TONY Abbott has apologised to Julia Gillard for any offence he may have caused her after he said the government was not experienced when it came to children.
Labor today accused the Opposition Leader of launching a fresh personal attack on the Prime Minister and of making direct reference her not having children in comments on the cut to the baby bonus in the mid-year budget update.
Speaking on Melbourne radio Mr Abbott said he was not referring to the Prime Minister.
"I was alluding to my own experience of a double pram for (his children) Louise and Francis," Mr Abbott told 3AW's Neil Mitchell.
"If she (Ms Gillard) wants to take offence, then of course I am sorry about that and if she would like me to say I am sorry, I'm sorry."
We go through this screaming match every time the government announces budget cuts, but it seems more hysterical than usual this time. Manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne reckons it is "vicious and savage" for the government to give every family $3000 when they have a second or subsequent child, rather than the $5000 they get for their firstborn. We all know children are expensive and anyone would prefer five grand to three, but a $3000 cheque from the government is the kind of "vicious and savage" most people can live with. (It was apparently not "vicious and savage" when the Coalition voted against the Schoolkids Bonus - $410 for primary school students, $820 for high school students — on the grounds that it did not have to be spent on children; of course, the baby bonus does not have to be spent on children either.) Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey likens the reduction in the baby bonus to China's one-child policy. Seriously. He argues that getting $3000, rather than $5000, for a second child is in some way similar to draconian laws that take away the right to determine the size of your own family. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/perspective-the-first-casualty-of-budget-backlash-20121023-282jr.html#ixzz2A7eGXcH7
It's the media equivalent of a Tony Abbott clanger, but this time it's CNN - and instead of Julia Gillard, the wrath comes from, well, potentially every American female. In an eyebrow-raising about-turn, the corporation published, then retracted, a news story that claimed that women's votes were governed by their menstrual cycles, triggering an avalanche of criticism. Based on unpublished research, the news piece stated that a woman's voting behaviour was affected by whether she was ovulating on election day.While the story was nixed within hours, the internet reacted immediately and unforgivingly, with Twitter users swiftly tweeting key quotes. "New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship", read the article, as tweeted by @KailiJoy.
"When women are ovulating, they 'feel sexier,' and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality" the piece went on.
"The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney".
A host of websites swooped onto the story, showing no mercy while feeding from its apparently grossly sexist - and under-researched - line.
DEAR Mr Misogynist, I'd like to thank you for everything you've taught me over the past 25 years. Why, I had no idea I was so fat, ugly and stupid. I thought being a size 12 was perfectly acceptable. But when you yelled across the newsroom, ''I want two inches off your hair and two inches off your arse'', suddenly, a light went on. Of course! The size of my posterior is directly related to the content and credibility of the stories I'm reporting on for this network. Silly me. You're right. I'll never make it as a TV journalist. Those wise words of yours from 1986 are still ringing in my ears: ''That's why you don't see blonde newsreaders,'' you explained patiently. ''People don't take them seriously.''
pushing a pram uphill
apology uphill with pram-pushing experience...
TONY Abbott has apologised to Julia Gillard for any offence he may have caused her after he said the government was not experienced when it came to children.
Labor today accused the Opposition Leader of launching a fresh personal attack on the Prime Minister and of making direct reference her not having children in comments on the cut to the baby bonus in the mid-year budget update.
Speaking on Melbourne radio Mr Abbott said he was not referring to the Prime Minister.
"I was alluding to my own experience of a double pram for (his children) Louise and Francis," Mr Abbott told 3AW's Neil Mitchell.
"If she (Ms Gillard) wants to take offence, then of course I am sorry about that and if she would like me to say I am sorry, I'm sorry."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-apologises-to-pm-for-remark/story-fn59niix-1226501344408
Manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne reckons it is "vicious and savage" for the government to give every family $3000 when they have a second or subsequent child, rather than the $5000 they get for their firstborn. We all know children are expensive and anyone would prefer five grand to three, but a $3000 cheque from the government is the kind of "vicious and savage" most people can live with.
(It was apparently not "vicious and savage" when the Coalition voted against the Schoolkids Bonus - $410 for primary school students, $820 for high school students — on the grounds that it did not have to be spent on children; of course, the baby bonus does not have to be spent on children either.)
Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey likens the reduction in the baby bonus to China's one-child policy. Seriously. He argues that getting $3000, rather than $5000, for a second child is in some way similar to draconian laws that take away the right to determine the size of your own family.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/perspective-the-first-casualty-of-budget-backlash-20121023-282jr.html#ixzz2A7eGXcH7
See two toons above and stop laughing...
gonads gone mad...
It's the media equivalent of a Tony Abbott clanger, but this time it's CNN - and instead of Julia Gillard, the wrath comes from, well, potentially every American female.
In an eyebrow-raising about-turn, the corporation published, then retracted, a news story that claimed that women's votes were governed by their menstrual cycles, triggering an avalanche of criticism.
Based on unpublished research, the news piece stated that a woman's voting behaviour was affected by whether she was ovulating on election day.While the story was nixed within hours, the internet reacted immediately and unforgivingly, with Twitter users swiftly tweeting key quotes.
"New research suggest that hormones may influence female voting choices differently depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship", read the article, as tweeted by @KailiJoy.
"When women are ovulating, they 'feel sexier,' and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality" the piece went on.
"The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney".
A host of websites swooped onto the story, showing no mercy while feeding from its apparently grossly sexist - and under-researched - line.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/online-outrage-prompts-cnn-to-pull-story-linking-female-voting-to-ovulation-20121025-287rq.html#ixzz2AIcwxqwV
blondes have more fun though...
DEAR Mr Misogynist,
I'd like to thank you for everything you've taught me over the past 25 years.
Why, I had no idea I was so fat, ugly and stupid. I thought being a size 12 was perfectly acceptable.
But when you yelled across the newsroom, ''I want two inches off your hair and two inches off your arse'', suddenly, a light went on.
Of course! The size of my posterior is directly related to the content and credibility of the stories I'm reporting on for this network. Silly me. You're right. I'll never make it as a TV journalist.
Those wise words of yours from 1986 are still ringing in my ears: ''That's why you don't see blonde newsreaders,'' you explained patiently. ''People don't take them seriously.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/and-heres-the-news-my-bums-got-nothing-to-do-with-the-story-20121025-28837.html#ixzz2AMzHUK2b