Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Gaga and Foxx top 'junk food' song league




Full article here: theage.com.au

An initiative to encourage healthy teen relationships says songs by Jamie Foxx and Lady Gaga are the musical equivalent of junk food.

A teen panel working with the Boston Public Health Commission says Foxx's Blame It and Lady Gaga's Bad Romance and Paparazzi are among the top 10 with "unhealthy relationship ingredients".

The commission released its list based on a "nutrition label" rating popular songs on healthy relationship themes.

Mario's Break Up topped the list of the most unhealthy relationship songs of 2009.

Among the panel's top 10 songs with healthy themes: Miss Independent by Ne-Yo and Meet Me Halfway by the Black Eyed Peas.

The commission says its program aims to teach teens how to evaluate popular media, and help parents talk to teens about healthy relationships.

Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients (2009)

1. Break Up (feat. Gucci Mane and Sean Garrett) - Mario
2. Blame It (feat. T-Pain) - Jamie Foxx
3. Paparazzi - Lady Gaga
4. You're a Jerk - New Boyz
5. Baby By Me 50 Cent
6. Best I Ever Drake
7. One More Drink (feat. T-Pain) Ludacris
8. Be On You (feat. Ne-yo) Flo Rida
9. Hotel Room Service Pitbull
10. Bad Romance Lady Gaga

Songs with Healthy Relationship Ingredients (2009)

1. One Time - Justin Bieber
2. Miss Independent - Ne-yo
3. Replay - Iyaz
4. Say Hay - Michael Franti
5. Knock You Down - Keri Hilson, Kanye West
6. Only You Can Love Me This Way - Keith Urban
7. Her Diamonds - Rob Thomas
8. I'm Yours - Jason Mraz
9. Fallin For You - Colbie Caillat
10. Meet Me Halfway - Black Eyed Peas

AP

Friday, October 9, 2009

Business uproar over litigation

Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor | October 09, 2009
Article from: The Australian
Full article link here

LITIGATORS and peak business groups have warned that a proposed federal law encouraging "public interest" litigation would create a US-style greenmail industry and play into the hands of plaintiff lawyers.

They warned unfashionable industries such as mining, forestry and power-generation would be vulnerable under commonwealth plans to exempt "public interest" activists from the normal loser-pays rule on legal costs.

Even if corporate defendants win in court, the government's plan would prevent them from recovering their legal costs from activists who were, in the eyes of a judge, acting in the public interest.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the proposal would skew the civil justice system by giving activists special treatment.

"Public interest litigation raises a whole new spectre of activism and agitation in the court system," ACCI chief executive Peter Anderson said.

"Opening new avenues for litigation has the potential to increase litigation because it is designed to be used. This form of litigation also puts the court in a difficult position. It is being asked to make costs orders based on a very elastic notion of what the public interest is."

The proposal, drawn up by the attorney-general's department, was criticised also by the Forest Industry Association of Tasmania, which warned that activists could use the procedure to impose unnecessary legal costs on a wide range of industries that were unfashionable.

"It's not just forestry," association chief executive Terry Edwards said.

"Farmers growing genetically modified crops of canola could also be vunerable."

Litigator Stuart Clark of Clayton Utz said the plan would play into the hands of plaintiff lawyers who had tried in the past to "dress up individual claims as some sort of public interest case".

"It is yet another attempt to tip the balance in favour of plaintiffs by removing rights and protections for defendants," he said.

"Business must have the right to defend claims that are brought against them and are entitled to the same protections as any other members of the community.

"These proposals are just aimed at removing all barriers for claims being brought against corporate defendants, and they are also trying to generate a situation where corporate defendants will simply give up."

The plan, which is outlined in the government's Access to Justice report, comes after Victoria's Public Interest Law Clearing House urged federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland to introduce a system of "protective" costs orders for public-interest litigants.

The Access to Justice Report cites and rejects warnings from business about the PILCH proposal that had been reported in The Australian in June.

