. For many it is not just about where they are now, it is the heartbreaking realisation that no matter what legitimate efforts they make, there is no room to manoeuvre themselves to a better life. It is the total absence of hope.



In the last year we have seen numerous protests amidst the toughest austerity measures since World War Two, students have taken to the streets as university tuition fees have been hiked, teachers have walked out on strike after cuts to their pensions and a proposed raising of the retirement age means they will be working longer and paying increased contributions, to receive less upon retirement.



Over 450,000 public sector jobs are to be axed; the Child Trust Fund has been discontinued. The social housing budget has been slashed by 50%, and housing associations will now be able to charge 80% of the market rent rate, rather than their formerly subsidised rents. In March this year Chancellor George Osborne presented his budget to the nation and unveiled plans to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners, reducing it by £50 for the over 60s and £100 for the over 80s.



Meanwhile, the cost of living has soared as energy suppliers have hiked their tariffs, just last month Scottish and Southern Energy increased their prices for electricity and gas by 11 and 18% respectively. This, following a price hike by British Gas of 16 and 18%, and Scottish Power's early-June price increase of 10% and 19%.



Across the country maternity wards have been closed down, funding for “non-essential” services, such as youth clubs, withdrawn, in March this year £5.7 million was cut from the budget in the London borough of Southwark from children’s social care and safeguarding services (a trend that continued throughout other London boroughs and county councils across the country).



Working Tax Credits, a top-up for families on low incomes and a lifeline to many, is due to be slashed in 2012 to be replaced with a “universal credit”, for which the qualifying criteria has been kept a closely guarded secret amidst fear of further protests, VAT has risen to 20%, whilst proposed cuts to police numbers could mean over 16,000 police officers (ironically the same number deployed to London in recent days), 1800 community support officers and 16,100 police staff jobs are axed.



According to recent figures from the International Labour Organisation there are now 2.45 million unemployed in Britain, which is over 7% of the workforce, there are 1.52 million claiming benefits, and yet somehow the rich still seem to be getting richer, the bankers are still receiving their bonuses while the bakers are no longer able to put bread on their own tables.



The mood of the country is black, so many have lost heart in the agencies that are meant to help them as under-resourced Social Services teams struggle to cope with crippling caseloads and more children in need go unchecked (as the horrific death of baby Peter Connelly in Haringey so grotesquely demonstrated in 2007 when authorities failed to detect the 50 injuries, including a broken back, that the 17-month-old infant had sustained over an 8-month period).



Hospitals have fewer beds and chronic staff shortages, local mental health teams increasingly overstretched with the number of people in distress can offer only the paltriest of help to their most vulnerable residents. Even in my own leafy enclave of East Sussex, a far cry from the ghettos of London, community crisis teams have been instructed that they are only to respond to the “actively suicidal”, which by anyone’s standards seems a little late.



And amidst this increasingly fractured backdrop a disturbing culture of social exclusion has been nurtured, alienated from a society that can’t and won’t offer any other option to the crushing poverty of so many, new, self-governing communities have been fostered. Communities where teenage gangs take the place of disintegrating family units, gang leaders or “elders” offer crime as a viable alternative to countless applications for the few available menial jobs. Relationships with the authorities have broken down as the discourse between the powerful and the powerless becomes increasingly fractious.



Whilst working in South Africa in 2005 I witnessed something similar among that country’s poorest residents, speaking to me then about the loss of youngsters to criminal gangs Inspector Bernadine Steyn of the South African Police Service (SAPS) said: “The high unemployment rate is a factor. Drug lords and gang leaders create job opportunities for individuals seeking a means to support their families financially. Gangsterism is in fact a very lucrative business”.



Over the last few days I have seen dozens of comments across social networking sites about the “sheer criminality” of what has transpired in the UK this week, people lamenting the fact that looters have chosen to smash up “their own backyard without cause” as reasoning that these riots are not politically motivated, that it is just mob-rule at its most base.



But to take this stand is surely to miss the point, across the world, it is the poorest, most socially excluded societies that are the most dangerous, from the townships of South Africa to the favelas of Brazil, it is the most deprived conurbations that fall victim to the highest crime rates and social dysfunction. Scratch the surface of any unequal society and you will find almost endemic lawlessness within the pockets of poverty.



London, of course, is not Cape Town or Brazil, but poverty is poverty, whether it is Peckham or Pretoria. There is also another difference between the trouble-spots of the developing world and Britain, in South Africa the problems are not just racial segregation, they are also spacial. The townships sprawl on the outskirts of the cities, a far cry from the salubrious suburbs inhabited by the (predominantly) wealthy whites.



In London the haves live side-by-side with the have-nots as more and more gritty working class areas such as Clapham and Hoxton are gentrified by the Cappuccino Set. In the case of Hoxton, in the London borough of Hackney, the arrival of trendy highflyers from the city’s west priced many local people out of their home borough, it was not unusual in the nineties to see local residents wandering around with tee-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “Fu*k off back to Notting Hill” across them.



The polarities of rich and poor in these areas are everywhere, and it is not difficult to understand the simmering resentment that this causes when people who already feel disengaged from society begin to feel they do not even belong where they were born and raised. As Camila Batmanghelidjh wrote in her searingly moving piece for The Independent this week:



“It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped. Savagery is a possibility within us all. Some of us have been lucky enough not to have to call upon it for survival; others, exhausted from failure, can justify resorting to it.”



We have fostered a society for the last three decades driven by an insatiable desire for ever-greater consumption, we have been encouraged to attribute our self-worth to our brand of TV or mobile phone, to dig ourselves further into debt to finance aspirational lifestyles way beyond our means. What we have witnessed in our country over the past week has been a distortion of those ideals, a grisly tableaux of a consumer society at its most savage.



