What's The Rush?

My name is Clare, and I am a Nanna stuck in a 27-year-olds body. I am reminded of this fact on a daily basis, mostly by those that are the same age as me and younger and sometimes by those that are older than me. I've never been a clubber, a dance every now and then is great but I've always preferred a quiet drink and chat at the pub verses a screaming match on a dance floor. (you know when someone yells so loud in your ear that it reverberates and tickles? No thanks) but I'm wondering if I'm the last old soul on the planet with some form of politeness and common decency.

I used to be one of those people who would call a friend whilst food shopping and although I acknowledged and thanked the checkout person I continued to have my conversation while they served me. I didn't think anything of it till I heard some people talk about it one day saying how rude it was and it got me thinking. It was rude of me. I was basically telling the checkout person: your not worth my attention, my conversation is far more important then you. From that day on I stopped. On the flipside, I find it very rude when the checkout people hold a conversation with a work colleague (or annoying friends not working and standing on the side) and not paying attention to what they're doing or me. Perhaps they've had so many people not paying attention to them that they need to speak to someone.

I am, in many ways a Nanna, but in many others a Gen-Yer. I have grown accustomed to fast internet (I'm no longer used to watching a green bar load at the bottom of my page and if it dares to take longer then 3 seconds to load I glare and curse the day it was created) but I still say please and thank you. If I find I have a spare minute while waiting for something I whip out my iphone and check emails, Twitter, or if I have gone over my internet threshold, play PacMan or Angry Birds. But if someone sneezes I say bless you and hold doors open for people. Not because I'm paving a road to Heaven (although that would be nice thank you, much nicer than the alternative) but because it's courteous and how is holding a door open for someone going to hold me up?

I ask you dear readers, when did it become acceptable to answer your mobile while on the phone to somebody else? This has happened to me many times at work when I will be half way through a conversation and their mobile will begin to ring and I get "Oh, I have to get this, you don't mind waiting?" Sometimes I don't even get that. Why is your time less important then mine? Where are your manners? Why would you start another conversation before you have finished the first one?!

I fear that technology is making us lazy and rude. What's the rush? Recently, my partner was in a fast food chain and watched in amazement as people fumed, waiting for their food. It's called fast food for a reason and yet  these people couldn't even wait that long! All three lanes on a freeway are now a Grand Prix racetrack. Road rage is at an all time high. Have you noticed how hardly anyone acknowledges you anymore when you let them into your lane? It's as if it was their right you let them rather then you not being in a rush and being nice and letting them in. Doctors have noticed that we as humans have a severely diminished attention span compared to 20 years ago. Technology is doing all the thinking for us. People joke about cars that will drive for us, but don't joke, they'll probably be released in your life time.

A few months ago I got stared down by a P-platers passenger because the P-plater couldn't merge into my lane when he wanted too. He then proceeded to cut me off and I got the stare down from his passenger. As much as I wanted to give the little so and so the one finger salute, my Nanna gene kicked in and I took the moral high ground and ignored him (have you noticed how road rage incidents have gone up?) We no longer take the time to smell the roses and chill. out.

I like tea, manners, good customer service, 80s pop music and I sometimes cut dates with my partner short because I want to get back to my book, but does that make me a nanna? Or a relic from the dark ages? Or a member of the last generation that remembers what life was like before internet, iphones, GPS, DVDs and when you got slapped for being insolent?

Stepping off soapbox and handing my megaphone to you, what do you all think?

Quote Of The Day

"You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down."

-Annie Dillard

Odd Spot - The Age

Three robbers in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, made off with plenty of dough but no cash. The knife and hatchet-wielding trio were nabbed on video holding up a Dunkin Donuts shop. They demanded staff hand over a bag they believed was full of cash. They fled to find it full of doughnuts.

*As published on the front page of The Age newspaper 13/06/11

Quote Of The Day

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

-JFK

Odd Spot - The Age

Japanese inventors have created fluffy cat's ears for humans that read their brainwaves. The cute-meets-high-tech headwear detects when the wearer is concentrating and the ears perk up like an alert feline. When they relax the ears lay flat against the head.

*As published on the front page of The Age newspaper 10/06/11

Quote Of The Day

"Friendship isn't about who you have known the longest. It's about those who came and never left your side."

-Anon

Odd Spot - The Age

Kansas City police, responding to a rare alligator sighting, acted quickly and shot it in the head as instructed, while it lurked in weeds near a pond. It wasn't until a second shot bounced off its head that they realised they had mortally wounded a concrete lawn ornament.