"In cases where a public interest costs order were made, there would by definition be additional costs on defendants that are ultimately successful but are unable to recover a proportion of their costs," the report says.

"Concerns are raised on the basis of a potential flood of frivolous litigation, which business would have to pay for. It is also suggested that if a matter were truly in the public interest, then the public, not the business, should fund it.

"The cost to a defendant would be an important factor for a court to consider and it is not expected that such orders would be made as a matter of course."

However, the scheme recommended by the Access to Justice report makes no mention of requiring judges to consider the cost burden that would be shifted to defendants.

The report's proposal is broader than the scheme drawn up by PILCH, which included several control factors not present in the report's recommendation.

Before issuing any protective costs order, PILCH would have required judges to consider the financial resources available to the parties, the costs likely to be incurred during proceedings, whether the plaintiff had a pecuniary interest in the outcome and any prejudice to the defendant.

PILCH acting executive director Mat Tinkler said this week that the Access to Justice Report had produced a "basic" recommendation and he believed the control factors would be included in any legislative scheme.

He did not believe the absence of control factors in the report's recommended scheme meant they had been rejected.

"Because that is certainly the proposal we put forward and that is how the case law has developed in the UK and other jurisdictions," Mr Tinkler said.

When asked about the absence of control factors in the recommended scheme, a spokesman for Mr McClelland said the purpose of the report was to generate debate, and feedback would be welcomed.

In discussing public interest cost orders, the report says: "the main benefit in removing the barrier to litigation is only achieved in practice if litigants are aware of where they will stand as regards costs before those costs are incurred." However, the report recommends later that judges should be able to make public-interest cost orders "at any stage of the proceeding".

It says "a 'flood' of litigation is not expected" because case management rules would keep legal costs proportionate, courts could refer cases to alternative systems of dispute resolution and public interest plaintiffs would still face "the significant financial burden" of paying their own legal bills.

The report urges the government to allow judges to make these rulings whenever they are satisfied litigation would benefit the public. Judges would issue these orders in cases that would "determine, enforce or clarify an important right or obligation affecting the community or a significant section of the community, or affect the development of the law generally and reduce the need for further litigation".

Mr Anderson said the plan was far too open-ended and the report had made a weak case for such a significant change.

"If there is going to be public interest litigation, it should effectively be funded by the public," he said.

"The defendant, which will generally be business, is being used as a vehicle."

Monday, August 31, 2009

Celebrities flock to take a chance with little charmer


Chari Delaney... good luck and hard work. Photo: Adam Hollingworth
From The Age
MATTHEW BENNS
August 30, 2009


The latest celebrity fad has reached Australia - $600 charm bracelets that are supposed to enhance the power of positive thought.

The former Hi-5 singer Charli Delaney has been given two of the bracelets and sees them as a positive reminder of how good life is. Since quitting the popular children's group she has hosted two radio shows.

''But I also work hard for my good luck,'' she said.

Princess Mary sparked the craze when she accepted one of the La Chance bracelets as a gift from the Danish jewellery designer Martina Baggar. Stars including the U2 lead singer Bono, the Hollywood actress Kate Hudson and the soccer star Ronaldhino followed suit.

Importer Hans Wrang said the bracelets contained the 12 animals of the Chinese zodiac and were inspired by the ancient Eastern philosophy of attracting luck, health and prosperity by thinking positively.

Australian celebrities including the Dancing with the Stars host Sonia Kruger, the So You Think You Can Dance winner Talia Fowler, the TV judge Marcia Hines and the surfer Layne Beachley have jumped on the bandwagon after being targeted by the La Chance marketing machine.

The actress Zoe Naylor gushed: ''We all need hope and faith in our lives and the La Chance bracelet has certainly brought positivity to my life.''

Mr Wrang said celebrities were carefully selected before being offered a bracelet.

''One of the things we insist on is sitting down with them face-to-face to make sure that we know what they think of the bracelet.''