Looters perusing the aisles of smashed up department stores holding items of clothing up to themselves to see if they fit before stealing them, rifling through the rubble of merchandise for their favourite brand, to call it “criminal opportunism”, as it has been branded by so many this week, is exactly right, it is opportunism in the face of a society where precious little opportunities exist.



Where people are tired of being bottom of the food chain in a suffocating class structure that enables only the very few to succeed and where the young are so disaffected with a community that appears to care very little about them that they have ceased to care about it. To coin Oliver James’ phrase, it is “affluenza” at its most ugly.



And as the clean-up of our major cities gets under way, it is not just the smashed in windows and burnt out buildings that we need to worry about, those things can be fixed, and soon it will be business as usual as the tills start ringing again. In the early nineties indie band Carter USM wrote widely about what it felt like to live on the breadline in London. When I was 16 I watched them play to a packed crowd in Finsbury Park, three miles away from Tottenham:



“All of my unworldly goods, the bailiffs took them too”, they sang, “for all the ducked bills and silly sods from Brian Mills' catalogue, something borrowed, bartered and blew. You win some and you lose some and you save nothing for a rainy day, you need your NutraSweet daddy, some peppermint paddy or just a hackneyed old cabbie, who can drive you and your babby away”. Not much has changed since then for the likes of Britain’s poor. It is not just our cities that have been broken, it is also our people.

Australia's Next Top Model - Cycle 7 - Premieres Tonight




Australia's Next Top Model is back - tonight!

Fans of this show have the IQ set and are rejoicing.

The rest don't know what the fuss is about.

The teaser promo is fab, and you've probably already seen it (it's below).

BUT, you must watch this first:



Hooked? I am.

Here's the teaser promo:



True fans will certainly know what went down at last year's finale (talk about a model muddle... poor Sarah Murdoch):



Looks like she's ready to move on from the debacle (although still decidedly mortified at the bungle, judging by her Today Show interview this AM):

http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article/8282547/australias-next-top-model-2011

Really wanna brush up? Read about it all in these links:

http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com/2010/10/australias-next-top-model-foxtel-says.html
http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-sarah-murdoch-being-blamed-for-model.html
http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com/2010/09/harpers-bazaar-november-cover-its.html
http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-three-models-one-cover-going-to.html

Want more? Head here:

http://www.fox8.tv/shows/australias-next-top-model

So, claws sharpened? I think yes.

Britex: porn for your home

What do you think of this ad?



Is it a tad OTT?

Is the 1970s porn reference just a little... too much?

I first spotted this ad a few days ago, while on was on the phone, with the TV on mute. My jaw was... down here. I watched it again and was just... slightly weirded out.

Prudish? Me? Never! But just... ugh.

It IS very clever, though. I have indeed read all the studies and surveys and heard the anecdotes which say that seeing your man clean is a total aphrodisiac. Anyone who knows the husb and I knows that this kinda action happens nightly 'round here. I am not talking the porno music and bad clothes and no-storyline-crazy-sex-role-playing (well... ahem) but the obsessive cleaning and house-must-be-spotless. His thing. Not mine.

So, is it a turn-on? Well...

This TV ad is one in a series of 'Steam Up Your Carpet' from DIY steam cleaning company Britex, who have been hiring out steam cleaners at your local Woolies for yonks.

There's also this one:



This one:



And this one:



And lastly this one:



Thoughts? Does it, er, get you going...?

Go Back To Where You Came From - essential TV



So I have just finished watching the first episode of "Go Back To Where You Came From" on SBS. If you missed it, go online and view the entire ep here: http://www.sbs.com.au/

This is raw, emotion-charged viewing - a TV social experiment at its best.

When I first heard the title some weeks ago I will admit it was extremely jarring: it was the jibe I sometimes heard as a child of Italian migrants, as a 'wog' living out in south-west Sydney.

Now, I consider myself to be very much aware of the plight of the refugees living in Australia; of the heartbreaking stories attached to the asylum seeker.

I live mere kilometres from the Villawood Detention Centre; I live in a suburb where interacting daily with Iraqi and Sudanese refugees is a completely normal existence for me - has been for many, many years.

But this show moved me in ways I didn't expect. When the Sudanese woman spoke of her children, I cried many tears. When Roderick is recounted an emotional story and shifts uncomfortably, I am engaged. When some of the partipants utter ignorant remarks, I cringe. When I hear Gleny utter words of wisdom and clarity, I am glad she is one of the people taking part in the show.

However you feel, wherever you stand, this is true must watch TV.

Reassuringly for our young generation, interactive, curriculum-relevant school resources will be available from June 22, that will enable students and teachers to interact with the content of the series. It will feature clips from the documentary, classroom activities and curriculum applications. For more, go here: http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/goback/listings/page/i/2/h/Schools/

To read about one of the 'six ordinary Aussies' (Raye Colbey) who has since come back from this journey, go here: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-mile-in-the-shoes-of-refugees-20110620-1gbsa.html

And to see the trailer for the three part series (part two airs tonight, part three tomorrow night) go here:

Playboy July 2011 - Crystal labelled "Runaway Bride"



Don't cry for Hugh Hefner - he may not be able to stop those pesky long lead presses from rolling out the cover of the Playboy July issue (featuring the new "Mrs Crystal Hefner" - awkward!) but he can order a huge sticker with "Runaway Bride" to be slapped on her bits.

"Recent events call for a special sticker on the July cover," Hugh Hef tweeted on Wednesday, with a picture. "Look for it on newsstands."

Crystal Harris packed her pink trackies and ditched Hefner only days before their wedding, which had been planned for this Saturday.

