Kiddy-kickboxing a no-no

I grew up in a household where participating in weekend sport was the norm. My parents brought my little brother and I up to be active and encouraged us to participate in team and individual sports.
I still love playing sport, as does my husband and we’ll definitely be encouraging our kids to play sport and teach them the benefits of getting exercise and interacting with others on the sporting field.

However, I was a bit horrified over the weekend to learn that a local kickboxing promoter had created a match between his eight-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old opponent – the young girls kicked and punched each other in a ring where onlookers (mostly older men) consumed alcohol, screamed out encouragement and handed out cash tips for the little girls.

My issue with this is not the fact that these young girls are ‘competing’ in a sport – it’s the kind of activity that they are doing. With their bones not finished growing and their brains not yet fully developed, I feel like this is a completely unsuitable past time for any minor (girl or boy) to be participating in.

Georgia Barton 7 (L) and Jasmine Parr 8 (R) fighting in Saturday's match

What ever happened to kids wanting to play soccer, go to Nippers or run at Little Athletics? When I was about 10-years-old, my parents enrolled my brother and I in Karate lessons to help teach us the basics of self defence. My dad also decided to undertake the adult classes to help encourage us and also learn some potential life-saving defensive techniques.

I see nothing wrong with this kind of contact sport – Karate teaches you how to focus and be disciplined and it is also very spiritual.

I don’t see what small children are going to learn from kickboxing? The little girls over the weekend were dressed up in garish pink outfits with lipstick and streamers and then proceeded to kick, shove and punch each other.

Jasmine "Princess" Parr with her father and fight promoter John Wayne Parr

They aren’t learning anything from participating in this but how to most effectively beat their opponent to a pulp. I think it's sick!

I just think this is sickening and I feel that the promoter of this match should be ashamed of himself for encouraging such a thing (he isn’t though – he’s already promoting future child matches).

The crowd at Saturday's fight - mostly older men who were consuming alcohol

I am not sure how everyone else feels about this, but it just feels like the kickboxing fraternity on the Gold Coast has just hit an all time low and I for one wouldn’t go to see a child match if you paid me.

Not a Belieber

Okay, I do NOT understand the phenomenon that is Bieber. WTF?? There is something about this kid and his know-it-all attitude that is seriously getting to me.

I know that I am not an over-stimulated, hormone driven 15-year-old girl anymore, but this kid seriously is out of line with some of the crappola that is coming out of his mouth.

What is concerning is that his God-like status amongst everyone under the age of 17 (and many others much, much older) gives him a free ticket to do/say/sing what he likes.

This week a new interview between Rolling Stone Magazine and Bieber was published. The ‘teen sensation’ was asked about girls, love, sex, politics and everything in-between, and his responses (in my opinion) were….. well, you decide.

Sex: “I think you should just wait for the person you're...in love with”.

Aw, that’s nice Justin, but not how the world works, honey! At least this is a positive message for your younger fans.

Politics: "I'm not sure about the parties," Bieber says. "But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad."

Wow… um okay. Embarrassing much? For someone looking for world-domination you would think he would actually know what is going on in that said world? 

On America: The Canadian-born boy calls Americans “evil” and has no plans to become an American citizen. He also disses the US health-care system (or lack, there of).

On abortion: “I really don't believe in abortion" Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby." How about in cases of rape? "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

No, that’s right Justin, you haven’t been placed in a situation like that and you don’t know how it feels, so please don’t give your opinion! PUNK! These comments really upset me!

PalindromicGirl on Twitter says: When Bieber is old enough to become pregnant herself, then maybe she'll understand.

I totally see now that people share my same confused frustration with this kid making comments about life issues that he has no idea about. I also understand the 'Bieber is a girl' references.... because as a 16-year-old boy commenting on girl issues - he has NO clue.

I just think that if you’re going to be in the lime-light and take a stance on issues that you feel are important, maybe first take a step back and think about how your comments come across to the public and fans. And maybe, if you don’t know what you’re talking about; don’t say anything at all.

How about you just stick to singing and get through that awkward phase when your voice breaks… you can also fill more of your time copying Usher’s dance moves.

Justin – your uneducated and frankly out of line comments are not welcome here.