The singer Janet Jackson requested a bracelet while in Denmark last year but could not spare the 10 minutes Ms Baggar insisted on to explain the bracelet's philosophy before giving it to her.

''Her minders asked us to just send it round but we said no … We don't just give them to anybody.''

Monday, August 3, 2009

Cosmetic makeover dooms ugly creatures of the seas



Former 'Trash Fish' Join the Ranks of Depleted Species

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 31, 2009

If the slimehead were still a slimehead, it wouldn't be in this kind of trouble.

An arm-long fish with the look of a prehistoric fossil, the slimehead lived in obscurity a quarter-mile deep in the ocean. The fish was known mainly to scientists, who named it for its distinctive mucus canals.

But then, in the 1970s, seafood dealers came up with a name that no longer tickled the gag reflex. This was the beginning of the "orange roughy."

And, very nearly, the end. With this tasty-sounding name, the slimehead was widely overfished.

On Thursday, a long-awaited report on the world's seafood stocks declared that 63 percent of these species are below healthy levels.

The seafood study, released online Thursday in the journal Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks at the contents of the world's seas. An international group of scientists examined an unprecedented amount of data about harvests and fish populations from the Bering Sea to the Antarctic, and they studied thousands of species from the Atlantic cod to the Australian jackass morwong.

Some of those worst-hit were fish that have been renamed to make them more marketable. For threatened animals on land, a more attractive name might be a blessing. But for these creatures -- slimeheads, goosefish, rock crabs, Patagonian toothfish, whore's eggs -- it was a curse.

That fishermen have turned to them shows what's left in the ocean. Today's seafood is often yesterday's trash fish and monsters.

"People never thought they would be eaten," said Jennifer Jacquet, a biologist at the University of British Columbia. "And as we fish out the world's oceans, we're coming across these species and wondering, 'Can we give them a makeover?' "

The study's lead author, Boris Worm, was following up on a study that predicted that if fishing continued at the same rate, all the world's seafood stocks would collapse by 2048. He said the latest study actually revealed something surprising: a reason for optimism.

About half of the depleted species might actually have a chance to recover, the scientists found, if given enough protection.

But, Worm said, species such as slimehead still illustrate what's gone deeply wrong.



As the world's catch has grown more than fivefold since 1950, he said, overfishing has spread from "rivers to coastal areas to the [continental] shelf to the deep sea." As they went farther and deeper, fishermen have brought back fish that people didn't have recipes -- or even words -- for.

"We didn't even consider fishing [for] these things 15, 20 years ago," said Worm, a professor at Dalhousie University in Canada. Today, he said, "we have another choice. And that is rebuilding what we've lost off our doorstep."

The depleted stocks include familiar fish such as the Atlantic cod, which has been fished so heavily that the Georges Bank population off New England is at 12 percent of healthy levels. The Gulf of Mexico's red snapper stocks are at 6 percent of what scientists say they should be.

To fill the void, some seafood vendors have fraudulently sold cheaper fish as grouper or snapper.

But in other cases, they have given the fish a more palatable name -- preying, environmentalists say, on the arm's-length relationship Americans have with their seafood.

The most famous case involves the Patagonian toothfish and the Antarctic toothfish -- drab, yard-long creatures from the cold waters near the South Pole. In the 1970s, they were rechristened "Chilean sea bass," although they are not, biologically speaking, sea bass.

The toothfish's new name and the firm, oily meat found a huge market. In recent years, environmentalists have said both toothfish are now threatened with heavy fishing, including by "pirate" fishing boats that ignore conservation laws.

The slimehead had similar troubles. Environmentalists say they live long -- 100 years or more -- and reproduce slowly, so it takes a long time to replace fish that are caught.

And along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, fishermen used to toss back a toad-colored fish that looked like it was 30 percent mouth and 50 percent stomach: the goosefish. Then somebody noticed that the tail meat could be cut into tasty fillets. Then, someone thought of "monkfish." Harvests jumped five times from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s, and the fish's numbers dropped.