Crystal spoke with Ryan Seacrest on his US radio show on Wednesday, to give her side of the story. According to her, it was a mutual decision not to get married.

"For a while I've been having second thoughts about everything," said the 25 year old. (And yep, he's 85. Eighty-five!)

"I haven't really been at peace with myself lately. I didn't think it was really fair to him."

She added: "Multiple girls all around, it's not the lifestyle I wanted," she told Seacrest.

Later, Hef weighed in: "Crystal did an interview... to explain everything, but I still don't have a clue," he said via Twitter, adding, "I didn't see any of this coming, but I'm glad things went wrong before the marriage instead of after. Live & learn."

Oh dear, Crystal. If this 'multiple girls' thing bothered you before, why oh why would you accept a ring in the first place?

PS: what on earth is he going to do with all that food for the party? Have a big bash anyways, ol' Hef... (I give him two weeks tops to be seen with another blonde).

The Amazing Race Australia - Chris and Anastasia: is Chris truly sorry?


The biggest talking point of The Amazing Race Australia - now that Richard and Joey are gone - has undoubtedly been this clip (see blog post: http://josiesjuice.blogspot.com/2011/06/amazing-race-australia-chris-and.html)

Many have been disturbed by Chris's outburst towards his partner Anastasia, and the comments on the blog post above, and on the show's Facebook page, have been nothing short of explosive.

But Chris appears to show much deep remorse, and says he is in the process of bettering himself.

In an article in the Herald Sun yesterday, he said:

"It's been a bit embarrassing, the things I said, and it's a good wake-up call as a person," said Chris.

"I have to fix those problems. I take full responsibility for the way I behaved. It's up to me to prove I'm a respectful person. I wish I could tell everyone one by one that."

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/racers-shame-over-treatment-of-partner/story-e6frf96x-1226073590038

What do you think? Is the relationship a recipe for disaster? Is it doom-filled, as so many (strangers) are convinced? Is it even our business? Have you been in this kind of relationship, and how has it fared?

Feel free to comment here.

Queensland Association of Healthy Communities ad to be taken down. Now THAT'S offensive





Have you heard about his story, hitting the news today?

This poster, featuring a gay couple in a loving embrace, one clutching a condom, is this evening being pulled down by Adshel, the company that distribute the ads to bus shelters across Brisbane, without the consent of Queensland Association of Healthy Communities (QAHC), due to Wendy Francis and The Australian Christian Lobby Group.

Really, people?

Two people in love is offensive?

A safe sex message is offensive?

The two guys - actually a real life couple - have started a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123532344395752

Here is what they say:

In 2011 my partner and I were selected to appear in an advertisement for QAHC (Queensland Association of Healthy Communities – www.qahc.org.au). The picture you see on this event is the final product. The aim of this campaign is to promote safe sex for gay men, but also for the wider community. We also felt that this campaign and the exposure these advertisements granted would help gain a wider level of acceptance of the gay community. The image displays not only love and tenderness; you can clearly see our engagement ring and the Christian cross which Anthony wears around his neck. We are real people, and this campaign is about real people. We have been together for six and a half years, we've been engaged since August last year, and just last week we were approved to become foster parents, which will now be happening very soon. We are real people, with a real life, in real love.

This evening, Adshel, the company that distributed our ads to bus shelters across Brisbane, have WITHOUT the consent of QAHC, removed all of our advertisements. This has been due to Wendy Francis and The Australian Christian Lobby Group. Adshel has bowed to BLATANT homophobia and in 2011 there is NO PLACE FOR THIS. To read the complaints, visit: http://www.qahc.org.au/files/shared/docs/ASB_-_complaints.pdf

We are asking everyone to help us take a stand and contact Adshel and demand that the adverts be put back up in their original locations.

Phone: (07) 3250 8200
Fax: (07) 3257 7776
Email: via website http://www.adshel.com.au/who/contact
Write: Suite 19 Plumridge House, 36 Agnes St Fortitude Valley Q 4006

Please invite EVERYONE you know to this event. If you want to go further, please save our image and upload it as your profile picture so when people ask what it's about you can spread the word of this cause. If you want to go further still, please print the poster out and post them wherever we can in public spaces.

What we need from you at least though, is for you to show your support by choosing ‘YES’ when you RSVP to this event. Please spread this message as much as you can, this means something to us: it's about equality, and it’s about standing up against homophobia and so much more.

Please find below QAHC’s detailed response to complaints from the Rip & Roll campaign: http://www.qahc.org.au/files/shared/docs/Rip___Roll_Complaints_Response.pdf

To read more about this, go here:

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2011/06/01/safe-sex-ads-removed-after-christian-complaints/53563

It's 2011, people - wake up!

Slaughtering cattle - humane versus inhumane: the Four Corners investigation







You've probably seen, most definitely heard about the explosive Four Corners episode entitled "A Bloody Business."

You can watch the whole ep here (warning, graphic footage): http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/

After watching it, please sign this petition (I did, and it felt good. Pass it on):

http://www.banliveexport.com/#takeAction

The story centres around the extreme cruelty inflicted on Australian cattle exported to Indonesian slaughterhouses.

Right from the start, before I'd viewed the footage even, all I kept thinking about (in addition to those beautiful animals) was how appalled Temple Grandin would be.

Don't know who she is or what she represents? Watch this:



We all know cows are slaughtered, and yes many of us like to eat meat, but there is much merit, logic, and heart to treating God's animals with the respect they deserve before meeting their inevitable death.

Sydney Harbour Bridge protestor, Michael Fox. Agree or disagree?

Did you see the Karl Stefanovic interview with the Sydney Harbour Bridge protestor, Michael Fox on 60 Minutes tonight?