*As published on the front page of The Age newspaper 06/06/11

Quote Of The Day

"The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory."

-Anon

Hangover II Boycott

The name Scott McLean may not mean anything to you, what with the names Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper screaming from the poster, but to those in the stunt world Aussie McLean is well known and chances are you have seen him but not realised it. McLean has done stunts in several blockbusters such as The Matrix, Superman and the Star Wars franchise and most of the stunts in the Hangover II.

In the trailer for the much anticipated sequel, a car chase is shown where one of the characters (Ed Helms) has his head out the car window. Helms head wasn't actually out the window but rather McLean, Helms stuntman was. The shot was perfect and used in the film, but what most of the world won't know is what happened next. A split second after that shot, the car McLean was in didn't serve in time and McLean's head slammed into the side of a truck, leaving him with a severe brain injury that is likely to never see him work as a stuntman again.

When I read this in last Sunday's Age, I was sickened at the thought and felt for McLean's family. Imagine having to watch the accident that left your brother, partner, work colleague learning to walk and talk again. McLean did a good job of the stunt (this is obvious as the shot was used in the film) but the inclusion of the footage has left McLean's family justifiably angry. "To have that scene used in the preview is a real kick in the face to all those who know Scott. It is sickening to watch as we all know what happened next, " McLean's sister-in-law Michelle told The Age.

Warner Brother's flew McLean's family to Bangkok after the incident and have paid his medical bills thus far, but the real test will be when McLean leaves the rehabilitation centre he is in and the future. I know serious injury it is a risk that all stuntmen and women take every day they step onto the set and they know what they're getting themselves into. However, it makes me think, how many shots are used in films where people have been seriously hurt that we don't know about? Is this just a normal Hollywood procedure that we've only been made aware of because this time it was an Aussie that got hurt?

I, like many Aussies (opening weekend the film made $513.525) was looking forward to the sequel and my Bradley Cooper fix, but in protest and more that I no longer want to see a film that thinks it's OK to use a scene where a man was seriously injured, will not see The Hangover II. This is very much a soapbox post and I don't expect you all to follow, but I felt that you needed to be made aware that while the Hollywood cast walk and talk on the red carpet, a man lies in Sydney learning how to walk and talk again.

Odd Spot - The Age

Cartoon beauty Jessica Rabbit has been named the top screen siren - ahead of real-life stars such as Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe. The red-haird vamp topped a poll by website Lovefilm to mark what would have been Marilyn Monroe's 85th birthday.

*As published on the front page of The Age newspaper

Victorian Potty-Mouths Beware

When you go out tomorrow night, or Saturday night, or any time you step out of your house, watch your Ps and Qs because the Victorian Government has just introduced new laws that will see the police being able to fine you on the spot for swearing.

Swearing has been a punishable offence in Victoria since 1966 but the new laws introduced by the Baillieu government in an initiative to curb violence on Melbourne's streets, could find you $240 out of pocket. Fines will be slapped on if swearing is deemed indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening and it doesn't even have to have been overheard for a fine to occur. (Not 100% sure how that last one works)

The Baillieu Government and the Victorian Police are hoping that the fines will deter people from swearing which is usually accompanied with aggressive behaviour. Attorney-General Robert Clarke told The Age that the reasoning behind the new incentives was to free up police workloads and keep things out of the courts. He said: "It frees up police time for other law enforcement activities and enables them to more readily issue penalties against those offenders who deserve them."

To me this is a band aid tactic by the Baillieu Government when their time and energy could be better spent. Despite the fact that swearing has been a criminal act since '66, I don't think this is something that people should be fined for. The Victorian Government is going to have a very big swear jar. I agree that aggressive behaviour should be punishable, but who decides when swearing at someone has gone too far? When the f word is followed by a punch? Or when you trip and say oh shit?

Your thoughts?

Quote Of The Day

"If you want your life to be a magnificent story, then begin by realizing that you are the author and everyday you have the opportunity to write a new page."


- Mark Houlahan

Quote Of The Day

"Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death."

-Albert Einstein

DEBATE: Has Prince William's recent visit to Australia pushed the Republican movement back in Australia?

Ding! Ding! It's round two for GOAS debates and writers Stephen Davis and Seamus McCarthy have stepped up to the challenge. This debate revolves around Prince William's recent visit to flood damaged Queensland and Victoria and who was greeted with open arms, much to the disgust of republicans.