"You went from unexploited, discarded fish -- bycatch, essentially -- to a targeted species that became overfished," said Thomas Munroe, a zoologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The fish was the same as it was as a goosefish."

Federal officials say Chilean sea bass imports are now certified to make sure they came from sustainable operations, that orange roughy are better protected and that monkfish have recovered to safe levels.

But Seafood Watch, a guide produced by the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, still recommends that consumers avoid Chilean sea bass, orange roughy and monkfish.

Other names have been invented more recently. A few years ago, a Maine seafood dealer renamed the Atlantic rock crab the "peekytoe crab." He's sold hundreds of thousands of pounds since then. A species of sea urchin -- a ball of green spines that Maine lobstermen used to call a whore's egg -- have found a niche in U.S. sushi restaurants under its Japanese name, uni.

Early next year, look for what might be the biggest test yet of the seafoood market's response to a new name. Catfish farmers are going to introduce especially large, thick fillets to white-table restaurants under the name "delacata."

The naming of seafood is policed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which keeps a Seafood List of acceptable market names. One of the more recent additions: snakehead can now be sold as "channa."

But FDA officials said that, in practice, they don't punish many restaurants for calling fish by unsanctioned names. "It is not a high priority . . . unless it involves a food-safety hazard," said Spring Randolph, a consumer safety officer.

At the National Fisheries Institute, a trade group, President John Connelly said the seafood industry works to police itself -- recently going after a California restaurant that was selling a Vietnamese cousin of the catfish as "white roughy." But he said there's nothing wrong with giving new names to unfamiliar creatures.

"A company is always going to find a name that customers are comfortable with," Connelly said. "A cattleman, for instance, doesn't sell 'bull testicles.' They sell 'Rocky Mountain oysters.' "

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Just how much can a Logie bear? - by Catherine Deveny

From theage.com.au
By Catherine Deveny
May 9, 2009

From the wannabes to the couldneverbes to the usetobes, TV's big night brought out the worst.

THE 2009 Logie Awards. What did you miss? Pigs in suits and scrags in curtains. Vain, attention-seeking opportunists suffering relevance deprivation hoping to get lucky with one of the members of Hi5 but happy enough to go slops by standing next to Bud Tingwell when he sneezed.

It wasn't a car crash this year. It was a 30-car pile up. I should have known. With nominees for best dramas including Home and Away (Bogans by the Sea) McLeod's Daughters (Pony Porn) and Neighbours (So You Think You Can Act!) it was never going to be one of our finest moments. Kate Ritchie (Nice! Inoffensive! Pretty! Detonate now!) and Ian Smith (the fuddy-duddy from Neighbours with no neck who doesn't speak but gargles) being the Gold Logie favourites made me wish, during the In Memoriam package, that I were dead as well.

Packed to the Rafters (I See White People) and Underbelly (Tale of Two Titties - sure it's drugs, swearing, violence and tits but it's Australian drugs, swearing, violence and tits) sweeping the pool is a chilling reminder that everything on telly is dumbed down, sexed up or ripped off.

There was an epidemic of Stockholm Syndrome as talented actors gushed about fabulous scripts, amazing work and incredible experiences as they accepted awards for working on shit shows. Be Australian and take the piss you sucks.

This year's Logies was so trashy it made the Brownlow awards look like the Nobel Prize ceremony. "So who are you wearing, Stevo?" "Some little thing I picked up on Chapel Street, mate. She reckons she's 18."

I was hoping Gretel Killeen would be fabulous because she is. But she wasn't. And even she knew she wouldn't be. Which explains her four costume changes. The day before I bumped into Joan Kirner and I thought of Gretel. Because they only let the chicks behind the wheel when it's all heading down hill. Hello to Meredith Hellicar and Sue Morphet if you're reading. The industry was thrilled because they love nothing more than putting the wrong woman into a thankless high-profile job, seeing her fail and using it as evidence to maintain their unashamed regime of beef for the blokes and chicken for the ladies.