It was pretty powerful stuff (check back for link - up soon).



Also powerful was his protest the other day.

Unless you were actually stuck in the traffic, perhaps.

Here is a backgrounder on what happened:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-harbour-bridge-closed-by-police-and-trains-stop-after-man-climbs/story-e6freuy9-1226055057881

Even before I saw the 60 Minutes interview, where the faceless man suddenly had a voice and an opinion (he did also speak to Karl - from the Bridge - talking him through why he was protesting, as well as a radio station or two), I found myself feeling much empathy for Michael, and his plight.

What do you think? Are you in a situation where you are desperate to see your children, post-relationship split? Has DoCS let you down? Do you agree with Michael's actions? Would you imagine you'd ever be driven to do the same?

Speak up (remain anonymous if you like) here.

(Photo credit: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/)

Eva Longoria, Piers Morgan, and divorce and cheating


So, I just watched this clip of Eva Longoria talking about her marriage breakdown:



What struck me is the sentiment UK interviewer Piers Morgan expressed... how could anyone cheat on her.

He says in the clip: "People watching this... Like I, having met you... incredulous that this could happen. That any guy would even think or contemplate of... doing anything to damage a marriage to someone like you. What more could a guy want, frankly?"

I certainly feel the same - and yet it's a little offensive.

Like women who aren't as attractive, who don't spend every waking moment maintaining their looks for a living as Eva clearly does, deserve to be cheated on any more than Eva because, y'know, she's a hottie and all.

I know, I know... the popular premise on why people cheat is that their spouse has let themselves go, is looking kinda sloppy, and therefore eyes wander. But that's not always the case.

I have researched a (yet to be published) story on cheating, and why men and women cheat, even going on some undercover surveillance jobs. The man behind the private investigator firm was adamant that in most cases he investigates, it is opportunity that creates the landscape for someone to cheat.

So, he adds, lots of time away from each other, meeting interesting people at work away from the daily drudgery, and a willingness from both of the people doing the cheating to take things further creates an environment ripe for straying.

In Eva Longoria's case, it has been documented that her sportstar ex-husband Tony Parker indulged his penchant for s-exting... with his team-mate's wife. That was a deal-breaker for Eva.

Yet, in the TV interview with Piers, she says simply: "We wanted different things. He's not a bad person. He just wanted... something else. And I don't hate him for it."

What are your thoughts on cheating? What constitutes cheating? And would you / have you forgiven someone for cheating? Or have you taken them back? And do you think Piers's theory on 'how could someone cheat on Eva' holds any weight?

Jackie O: going back to work - how soon is too soon?





Days after the Jackie O / Pru Goward controversy (can you believe the hoo-haa generated over that one photo?), I am yet to address the other argument which was so instrumental in setting this whole kerfuffle off. Women returning back to work - how soon is too soon?

A bit of background first.

The first stone was cast by Daily Telegraph Sydney Confidential gossip columnist Annette Sharp, who, in an open letter to Jackie O, questioned why the radio co-host would return to work only "a few weeks" after the birth of her baby Kitty.

"I'm not judging, I just don't know why a woman who can afford to take a year off with her new baby wouldn't," Annette wrote. A tearful Jackie O broke down in tears after Annette's comments made her "feel like a second-rate mum".

Jackie O used her live breakfast show to hit back at Annette, telling listeners she felt positive about her choice until she read the newspaper article that morning.

"It was two months I was off [not a few weeks]. Then when I did return to work I was working from home and had Kitty by my side for the whole show," she said. "I'm trying the best I can. It is hurtful. I just wanted you to know that I put her before everything else."

Yes, you are trying the best you can, Jackie. And of course you put her before everything else. But the judgement is constantly stacked against working mums. Or non-working mums, for that matter.

So I was very interested to hear about the just-released, sixth Annual Child Care & Workforce Participation Survey examining the health of Australia's child care system conducted by http://www.careforkids.com.au/.

The survey encourages parents to provide insight into their specific child care arrangements and have their say about our child care system and whether it is working for them. According to the survey, up to 60% of working mothers feel stigmatised, while up to 40% of stay at home mums have been judged by their decision not to work.

The report was discussed by journalist and mum Renae Leith-Manos on the Kerri-Anne TV show yesterday (Renae also happens to be my old editor, and is a fellow mum of twins).

"Children are a highly emotive issue and everyone wants to put in their 10 cents worth and try and tell mothers what to do," she told Kerri-Anne. "It's really tough out there... I've done it. To work or not to work? And the real issue is that if you lose your job for too long you won't get it back in this day and age - depending on what your job is of course. But for most of us there's a real pressure and a real choice and it's the toughest choice a woman has to make.

During the segment, Kerri-Anne asks, "Who out there is at the pointed end of the criticism?" Responds Renae: "I hate to say it - I think it's other women. The women who stay at home criticise the women who go back to work. The women who go back to work criticise the women who stay at home... it's been going on for a long time and us women need to talk to each other and support each other more."

Ain't that the truth, Renae!

She adds, "Even if you go back to work, there's this expectation of, 'Oh, she's going to come in late'. Or, 'she's going to leave early. She's going to be exhausted. She's not going to be up to scratch.' And sometimes those things are true. Because, you know having babies at home is tough work. You're up all night, your brain isn't functioning to full capacity. It's tough."

When Kerri-Anne adds that the survey shows that 60% of working mothers said that they were made to feel that they were not taking their parenting responsibilities seriously, Renae says the exact sentiment I am thinking.

"Isn't that devastating! As a woman, there is nothing more important than your children. And the idea that someone would judge you in that way is heartbreaking."

