Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Stupidest headline ever

seepi 30 March 2006 32

“Canberra may step in on same-sex law”

This article from today’s The AGE is a classic example of the idiocy of using ‘Canberra’ to mean ‘Federal Parliament’. What they are trying to say is explained in the first line of the article:

“THE FEDERAL Government will try to override laws introduced to the ACT Parliament this week that would allow marriage celebrants to officiate over civil unions between same-sex couples.”

For once I wold actually support Jon Stanhope’s impractical / philosophical leanings if he actually moved to legislate against use of ‘Canberra’ to mean the Federal Government. And it has been done before. In the US media must not whinge about Washington making decisions, but rather ‘Capitol Hill’. And in the UK it is not London poking it’s nose into the rest of the country’s buisness, but rather ‘Downing Street’. Get onto it Jon!

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to Stupidest headline ever
seepi 5:33 pm 31 Mar 06

VY the whole point I was tryng to make is that local government of the city we live in is totally different to Federal Govt of the Country, which happens to be located in one building in our city. If you work for local govt you avhe nothing to do with Fedral govt. People working for QBN city council work for their local govt, but don't get blamed all the time for decisions in Parliament.

Many people around the country work for the public service (Fed Govt) but they don't have to wear the blame all the time - why should we?

Yes - Canberra is to some extent a company town, but that doesn't make us all compolicit in every decision the goverment makes.

Slinky the Shocker 5:30 pm 31 Mar 06

I dunno ;) What about a list of issues with every election where you just put a couple of more crossess. Stuff reasonably unrelated to the economy: Locking up people without trials. Joining the 'motherland' in senseless wars. (Ok, that's more acute). Some environmental issues. Abortion, civil unions and other bible related themes.

For all of these you could potentially have the majority of Australians opposed to Johnny. However, because of their economical concerns (and because Beazley is a retard) he'll get back in. So force him to follow the will of his country instead of bowing to a couple of Family First/Nationals dudes.

Amen, brother. Beer o'clock!

bulldog 3:31 pm 31 Mar 06

Good in theory Slinky - but a referendum is a terribly expensive excercise. Not shitcanning your idea at all, I kinda like it, but I'm all ears as to how this can be made affordable.

Slinky the Shocker 3:18 pm 31 Mar 06

Great idea Maelinar, but I'd also advocate more direct democracy: I hate the little eyebrowed ****wit too, but he has definately got the economy up, which is why most people voted for him. Now the question is: Why should a little homophobe decide over civil unions, just because he's a decent economist. Especially if 52% of Australians are pro and only 37% against?

Let the people speak and vote over important issues directly.

Absent Diane 3:04 pm 31 Mar 06

Bulldog not/never important... just a shit kicker...

Kimba... having me choose the government is probably the best thing I have heard you say on this site.. ...are you offended that I called you stupid... I wouldn't worry too much - I am just a couple of words on your computer screen.

(PS IMHO ignorant is voting for a party that has screwed the country over many times during its reign.. with very little foucs on humanitarian issues and big focus on over taxing in order to inflate figues and egos... and listening to everything that is said in the media)

Thumper 2:30 pm 31 Mar 06

All seats should be made marginal but reallocating a percentage of the votes.

So, in Canberra or Fraser, ALP would have to win about 75% of the primary.

That way safe seats wouldn't get neglected in federal elections.

Alternatively, it's a really dumb suggestion...

Maelinar 2:19 pm 31 Mar 06

I've actually been running with a seperate idea for a while now, thought I might open it up to discussion (unless I already have and have forgotten, my apologies in that case):

How about you disable electoral boundaries, and everybody gets to vote for whoever they damn well want to represent them.

If the person doesn't match up to what they want, they discard him like a fat man throws away a mcdonalds wrapper. The onus of choice then, is on the people, and their representatives will be extremely conscious of whom they are representing (or they'll lose the support).

kimba 2:14 pm 31 Mar 06

People who say that “people are stupid’ for voting a particular way are simply condescending and ignorant.

Perhaps we should do away with elections and just have Absent Diane appoint a government. Only ‘it’ (Absent Diane) is intelligent enough to make such a decision – well according to it!

bulldog 1:54 pm 31 Mar 06

I heard you used to sell marine paint door to door for the yamaha dealer - how's that for 'fluffing' your resume.

Just kidding AD - I'm sure you're very important.

Absent Diane 1:49 pm 31 Mar 06

In another city I was the marketing manager for a small to medium sized business in the marine/military industry - during this period I ate too much fish curry and not too many chips..

andy 1:35 pm 31 Mar 06

absentdiane, what does that say about you then.. you mentioned in another article that you work for dimia.. that makes you a public servant, who, in another city.. would be selling fish and chips...

Jay Wayward 1:34 pm 31 Mar 06

I live in Canberra and I work for the Governement. However, i certainly didn't vote for the Government that currently makes the decisions.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but I believe that polling history also would indicate that Canberran's generally aren't big Liberal Voters.

So, for the past 10 years, why should it be that i'm to labelled with being instrumental in the outcomes of Federal Politics.

VYBerlinaV8 1:33 pm 31 Mar 06

LurkerGal - I'm sure you don't work for the govt, neither do I, directly. But where does the money that pays you comes from? If not from the federal or local govt, you're in the vast minority.

Absent Diane 10:32 am 31 Mar 06

X-man is dead right..... in the public service you have dude's who in other cities would normally be in trades.... or selling fish and chips....

Mr_Shab 10:24 am 31 Mar 06

Xman has a point. Remove the PS from Canberra, and what do you have? We're certainly not a city that's built to function under its own power.

xman 10:17 am 31 Mar 06

Thanks Bulldog, it's off-pay week so I can't afford any crack. My Grandfather did work at Parliament House - he was the first Postmaster there way back when. Yes, he and his family had to move here to service the Government.

I don't like the fact that people equate Canberra with Government. But let's face it, it's true. No seat of Government, no Canberra.

LurkerGal 10:10 am 31 Mar 06

Berlina: Crap. I now work for the Govt, but spent 6 years NOT working for the govt, my partner does not work for the govt, my best friend does not work for the govt.

VYBerlinaV8 9:57 am 31 Mar 06

This is a government town. If you don't work for the government, you work for someone who works for the government.

bulldog 9:45 am 31 Mar 06

Are you on drugs xman? If you truly believe that then you, all your friends and family must work in or at Parliament House? Is this really the case or have you just smoked too much crack today?

Sssanta 9:31 am 31 Mar 06

xman = deluded fool. Perhaps you should have spent a few moments longer in bed with Alan Jones this morning mate.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site