Sarah Murdoch inducted Bill Collins, Mr Movies, into the Logies Hall of Fame to recognise his passionate career of 46 years. You know her. She's a model and married to Rupert Murdoch's son Lachlan. I'm not sure if her official title is "personality" or "celebrity". Regardless, it couldn't have been a more offensive choice. Apparently Bindi Irwin couldn't do it because she had a spelling bee the next day.

I don't mind Rebecca Gibney winning the gold. I just wished she'd won it for something other than being an Aussie mum who walks around holding a mug and then goes to bed wearing a full face of make-up. Gibney won best line of the night as she held her little statue and said, "Proof nanas can text."

My favourite moment was when The Footy Show lost. You didn't need to be a lip reader to work out what Garry Lyon said. Love a sore loser. Particularly when it's a pig in a suit.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/05/07/1241289312772.html

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Recording people's dreams

From. The Age A Japanese science lab is developing technologies to visualise images and dreams - and eventually read people's minds. 04/04/09

Monday, March 30, 2009

Girls abandon hope in early teens


Source: the age
Staying positive … Meg, Ashleigh, Claire and Emma.
Photo: Sahlan Hayes



A strange thing can happen to girls as they move from year 7 to year 10 - a certain loss of hope.

They start high school more confident than boys about their ability to achieve their goals. But as they move through adolescence they rapidly lose self-belief. By age 15 boys are far more "hopeful" than girls.

"Girls seem to have a tougher transition than boys from year 7 to 10," says Joseph Ciarrochi, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Wollongong.

Dr Ciarrochi has helped track the inner lives of 700 high school students from the Illawarra over six years.

And he has found, perhaps not surprisingly, that as the students move from age 12 to 15 they tend to become a little sadder, a little less joyful, and less hopeful about their ability to achieve important goals.

But it was the degree to which a sense of hope plummeted among girls that struck Dr Ciarrochi. "Something happens to girls on the way to year 10," he says.

US research, reported in 2007, pointed to what might contribute to girls' rockier journey. Girls experienced more stressful personal events in a week - from arguing with a parent to getting kicked out of school.

And they also reacted more strongly than boys to the same events.

"If there is a romantic fight between a boy and a girl, on average a girl will respond with more depression," said Benjamin Hankin, assistant professor of psychology at the University of South Carolina. "A boy will go distract himself."

Louise Newman, professor of developmental psychiatry at Monash University, said girls were still raised to put more focus on relationships, self-reflection and appearance. "There is a pressure on girls to be seen as popular by girls and boys, and the relationships between girls can be more competitive than supportive," she said.

Dr Ciarrochi said the loss of hope could lead to under-achievement. "But I suspect the girls will rebound by year 12," he says.

In year 7, Meg Mclellan wanted to be an actor. She never entertained the thought her hope would not win out. Three years later, the student at Loreto Normanhurst is still positive. So are her friends, but she has more doubts now.

"I still have the desire to try really hard but there's not the optimism and the belief that I will be able to do it," the 15-year-old said of acting. "You question yourself and you … know there will be challenges."

Ashleigh Norman said: "In year 7 you compare yourself to yourself. Now you compare yourself to other people and that's really undermining."

Claire McGregor said: "Everything is far more complex. We're just more worried."

The Wollongong study also revealed that young people who engage in antisocial behaviour are less happy than their peers.

Far from feeling part of a "cool" crowd, they experience high levels of shame and low levels of hope. Dr Ciarrochi said the shame, rather than prompting better behaviour, tended to make them hostile at the world.

Last week the State Government announced a $100,000 grant to Dr Ciarrochi and his colleagues, Professor Patrick Heaven and Dr Peter Leeson, to conduct a study of young people, this time to focus on antisocial behaviour. The Minister for Juvenile Justice, Graham West, said the aim was to determine why some young people developed behavioural problems in their adolescent years and others did not.

"We can't always get rid of poverty or bad parental care," Dr Ciarrochi said, "but if we understand why some young people react better to their circumstances than others, we may be able to help."