So, what constitutes the 'right' reason to go back to work? Money? Boredom? An excuse to get away from the madness? Says Renae. "And again, it's judgement. And who's to say what someone's financial situation is, what their emotional situation is. I mean, a lot of women feel better going back to work and feel they can give more to their children. And it's not necessarily always about money. It's also about your future career. You may not need the money now, but everyone needs to have a job. And if you leave it too long you may not get it back."

Long before I had kids, my best friend (already a mum) revealed what she called a dirty little secret working mummies kept - that they actually only wanted to work to get away from the responsibilities of parenting (that, and making money for the family, of course).

I must say that for me, my primary motivations were that I wanted to contribute to the family funds... and I hated the way I felt when I wasn't working. There was a slight power shift in the family dynamic - and I didn't like it. I had freelance sub-editing jobs before I had the twins and when they were three weeks old I gladly accepted some work from home. It was minimal, and I have been working from home for the past three years (going into an office only late last year), but I loved that the sole purpose of my day was not only to raise my much-loved children.

The irony was I had taken on the oft-called 'most valuable job in the world'... and yet when I didn't work, I felt the most worthless I'd ever felt. Weird, no?

Agreed Renae on Kerri-Anne: "It can be really mind numbing being at home all the time and again people judge you. Friends come over and they're working... work can be fun! And when you're not working you can't relate to a lot of the things they're talking about, so yes you do feel stigmatised as well."

The answer? Says Renae, "Look I don't think there is [one]. I think the answer is to be more understanding. More part-time work helps a lot. And more childcare facilities on-site. I would love to see some big corporations bring childcare into the workplace. That would really facilitate a lot more women going back to work and acheiving that balance that they're really after."

You said that right, sister.

Perhaps the shape of things to come? In the meantime, please - let's respect each others' choices, eh?

To see the entire interview, go here: http://www.kerri-anne.com.au/video_highlights.php (Photo credits: Renae: http://www.motherandbaby.ninemsn.com.au/; Kerri-Anne: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/)

Bridalplasty: interview with Shanna Moakler



You ask your girlfriend to marry you, and as she walks up the aisle, she looks... different.


That's the premise of the new E! channel TV show Bridalplasty, currently creating some waves.
The show features 12 brides-to-be in a competition to win the perfect dream wedding - and their ideal of a 'dream' body to go along with it.

Host Shanna Moakler (her and now ex-husband Travis Barker - from rock band Blink-182 - starred with their family in their own reality show Meet The Barkers) leads a group of engaged women who are seeking complete body transformations before their 'big day' through a series of wedding-themed comps.


This way, they 'earn' their dream wedding and score plastic surgery procedures from one of Hollywood's most sought-after plastic surgeons, Dr. Terry Dubrow. Each contestant has a wish list of plastic surgery jobs she'd like get ticked off - crooked noses, bad teeth, flat chests, thin lips and muffin tops - and each 'challenge winner' gets a procedure off her wish list.


The last bride standing receives every treatment she wants. And her new 'look' will be unveiled to friends, family and, (hopefully not horrified) fiancé for the first time at the altar on her wedding day.


Wowser! What a concept... so I asked host Shanna all about the TV show, for Josie's Juice.


Congratulations on the new hosting role! How did you feel when you were offered this new gig? Thank you! I was very excited, I love E! and I love their programming on top of hosting so I thought it would be really fun. And it was! I always love a little controversy too.


How do you feel about the women on the show? Have you gotten to know them? I love the women! And yes, I got to know them very well. Some of them I got very attached to but in the end I think the right woman won and I know everyone was happy.


Are they in a good place? Is it simply about "body betterment"? I think they are in a good place, I don't think any of them of have unrealistic expectations. All of the women were there for different reasons, wants, and desires. For example, Cheyenne was bit in the face by a dog, one contestant lost 100 pounds on the Biggest Loser and had excess skin, and some women just wanted the wedding. So each girl's journey was very personal.


Have you had some backlash about the concept of the show? Ha, yes! And I understand, surgery is not for everyone but this show is not about telling women they're not good enough, it's more a way to shine a light on what women are doing all the time before big events and sadly some women can't afford to make the changes they've wanted to make their entire lives. What is right for you is very different for someone else. I know all the women who had procedures walked away very, very happy.


You were one of the pioneers of reality TV with "Meet The Barkers." How has this genre of TV changed since you were first onscreen? Wow! Well besides competitive reality, I find a lot of the docu-style shows are more scripted, where "Meet The Barkers" was not. That was really our crazy love and our crazy lives... Reality TV has had many highs with shows such as "The Biggest Loser", "Survivor", and many lows such as "Whose your Daddy" etc. People are always pushing the limits of reality TV so I don't know how we could really be shocked by anything they put on our TV. I think people need to remember TV is entertainment. There is nothing real about reality TV today.


What do you hope viewers take away from this show? I hope viewers just have fun with it, I hope they see the harsh realities of surgery if they are considering it, but I also hope they see some of the great things we can do with plastic surgery today as well as some really interesting points couples should consider before getting married. I know the ending will put a smile on everyone's face!


The interesting, business-end of the show is screening right now - tune in tonight and every Wednesday for the next few weeks on the Style channel, on Foxtel. The finale show will screen on May 4.


