Like many women, I was shocked and disturbed by the pictures leaked of a beaten Rihanna by until recently, "allegedly" by Chris Brown. Until Monday, Brown denied that he belt Rihanna after a pre-Grammy party last year, but on Monday took a plea deal and pleaded gulity to assult.
This plea deal has now found Brown escaping possible jail time and being slapped on the wrist with 180 hours of community service. What message is this sending? It's ok to smack around your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister, all you will have to do is plead guilty and your punishment will be the same as if you were caught talking in class at school: pick up rubbish.
Even though this happened in the States what do you guys think? Is it an adequate form of punishment? What message, if any, do you think this is sending out?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sports Stars V HECS
Some of you may have read several articles in The Age last week highlighing the argument of whether athletes who go to the AIS should be exempt from paying back their scholarships or should they have to pay later with a HECS-style scheme.
Some of the many arguments being put forward (mainly from former athletes) is that most athletes will never achieve the professional benifts of a successful career as an elite athlete and therefore will never be able to pay back the government.
Another argument is that HECS paying university students will have a career spanning over many years where upon they will have a secure job and have the time and the money too pay back their often mammoth debt. Elite athletes apparently don't have this option.
But is this fair? Should the Australian people have to pay for our athletes? Should athletes be made to pay it all back regardless of their success?
A recent online poll found that 93% of people believe that athletes should be forced to re-pay their training debts.
Kimberly Crow, a rower and sporting commentator believes that by forcing athletes to pay back their scholarships athletes will retire younger for fear of a growing debt and that Australia's great sporting culture will dissolve due to this. Current university students and those who are in the process of paying back their debts feel un-easy, why should athletes be exempt? And as for Australia's sporting culture declining due to athletes retiring early, perhaps they wern't that serious about being an elite athlete in the first place?
I love sport, anything to do with sport, but this debate got me fired up. If a reason for aththletes not being able to pay back thier debt is due to being "a dumb athlete" with no bright future ahead of them, then maybe look to the AFL.
The AFL have their footballers enrolled in part time TAFE and university courses so that by the end of their career, they have something to fall back on. Now an arguement their could be that AFL footballers get paid rather well, better then say a tennis player or runner but it's the concept that is my point.
Another suggestion that has been put forawrd, is from HECS creator, Professor Bruce Chapman. Professor Chapman suggests instead of a HECS scheme the government implements a "human capital contract" where the Government "owned" a stake of the athletes earnings. The word "owned" seems a bit ominous to me.
What do you all think?
Some of the many arguments being put forward (mainly from former athletes) is that most athletes will never achieve the professional benifts of a successful career as an elite athlete and therefore will never be able to pay back the government.
Another argument is that HECS paying university students will have a career spanning over many years where upon they will have a secure job and have the time and the money too pay back their often mammoth debt. Elite athletes apparently don't have this option.
But is this fair? Should the Australian people have to pay for our athletes? Should athletes be made to pay it all back regardless of their success?
A recent online poll found that 93% of people believe that athletes should be forced to re-pay their training debts.
Kimberly Crow, a rower and sporting commentator believes that by forcing athletes to pay back their scholarships athletes will retire younger for fear of a growing debt and that Australia's great sporting culture will dissolve due to this. Current university students and those who are in the process of paying back their debts feel un-easy, why should athletes be exempt? And as for Australia's sporting culture declining due to athletes retiring early, perhaps they wern't that serious about being an elite athlete in the first place?
I love sport, anything to do with sport, but this debate got me fired up. If a reason for aththletes not being able to pay back thier debt is due to being "a dumb athlete" with no bright future ahead of them, then maybe look to the AFL.
The AFL have their footballers enrolled in part time TAFE and university courses so that by the end of their career, they have something to fall back on. Now an arguement their could be that AFL footballers get paid rather well, better then say a tennis player or runner but it's the concept that is my point.
Another suggestion that has been put forawrd, is from HECS creator, Professor Bruce Chapman. Professor Chapman suggests instead of a HECS scheme the government implements a "human capital contract" where the Government "owned" a stake of the athletes earnings. The word "owned" seems a bit ominous to me.
What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)