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The US is gambling freedom on a risky printing press policy

The end of an unwritten, 15-year-old agreement brings great uncertainty.

The Age - 5th Feb 2009

The end of an unwritten, 15-year-old agreement brings great uncertainty.

IS THE US not just thinking but doing the unthinkable? Is the assumption that has underpinned the world economy since China emerged as the new and great Asian powerhouse and the buyer of US Treasuries over?

Do the actions of the US in repeatedly accusing China of currency manipulation and enacting protectionist policies represent a deliberate move to press the economic nuclear button and bring on "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) of the 15-year arrangement whereby China provided the US with cheap consumer goods and purchased US securities and Treasury bonds to prevent America's financial collapse?

The answer appears to be yes.

In what would be the most catastrophic and world-changing move in recent memory, the US appears to be committed to replace China's purchase of its securities with printed money, thereby moving to end the fundamental underpinnings that have governed relations between the most two important economies of the world.

Steve Keen, from the University of Western Sydney, said yesterday the US treasuries auction market was now a sideshow.

Associate Professor Keen said by way of evidence, the US money supply doubled between 1994 and 2008 and "Bernanke has doubled it again in just the past four months".

"The US has essentially abandoned conventional ways of raising money," he said.

Asked about US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's attack on China's currency manipulation, Keen said that the rules of the game had now fundamentally changed and the US was, in expanding its money supply, pursing a policy eerily similar to Fed policies that preceded the Great Depression.

Keen, who last week was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and is fast becoming a world-recognised economic authority, outlined in his recent Debt Watch Report that Bernanke's famous "helicopter drop doubling of base money will be impotent against the US's credit crunch".

Most economists believe the US and China are bound irrevocably by US debt and China's continued purchase of that debt. They assume the US, with 46 states insolvent or approaching insolvency, will suffer immediate MAD if China ends the long financial arrangement.

But with the US entering a period of deflation, its economic leadership appears to be doing the unthinkable - going it alone and letting the electronic printing presses take care of the huge sums required to keep the nation afloat. The consequences for the world economy are incomprehensible as China's purchases of US treasuries underwrite the US's unquenchable demand for money to service its multitrillion-dollar public debt, which President Obama said recently would reach $US11trillion ($A17trillion) this year.

Faced with the huge sinkhole created by the financial meltdown and the prospect of deflation, US Fed boss Ben Bernanke has been printing money so rapidly that the US is being flooded with liquidity. This is beyond unprecedented.

Many Americans believe printing money can free the country from the suffocating embrace of mutual dependence with China. In his blog earlier this week, Brad Setser from the US Council on Foreign Relations, and one of the world's most respected China commentators, outlined the US position: "Exchange rate policies can also influence the allocation of resources across sectors. China's de facto dollar peg is an obvious example ... it is hard for me to believe that as much would have been invested in China's export sector if China had had a different exchange rate regime ...

"Those who attribute the growth of the past several years solely to the market miss the large role the state played in many of the world's fast growing economies."

Setser and others close to policymakers are realising the boom in China may not be a rerun of the Japanese and German postwar economic miracles but more akin to the creation of a giant sweatshop for the benefit of Western companies and the Chinese Communist Party. But this required US consumers to play their role as the linchpins. Now the linchpin has broken. There is no way the old arrangement can continue and the US is realising the system will end. By reverting to the printing press it can free itself from dependency on China.

The risk is massive inflation but that has never been a matter to concern Bernanke nor, it seems, the team President Obama has assembled. And US debt can be paid with inflated dollars. China is onto the tactic, which explains why it is keen to convert its dollars into iron, coal and, I suspect, vast amounts of mineral wealth as well as property overseas. China must act, however, while the US dollar is strong. Don't be surprised if the Chinalco deal is but the first of many and keep your eyes on our resource stocks. There are many games being played at a geopolitical level and many a twist and turn to come.

this magic moment

Cooler and Sweeter than Me