The brides-to-be are: • Netty, 23, who considers herself to be a spoiled brat. • Alexandra, 21, a former contestant on "The Biggest Loser" where she also met her fiancé. • Allyson, 32, who was recently laid off at the same time as her fiancé. • Ashley, 25, who would like to change the fact that she looks like her father. • Cheyenne, 21, a small town Mummy's girl who is struggling with running a household on her own. • Dominique, 24, who resents her parents for spending all their money on her sister's wedding and not saving any for hers. • Jaimie, 23, who wants to re-marry her husband after they rushed their first time to the altar so her mother, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, could attend. • Jenessa, 27, who gave her fiancé a timeline and ultimatum for the marriage proposal. • Jessica, 30, who's dream is to get her breasts reconstructed before getting into a wedding dress. • Kristen, 21, who is the daughter of a former Miss California, who competed in pageants herself and was crowned Miss Anaheim 2005. • Lisa Marie, 29, who wants every type of plastic surgery possible done before her wedding. • Melissa, 20, who met her husband in the ROTC club and had a quickie wedding before he was called to duty in the Middle East where he has been stationed.


The series is produced by the team behind some of cable TV's biggest franchises, including "The Surreal Life," "My Fair Brady," "Flavor of Love" and "Rock of Love." Executive producers include E!'s Giuliana Rancic.


Bridalplasty screens every Wednesday at 7.30pm on Style, on Foxtel and Austar.

Pru Goward, Lisa Wilkinson, and Jackie O: the debate about that photo



So, I am sitting here gobsmacked, eyes glazed with tears.


I just heard Lisa Wilkinson from the Today show speak about these photos and this article, below (in particular the explosive quotes from politician Pru Goward):

Here is what Lisa said: "It's a comment that has deeply offended many mothers and is all the more surprising coming from a politician who, shortly afte taking office in 2007, was caught speeing in a schoolzone. We invited Ms Goward to appear on the show this morning to explain her comments. She declined because she, quote, had parliament this morning. An excuse we do find odd as Ms Goward is attending the Barnados' Mother of the Year Awards this morning. I know because I am hosting the event.

"Ms Goward, our offer for you to explain your comments stands. As I said last week, the truth is we know nothing of the circumstances behind the Jackie O photo, but we do know those first weeks of being a new mum are fraught. How we work it out is a deeply personal thing, and what none of us need is unpleasant sneering from the sidelines. And as incoming Family Services Minister, in a state with an unprecented number of children being abused and neglected, surely Ms Goward, you have more worthwhile issues to attend to."

Lisa - what can I say? You are the voice of all women. You said what many are thinking.

Yesterday, Pru was quoted saying: "We all were horrified when Michael Jackson dangled his baby out the window and this woman is crossing the road not just holding a baby but feeding a baby and I think it was unnecessarily cavalier," Ms Goward told The Sunday Telegraph.

"There would be no mother, no parent probably, or even a hardened feminist, in the country who would think that was a good way of feeding a baby, particularly a little tiny baby," she said.

Wow, Ms Goward. Bring on the onslaught. How dare you judge like this?

The first months, years even, of a new mother and baby's life together are fraught with trial and error, tears and disappointments, frustrations and sleep deprivation. Add a dollop of unsolicited advice and intense judgment and snide comments and you have a recipe for even more of the daily self-loathing and inadequacies we feel as new mothers.

How many times did I leave the house with my baby twins, desperate to be around people in some kind of social setting, head to my local Woolies supermarket, and cower in embarrassment as one or both of my twins screamed down the shop.

My elderly mother - bless her - really was no help, and so I felt so alone, so helpless, like such a failure.

Yes, I got those looks. The ones that say: "Can't you control your children? What is wrong with you? Sheesh, what's wrong with them?"

The turning point came for me one day when I'd had yet another day out from hell. I had to take my mother to the doctor's surgery. My twins screamed. I had to take my mum to the bank. My twins screamed there too.

I was in tears - actually a total mess - right there in the bank, and from behind an angel appeared: my hairdresser/family friend Alba. She scooped up my inconsolable son so quickly and without prompting; she comforted him instantly, and in that moment, I was just so grateful. She knew. She understood. Me.

The next time I saw my doctor's secretary, again in tears, she simply said: "Mothers understand. Nobody is judging you. Ignore everyone else. And this will all pass." I hugged her right there in the street, and cried some more. I cry as I write this as it takes me right back to the moment.

And I had tears as I heard Lisa Wilkinson's impassioned statement, straight down the barrel of the camera this morning.

The hazy first year of my life twins' life when I had two babies to raise, an elderly mum diagnosed with a life-threatening illness who moved in with us - and for whom I became full-time carer - were a mixture of intense emotions. There were plenty of beautiful times I will treasure forever. And there were some I'd rather forget. And with days and days filled with no help, hired, family or otherwise (I did/do have a heaven-sent/helpful husband and I did have the occasional visit from my Karitane volunteer), I felt incredibly isolated and deeply sad.

Add to that a paparazzi shot and judgement from an entire country, and, well... how do you think anyone would feel, famous or otherwise...?

What are your thoughts? Please share anything you'd like to say.

(Photos: news.com.au / Mode Media)

Breastfeeding protest: do you agree?



Did you hear about the woman who was allegedly forced out of a Lifeline charity store in Asquith, NSW, for breastfeeding?

According to an article on news.com.au, Abby Hogarth was breastfeeding her son in the charity store and was allegedly told breastfeeding was against OH&S and “you can’t do that here”.

So, Abby is going back to the Lifeline store this week - bringing with her hundreds of breastfeeding mums - and plans to sit amongst the second hand clothes to feed her baby boy. She even posted a "Facebook Nurse In" event on the social networking site. Apparently, the Lifeline worker said breastfeeding was against OH&S because “She might touch the secondhand clothing and then her baby might get sick”.

You can read the rest of the article here: http://blogs.news.com.au/naughtycorner/index.php/news/comments/breastfeeding_woman_forced_out_of_lifeline_store

So, what do you think? On Facebook last night, one of my school buddies posted this exact link and added the following comment: "[I think] things are just getting too far. I breastfed both my boys for months and never ever did I do it in public, not even in front of any male relos at home. How hard is it to plan your day around feeding times, going to a shopping centre mother and kids room or going to your car if you have to? I may be prudish, but so be it."