Quotes from:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/justin-bieber-talks-sex-politics-music-and-puberty-in-new-rolling-stone-cover-story-20110216

Gisele slams use of sunscreen

I just read that supermodel Gisele Bundchen has just been quoted that she doesn’t use sunscreen because she won’t ‘use that poison’ on her skin.

I have so many problems with this statement. She is a woman that millions around the world look up to, so she really should be watching what she says in the public arena.

Sun safety is regarded as a very important factor in the way people live their lives in Australia, and I’m sure the Cancer Council would be livid with celebrities making comments like this.

The reason Gisele doesn’t use sunscreen is because she refuses to use anything ‘synthetic’ or anything that contained chemicals on her skin. Rather, her approach to sun safety is to avoid being in the sun after 8am in the morning.

Being a supermodel, you would think that there are some women out there that aspire to be like her physically (hell, I would love to look like her) and have gorgeous tanned skin like hers. I just think this is taking things too far.

She is a mother with a small child – does she extend this same rule to sunscreen use on her son’s delicate skin? And not everyone has naturally olive skin like her – we are not all Brazilian and do not have the same tolerance of what the sun could do to our skin without adequate protection.

People in a position of ‘power’ should be using their celebrity status to do some good and relay smart messages for the greater good.

With all the information out there about the benefits of using sunscreen and being sun smart, this is no winning fight for Gisele. If I were her publicist, I would be getting her to retract those comments ASAP.

I just wanted to make a point that I have a family history of skin cancer and melanoma that has directly affected people I love very much – so screw you Gisele – I thought you were different, but after this I just think you are an air-headed model stereotype.

Weathering the storm

I just read this opinion piece written by Courier Mail journalist Mike O'Connor. It's a great view in to Anna Bligh's performance during the recent Queensland weather disasters.

THERE was a time when political leaders appealed for calm in the face of a gathering storm.
Perhaps somewhere they still do. Not in Queensland, however, where the strategy, as evidenced by Premier Anna Bligh's performance last week, is to scare the bejesus out of the populace with apocalyptic predictions of impending doom.

The reasoning behind what became an unintended stand-up comedy routine is transparent enough and can be found in the hope that has grown in the bosom of the Bligh camp that her on-camera performance during the floods may have saved her political hide.
That she performed in a creditable way, doing the job she is paid to do, is undeniable although one might ask why so many people were surprised when she did so.
This less flattering view aside, she did well but a politician has yet to draw breath who believes that it is possible to have too much of a good thing.
Thus the temptation to revisit the scene of her triumph, the dramatic press conference, was too strong to resist when Cyclone Yasi swirled on to the weather radar, bringing with it wind, rain and that most blessed and most sought after of commodities, potential political capital.
Here was another chance to occupy centre stage as Fearless Leader, directing operations from the command bunker as the cyclone approached the coastline.
You get cyclones in north Queensland at this time of the year which, I imagine, is why they call it the cyclone season, but this was a big one.
Big, however, was not going to do it for the Bligh PR machine. It had to gigantic, enormous, stupendously large.
There was no point in the Premier hauling out her special, freshly laundered flood jeans for her press conference if the very existence of north Queensland was not to be threatened and so the process of talking up the threat posed by Yasi began.
I don't question for a moment the ferocity of the storm. I sat through a cyclone as a child and still recall the banshee wail of the wind.
What was entertaining however, in a sadly predictable way, was the deliberate choice of language by the Premier words chosen not to reassure, but to paint the most vivid images of imminent destruction possible.

Yasi was not only massive but gargantuan, colossal, immense, mammoth, prodigious and titanic.
Yasi defied the human mind to imagine its proportions. Who knows how many Sydney Harbours or Suncorp Stadiums, the internationally recognised units used when measuring anything of more than moderate proportion in Australia, it could hold.
Everyone knew it was a large and potentially destructive weather system. It was, after all, a Category 5 as stated by the Premier several hundred times for the benefit of those who were a little slow in appreciating the essential difference between 1 and 5.
I kept waiting for the Premier to remove a shoe was she wearing the R.M. Williams boots, de rigueur in time of crisis? and offer her toes to the camera. Five, got it? One, two, three, four, five!
When you are in a cyclone's path, whether it be a Category 4 or 5 is of largely academic interest. It's powerful, so people should be urged to take all prudent precautions but this was not the essence of the message.
Nor was it that, while this might be larger than previous cyclones, there had been plenty of time to prepare for it and all people had to do was follow emergency procedures, evacuate if told to do so and everything would be fine: "Don't worry. Do as, if you live in the north, you will have done a dozen times in the past and all will be well."

