Sikamikanico Blogs

Terribly sad to see Bob Brown retire as Leader of the Greens this week. Mr Brown was a leader of great courage and dignity, and having been lucky enough to have met him, just as inspirational in person as he was on the national stage. (I speak in past tense - he has said that he will remain involved with the Greens "till the day I die" - luckily for all of us). Out of all the coverage of Senator Brown's retirement though, I was bemused to see him and the Greens repeatedly described as "radical". The idea that the Greens are a nutty fringe group with little to offer "ordinary Australians" is one peddled by both major parties and the media; PM Julia Gillard said in a speech earlier this month “The Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation.” What is she sayi

Following his loss of the  racial villification court case  last year, Andrew Bolt has come out swinging. The writer Anita Heiss, one of the Aboriginal people Bolt was deemed to have vilified for not being black enough to claim Aboriginality, has published a book detailing the case and aspects of racial identity in Australia. Well, Bolt hasn't actually come out swinging himself. Bemoaning that he can't comment on the case due to Australia's lack of free speech laws - a lack he helps continue through his opposition to an Australian Bill of Rights - he has instead  directed his followers  to Amazon, assuring them that they are protected their by U.S. free speech laws and using  Amazon book reviews  to express their opinions. It's a classic weasel move. If Bolt had the courage of his convictions, he'd stand by his claims - that people with distant Aboriginal ancestors claim Aboriginality in order to avail themselves of all the "benefits and privileges" he bel

Recently I read an online discussion about kids and pocket money. Responses were mixed. A common approach is to give children $1 for every year of age. Some people said no pocket money, but they bought their kids what they needed; others said they expected kids to do their chores without getting paid. Then there were the parents who said that rather than getting pocket money, their kids need to work around the house to "earn their keep", a view I find hard to understand and very sad. These days, for most people, having children is a choice. And when you make that choice, it comes with the obligation to feed, clothe and (hopefully) love your children. It's not something they should have to earn - would you invite guests over for a BBQ and expect them to work for their food? Then why feel that way about your children? We will expect BabyG to do chores. We will explain to him that helping each other is part of what you do in a family, because you love each other. But he does