So, I thought about that comment - and it kinda made a lot of sense. Please don't send hate mail about my not backing breastfeeding - I do! I breastfed both my twins - sometimes at the same time (how's that for a visual?) - and loved it. Yes, there was one time I had to do it quickly because one was screaming - I swathed myself in so much muslin, nobody got a peep of the girls (my boobs, I mean). Mind you, it was when the twins were three weeks old and I was at my twin prenatal class reunion, so I knew I was in an understanding environment. If I was at home, with visitors, I simply went to another room. Or again, covered my breasts in a light material.

When you are out, and you have a suddenly hysterical baby, and you know the only thing that will calm them down is your breast, of course you will give them what they want, wherever you are - I know I would. I think it's just a matter of assessing the situation quickly, doing it as discreetly as possible (lactating mums know boobs are not sexual; men still view them as 'fun bags'... crude, but true!), and feeling comfortable that what you are doing is right for you and your child in that moment.

What did you do when faced with a similar situation? Have you ever had a complaint - even a disapproving look - from someone around you?

Further, the news.com.au piece added an updated comment from Lifeline themselves after the incident: "Here’s a comment from Lifeline that I thought deserved to be up here in the blog. Hi Everyone, Chris from Lifeline here, We wanted to update you on our response to this complaint; we believe you all have a right to know. To begin with, as an organisation we have no policy that discourages breastfeeding in any of our stores. We want to be clear about that from the outset. Here is a message from Wendy Carver, the local Centre Manager responsible for the store: “Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury has received a formal complaint from the customer who attended our Asquith Shop last week. Lifeline always takes these complaints seriously, especially when they involve a member of the public feeling that they have been treated inappropriately. Lifeline believes all people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and we are immediately disappointed and upset if anyone accessing our services or shops is not treated well. Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury has a Complaints Policy and Procedure, and the complaint that was received last week is currently being investigated.

You can read the rest of the statement here: http://blogs.news.com.au/naughtycorner/index.php/news/comments/breastfeeding_woman_forced_out_of_lifeline_store

Thoughts?

Beyonce's 'Blackface': L'Officiel Paris 90th anniversary edition



Beyonce is the cover star of the 9oth anniversary edition of L'Officiel Paris magazine.

You can watch the behind the scenes video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwvZ8OTAsMg

There has been some controversy over her apparent "blackface" makeup in some of the shots inside the mag, though she has defended this, saying it's in line with the “African Queen” theme, and she was paying tribute to Nigerian musician and human rights activist Fela Kuti who will heavily influence her upcoming fourth studio album.

The magazine is standing by the photos, stating:

The fashion magazine is about to celebrate its 90th birthday. To celebrate this anniversary, the festivities start with the March issue, with Beyoncé on the cover. She agreed to pose for an incredible fashion shoot, with the theme of African Queen, paying a tribute to the legendary Fela Kuti. Far from the glamorous Sasha Fierce, the beauty posed for the magazine with amazing fashion designers clothes, but also in a dress created by her mother. [It is] A return to her African roots, as you can see on the picture, on which her face was voluntarily darkened. All the pictures will be available in the collector edition, on sell at the end of this month."

The Atlanta Post has attacked the photoshoot, saying that 'blackface' is not 'art'. Here's an excerpt:

"...With the frequent use of this image on both the catwalk and in fashion editorial, it makes one wonder if this is a form of art or racism?

The tradition of blackface began as theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows that would “blacken” an actor’s face using shoe paint, burnt cork and greasepaint. The practice became synonymous with racism because it used by white actors to entertain white audiences with stereotypical caricatures of blacks. This once beloved art form has played a significant role in cementing globally racist imagery and perceptions about black people.

The current tone of blackface may seem to be less malevolent today; still, the fashion industry has shown their insensitivity because this imagery is still considered in the black community to be just as insidious and hurtful as it was in the past. Blackface is not fashion forward or edgy and in my opinion, it is just flat out offensive. Black folks must have a zero tolerance policy for any manifestation of blackface, period."

What do you think?

Houso's: Offensive. Stereotypical. Brilliant.











This is the most offensive video you will see all year.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?annotation_id=annotation_369455&user=SuperchocTV&feature=iv#p/u/1/yuo_ZuTbqP8

It's what they'll be talking tonight on A Current Affair.

It's what talkback radio station listeners will be calling about.

The words "government-funded" will be bandied about a lot. So will "taxpayers' money" - which will be preceded by "what a waste of..."

I cannot wait to see it.

It's a teaser for a yet to screen SBS TV show called "Houso's" - alluding to people living in housing commission homes.

Let me be clear here.

I get there's a helluva lot of stereotypes - far too many to count.

I also know that I live a mere few blocks away from where many of the scenes from this teaser were filmed - I recognise every single spot.

I live in a pretty peaceful neighbourhood - no hoons, no break-ins, loads of families - but they clearly needed some pretty urban locations to shoot, and our neck of the woods fits the bill.

I also know that the whole thing looks so hysterically funny because it's an exaggeration - that's what comedy is, right?

Taking the piss... embellishing... going a little OTT?

I've always loved what Paul Fenech - the creator of this show - has done. His last TV show, also for SBS, was a parody of the courier industry, called Swift and Shift.

And of course, Fenech and co were behind the so-bad-it-was-good SBS comedy Pizza and spin-off movie Fat Pizza.