This, alas, was not what we heard. The Premier was predicting destruction on a truly biblical scale. The message was that north Queensland from Townsville to Cairns would be smote as if by the hand of God.
It was, she assured the population, a "potentially very deadly event".
By late afternoon television reporters, wired on the steady stream of foreboding press releases being pumped into their iPhones by the Premier's office, were hyperventilating on camera.
Cairns would be inundated. There would be a 7m storm surge that would sweep through the city. Palm trees from the Esplanade would end up in Mount Isa. Devastation would be visited upon the city.
What would have happened, I wondered as I listened to the Premier's increasingly bizarre performance, if, at the outset of World War II, Winston Churchill had gone running into the street shrieking: "The Germans are coming and the bombs they drop will be really big. Not just big but massive. They'll be the size of 10 Sydney Harbours. When they explode they'll leave craters the size of 20 Suncorp Stadiums!"
Fortunately for Britain, he chose instead to exhort them to fight on the beaches and in the streets and never surrender. Then again, Churchillian dialogue has never been a hallmark of Queensland politics.
The Premier should forgo the amateur dramatics and let Emergency Services Minister Neil Roberts do his job.
Her performance was overblown, unnecessary, reeked of political opportunism and was not, to borrow once more from Churchill, her finest hour.

The Carbon debate - paper vs electronic

I read an interesting article about Carbon myths and being environmentally responsible. It basically stated that if you think you’re saving a tree by reading your news online as opposed to a hard copy paper version – think again.

It might be interesting to a few of you that work in ‘paperless offices’ and think they are doing a world of good (no pun intended).

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

The perception that electronic media leaves less of an environmental footprint than printed material is one of those myths that needs to be debunked once and for all. It’s just not true!

Putting ink on paper is one of the most environmentally responsible ways you can get your message across. However, what is most concerning is that we see many organisations cringing at the thought of using paper as a communication medium.

Some organisations are starting to actively discourage the use of print on paper because apparently it is negatively impacting on the environment. Whether the concern is real or just cost cutting, it is being said often and people are starting to believe it.

So being able to provide a factual counter to these claims is critical… TREES LOCK UP CARBON.

A significant portion of the earth’s carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and organic matter such as trees and bushes. Carbon in the atmosphere traps sunlight and in doing so contributes to global warming. Paper production can have a valuable impact on reducing this influence.

A report done for the US Carbon and Climate Working Group highlights how the huge reforestation programs taking place in many parts of the world are helping to create a positive shift in the amount of carbon trapped within the environment, rather than the atmosphere.

The reason why this is beneficial is that a tree, which is almost entirely carbon with a small measure of water, grows for about 100 years. Its weight represents the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, so after 100 years very little carbon is absorbed into the atmosphere.

FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING. The more paper we use from sustainable forests, the stronger the contribution towards the fight against global warming. More managed tree plantations equals more carbon locked up and the fibre can be recycled four or five times. Has anyone ever recycled their 1995 laptop into a brand new –up-to-date laptop?

The article then gives a great example of the Carbon myth – print versus electronic. It makes a comparison between reading the printed version of the Stern Review (a 700 page report) and viewing its content using electronic media. The environmental impacts are quite surprising:

-Each copy of the printed review = 85 grams max CO2 that will ever be amounted to. This can also be read as many times as you like over 100 years.

-For every hour spent reading the review on a computer = 226 grams of CO2 for each time you read it (electronically).

-To manufacture the review on a CD = 300 grams of CO2 per copy.

-To manufacture the review on a DVD = 350 grams of CO2 per copy.

So in summary, it’s interesting to get info like this across my desk (note: I did get this in a printed version on 100% recycled stock). I like to think I do my part for the world today so that one day my kids will have a sunnier future.

Take what you will from this, but remember, don’t fall into trends – do your own research and make decisions for yourself. Our world is too precious!