Recent polls indicated a slump in those pro-republic, the lowest in 17 years. The poll, run by The Australian newspaper, was taken shortly after William's marriage to Catherine, indicating that many Australian's still want a link to Mother England.

NEGATIVE: Stephen Davies

Prince William visiting Australia doesn't set the Republican movement back in the same way that finding you have a cough doesn't harm your local pharmacy. William's visit makes the monarchy more visible. Monarchists would think that's a good thing, but what it does is actually remind Australia that they're still around. Noticing the monarchy for more than a second serves largely to highlight for us what a ridiculously anachronistic, irrelevant and stagnant institution it really is. Even if it is being represented by it's most likable member.

William is like the nice, friendly, colourful picture on the biscuit lid that masks the fact that when you open the tin it's full of spiders and cobwebs. Someone who only turns up during disasters - we're talking here about the recent floods in Queensland and Victoria, and the catastrophic earthquakes in Christchurch - is unlikely to be that warmly received after a while. 'Oh great, the Prince of Doom is here, this must have been a lot worse than we thought.' In New Zealand, where they're proudly British and monarchist, William's visit is exciting. Here, it's more like another prat with a camera crew coming to pick through the rubble while you dry out your house.

Fresh-faced saviour of the monarchy though he might have once been, young William's not looking so hot any more. Even the excitement of his impending nuptials can't quite mask the fact that what at fourteen was heartthrob material is now rapidly metamorphosing into Prince Phillip. Kate Middleton might give them a bit more life, like a vampire after a nice suck on a virgin, but only for a while. She is, as the British press keep saying, the new Diana. Which is ironic, as it's because of the British press that we need a new Diana in the first place. Spare a thought for her ‘fairy-tale wedding’ - marrying the remnants of the handsome prince, only to spend each night in bed with the frog looming over her.

William visiting us is nice. It's also the absolute least someone who considered himself the future king of this part of the world could do. But all of it camouflages the real truth - that if he were a genuinely Australian head of state he wouldn't need to travel from the other side of the world to see us when shit hit the fan. He'd already be here.

Stephen Davies is an editor and writer based in Melbourne. You can read his blog here and follow him on Twitter at @stephendevice

AFFIRMATIVE: Seamus McCarthy

Hmmm. How to write an opinion on something you generally don’t have an interest in having an opinion on?


But here goes. William’s trip to the disaster struck Australia was two-pronged. Firstly, he was a Royal dignitary sent to cheer up the colonies and let them know that the Motherland is thinking of them.

Secondly, it was a promotional gig for the then upcoming wedding; otherwise, it would have been Harry or Larry or Mo who visited. He was the teaser-trailer the Royal wedding.

But why? In short- survival by popularity on the part of the Royals. Just like Bodicea, 1066ad, William Shakespeare, the industrial revolution, the Battle of Britain and the Wombles... I mean, the Royals, all these things create a sense of identity for the people of Britain.

In turn, Australia has Matthew Flinders, the establishing of Van Diemen’s Land, ANZAC, post World War 2 immigration, and, of course, Paul Hogan and thongs. But of all the things that make up who you are as a nation the one thing you can’t deny is where you came from, no matter how much you don’t like it. This is why Australia has not become a Republic thus far, because the “Old hat” generations cling to tradition for the sense of belonging with something older, something greater.

When the Royals clearly realised they no longer lived in the old Monarchy world they changed, but they did not change on a whim. This was calculated. Assessed and reassessed; tailored to the people for their own survival benefits. It all began with allowing the public access to Buckingham palace and Windsor (granted, due to finance issues) which gave people the perceived sense of being part of something greater. Citizens from nations all over the world flocked to the gates of the palaces and handed over their hard earned Yen to see this other world. Then came the marriage of Charles and Camilla and finally the two Princes became men greatly scrutinised. And the truth is people welcomed this new Monarchy back with open arms because it symbolises such a sense of identity to them. What has this got to do with Australia? Exactly that- a sense of identity. People want it; people need it to feel part of something.

So, cutting to the chase if it were down to the few to decide if we become a republic or not, we probably would. As long as, however, it is left up to the people at the ballot box (as it should be), I think the Prince’s visit and the 7 million televisions he left tuned into his wedding after leaving Australia, will surely win over the emotional hearts of the people... the voters... the reader of Who and Woman’s Weekly... the true deciders of the Peoples Republic of Australia.