I was glued to all of it, because I can relate to it. I see this kind of behaviour, live in this kinda community, every day. Have done since birth. In fact, acceptance - and harmony - of all races goes with the territory when you live where I live. It's the only normal I know. In primary school, when I did a school project on my local area, I discovered it was the most culturally diverse city - in Australia! More nationalities were - and probably still are - represented here more than any other suburb/city in the country. I was so proud of that, to live amongst people of so many different races. That's why I still live in the area.

Having said that, I grew up with loads of "you wog" jibes, and even today I still hear plenty of racially offensive words like "Lebbos", "Nongs", and the rest.

I say bring on the "Houso's" - those with a bit of intelligence and the ability to separate parody from reality will find it compelling, can't-take-their-eyes-off-the-screen viewing.

SBS this afternoon published a press release saying:

“SBS is aware of media interest relating to a program currently in production for SBS called Houso’s.

“Paul Fenech, the star and producer of SBS’s long-running, provocative and irreverent series Pizza, is producing this new comedy series for SBS.

“Houso’s is not a reality series and everyone participating in the series is an actor.

“Audiences have always understood Paul’s work to be highly exaggerated parody.

“The program, as with Pizza, is not receiving direct funding through any State or Federal Government funding agency and is being funded by SBS through revenue raised by commercial activities.”

Nine’s A Current Affair is heavily promoting a story on the show on tonight’s program this way: “Housing commission uncensored… and it’s funded by the government”.

In reply, Fenech issued a statement:

“I’ll be stunned if the stooges at ACA actually think this show is a reality show, It’s hard not to miss some of the actors which appear in the vision on You Tube; Jabba, Angry Anderson, Ian Turpie and myself without thinking something is up. The unofficial clip of Houso’s which ended up on YouTube has had over 22,000 hits and people seem to like what they see. Basically my show is part of the Aussie tradition of doing comedy about true battlers. Housos’s in still in production and SBS have yet to give an on-air date.”

A couple of things. The video hardly "ended up" on YouTube...

And... this is a PR dream for Fenech and Houso's.

Bring it, stooges.

(Photos courtesy: http://www.facebook.com/housostv)

This "fattie" couple "grossed out" a US journo. Her words. Read why here.

I love a bit of controversy. Who doesn't? I especially love when the not-thought-through comments of some cause a whole lot of uproar. And healthy discussion. When the source is... a TV show? Well, that's my fave kinda 'scandal.'

This Wednesday February 9, the Nine Network will be screening the much-discussed US show Mike & Molly.

During the show's promos, I for one was delighted to see characters who did not, for once, resemble someone straight out of the Friends-mould. You know, looking very much like they needed a sandwich.

Good, I thought. Actors representing the body shape of a great deal of the Australian population. Then I heard about the 'furore' a US Marie Claire magazine blogger created when the show started screening in the US late last year.

Here's some of what the writer Maura Kelly had to say on her blog, posted on October 25, 2010.

"So anyway, yes, I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other…

"...Because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room."

Are you kidding me? How rude is that?

She also called them "fatties", then proceeded to suggest that obesity wasn’t that hard to conquer, even adding she had some dieting tips she’d like to pass on to the masses, like she had to her "plump" friends.

Wow. Bold. Brave. Pretty arrogant.

As you can imagine, the masses united and gave Maura the finger.

Body image and eating disorder experts became concerned that Maura's words would trigger anxiety and self-loathing. And some "fat-acceptance activists" were planning “The Big Fat Kiss-In” in front of the Marie Claire offices.

Maura immediately attached an apology to her post, saying she never meant to offend or bully anyone and admitted that her own struggles with anorexia and body image may have made her project onto other people. (Her editor, Joanna Coles - who appeared in the show Running In Heels - was much less apologetic, saying only that Maura was a "provocative" blogger who was "moved" by the responses.). Who knows if anyone bought either apology.

Said Johanna Kandel (as reported in the American 'The Palm Beach Post'), executive director of the West Palm Beach-based Alliance For Eating Disorder Awareness and a recovered anorexic herself. “Where was the filter, editorially? I’ve lost too many people to eating disorders, too many people whose lives are completely destroyed. We need to watch these negative words, to step back and say, ‘How are people going to feel?’"

The article continues:

“This is a miniature of all of our culture’s attitudes toward fat people right now,” says San Francisco-based fat-pride activist Marilyn Wann, whose movement rejects the diet culture. The media is telling you “fatties don’t count,” she says. “They don’t get to be the hero. They don’t have to have sex. So maybe they’ll be grateful as the object of a joke.”

And then still:

"This show is not about people who represent the norm. This is about people who are obese," says Miami-based behavioural expert Patrick Wanis. "And that is not healthy. We are watching two people who are quite sick because their health is in danger. It would be better if one of the things they said was ‘We are in love with each other, but let’s both work on being physically healthy.’"

For blogger Julie Stein - who sent Maura Kelly a copy of her open letter - she was more than surprised when the writer personally responded:

"You’re right, Julie. Encouraging someone to lose weight is one thing, and insulting people is another. I feel really sad that I’ve hurt so many people, including you. I really do apologize."

To see what the fuss is about, tune into Mike & Molly this Wednesday. Over 12 million viewers in the USA have.

Coming from the creator of Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory, this new comedy
centres on two working-class people in Chicago who find love at an Overeaters Anonymous meeting.

Officer Mike Biggs (Billy Gardell, My Name Is Earl) is a good-hearted cop who sincerely wants to lose weight. At an OA meeting Mike finds Molly Flynn (Melissa McCarthy, Gilmore Girls), a likeable teacher with a good sense of humour about her shape.

After Mike and Molly find each other in the most unexpected of places, they’re finding out where their quest for companionship will take them. I'll be tuning in for sure.

Mike & Molly premieres Wednesday, February 9, at 8pm on Channel Nine.