Seamus is a Melbourne based writer who in his native country of Ireland won several short story competitions and had his first children's book, "Where in the Alphabet is Ethan Echidna" published by Brolga in 2010. You can read Seamus' up-coming blog here

What do you think folks? Are you pro-Republic or would you be quite happy to stay under the Monarchy?

Are you a writer who would be interested in taking part in a debate? If so, email your interest to g_o_a_s@hotmail.com

Nana Strikes Again

2012 will go down in Australian history as the year we officially achieved Nana status. Already dismayed and disillusioned about where our society is headed, I spat out my toothpaste in disgust when I heard on the radio that the Australian Government will introduce tougher child care centre laws next year in relation to the naughty corner and religious and cultural activities.

As of  next year, child care centres can risk fines up to $50 000 and $10 000 for supervisors if they are seen to "separate" a child from the group or make them participate in cultural activities such as decorating a Christmas tree or go on a Easter egg hunt.

According to the Education and Care Services National Act, centres must "ensure that a child being educated and cared for by the service is not separated from other children for any reason other than illness or an accident...and that children cannot be "required to undertake activities that are inappropriate, having regard to each family and cultural values, age and physical and intellectual development."

The wording of "separation" without clear definition has centres worried. Alliance president Gwynn Bridge told The Australian newspaper, "There is time out but naughty corners went out years ago. You move a child away from the group and talk to them about their behaviour. But we don't know the meaning of the word 'separate' - is it distance? This needs clarification otherwise people will be in breach without realising it."

But is separating a child for doing something wrong such a bad thing? Bridges makes mention that you speak to the child about their behaviour but we are talking about a person under 5 here; can they fully comprehend that they have done something wrong if they aren't made to feel they have?

It seems that over the years telling a child "no" was seen as a bad thing. Young university students training to be teachers are told you can't tell a child "no". Why not? What harm does it do?

Jan Deans is the Director of Early Learning Centre at the University of Melbourne and believes that removing a child from their peer group can be damaging. "It can affect children's self esteem. It is something that has been seen as inappropriate for quite a long time... I think common sense would tell you that if you were regularly having to experience separation from others and made to feel less worthy, that child would gradually start to feel not as confidant as other members who are receiving positive affirmation."

As a former sports coach, if one of my children was misbehaving and was putting themselves and others around them at risk, I would make them have a sit down and think about what they had done. They got a warning, but if they did it again, time out. Yes, sometimes I had tears and once I had a parent accost me and ask why her child was sitting down, but I told her that her child had done the wrong thing and that she could join in again after a brief sit down. I only had to do it once and the child learnt.

Whether they felt embarrassed or ashamed, I don't know, what I do know is that they realised they had done something they wern't supposed to and were punished by missing out on some fun. I think that's the bottom line: we have become so worried about what is right for our children that we will have a generation of children ill prepared for the world. NEWS FLASH: Life isn't fair, there are winners and there are losers. Sometimes you have to work hard to get what you want and sometimes no matter how hard you try you may not get it, but you have to be in it to win it. We are wrapping children in cotton wool so tight that when they claw out of the cocoon, they're going to fall flat on their faces and won't have a clue how to fly.

The new inclusion of children no longer being allowed to take part in Christmas tree decorating and Easter egg hunts saddens me. I understand that as Australia grows in population, so too does it's diverse religions but decorating a tree and hunting for chocolate is fun and one that I don't see it as offensive, but, staying true to form, the Australian Government doesn't want to offend the minority. What if centres celebrated and introduced different cultural activities so no on was left out? Surely educating and broadening the minds of children is not a bad thing? I understand the argument is that no child should have a religious or cultural experience forced upon them, but come on! It's decorating a tree and looking for sugary goodness! It's hardly the devil at play!

I don't have children yet but I know that if or when I do, I know I'll want the best for them and that includes them being taught the difference between right or wrong, not just pandering to their whims and considering what might hurt their feelings. Who cares if they miss out on  a few minutes of activities because they did something wrong, as long as they learn from their mistake? Talk to them by all means but leave them to stew. What are we teaching our children? That their actions won't have consequences?

Perhaps the wording of "separation" will become an issue as some parents no doubt will see this as an opportunity to sue , another problem with our society. Parents do the best they can and pray (sorry, "hope" no religious connotations allowed) for the best. But, if we continue to walk down the path we are, society as we know it will die.