2012 will “trigger the start of a year-long debate on the Australian economy”, says Julia Gillard.

She says Labor is the party most interested in helping “working families”.

The Opposition will reply that, in fact, the Coalition likes working families best.

Both will promise to more services and handouts, while collecting less taxes than the others.

Ho hum.

* * *

Both parties assume that in a good society, mothers go out to work.

“Working families” means conscripted mothers.

Babies and toddlers spending most of their lives not knowing where their mother is.

Possibly not knowing who their mother is.

“Bringing the budget back into surplus” is less important than bringing mothers back to their offspring.

Most young mothers want to stay home with Junior. Multiple polls have proved it.

We need a party whose policy is to give men, especially fathers, preference in jobs — and that the wage of a man working full-time will always be sufficient to feed a family.

If the Catholic bishops consistently taught this — and had proper research done to demonstrate that it is not a pipe-dream . . . .

That would revolutionise the spiritual welfare our younger generation.

School chaplains have been around for a long time.

Somebody students could turn to for advice who is not part of the machine.

Historically chaplains also educated students in the reality of the spiritual world – less so in recent years.

The Australian Government’s Chaplaincy Program was revised last year allowing schools which preferred could get rid of their chaplain and have a “secular welfare worker” instead.

Of 2500-odd schools involved, over 90 percent have opted to continue having a chaplain.

But the enemies of religion have further cards up their sleeve — a High Court challenge to the system is pending.

* * *

Is a student basically a kind of robot whose actions are governed by a brain which is purely a bunch of chemicals in a bony box?

The government thinks so — which would make the difference between a chaplain and a secular worker irrelevant.

The government also believes that children ultimately belong to the government.

There is a cultural war-to-the-death going on in our society.

* * *

Those who believe that children ultimately belong to God have a fight on their hands.

The present government will observe no rules in its attempt to exterminate religion from the thoughts permitted within government schools.

Municipal Council tips are full of discarded analog television sets whose cathode ray tubes contain toxic components and cannot be recycled or just left lying around.

It costs a council about $20 each to have them properly disposed of.

One suggested alternative is to sell such sets off cheap as spare sets to put in children’s bedrooms . . .

* * *

No, please.

Already our children are mentally obtunded by the television seen in the lounge room. Shouldn’t we be discouraging such harmful passivity, not encouraging more of it?

And what will they be watching in the privacy of their room?

If a person entered your children’s room, swore continually, committed violent acts and indulged in acts of adultery in front of them, wouldn’t you get him/her out in a hurry?

Why install a machine which continuously portrays foul language, violence and adultery . . . ?

* * *

Think about making yours a television-free home.

If we don’t watch it ourselves, we’ll find more time to spend with our children

Help them become less dependent on artificial electronic amusements – to enjoy doing things, making things and reading decent books.

Following a recent Melbourne “children’s beauty pageant”, the risks of such contests have been debated.

Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner, Bernie Geary, has issued a fence-sitting statement. He concedes that these affairs are based on “a perception of competitive beauty and personal appearance” – and that the entrants were wearing “heavy make-up and dresses of adult-like design”.

Despite that, Mr Geary says there was nothing “sinister, unsafe or degrading” about the event . . . .

* * *

But are not children who are “sexualised” when young at risk of developing eating disorders etc?

Are they not learning that the way to become the centre of attention is to make oneself sexually provocative?

A proposal to ban children under 16 from beauty pageants is a step in the right direction.

One group with some sensible ideas on this is “Pull the Pin from Beauty Pageants”.

Find them at www.pullthepin.com.au.

Fashion clothing company, Cotton On, is being sued by Australia’s competition watchdog, the ACCC.

Cotton On recalled a range of sleepwear in November 2010 after the ACCC discovered the products weren’t up to fire safety standards — despite carrying a “low fire danger” label.

Cotton On continued selling the pyjamas into 2011, according to an ACCC statement lodged in the Federal Court.

* * *

Last year, Cotton On was marketing hip flasks to under-drinking-age teens.

Making the makings of an alcohol binge into a fashion accessory . . . .

Suitable for concealing in one’s jacket pocket or inside one’s shirt . . . .

In fashion colours — hot pink snakeskin, blue or pink floral, graffiti and denim . . . .

Professor of Health Psychology, Dr John Toumbourou, condemned this venture, wanting the flasks withdrawn from sale, being “contrary to public health interests”.

Cotton On did eventually start labelling the flasks as not for sale to people under 18.

* * *

Cotton On seems willing to sell ANYTHING that will make a dollar.

No good waiting for their consciences to make them do the right thing.

It would be nice if the younger set decided to boycott Cotton On and put them out of business.

The media were yesterday quoting recent research suggesting that women in their 50s who drink alcohol are more likely to have a healthy old age than non-drinkers.

Popular news, no doubt.

But does it tell us anything of practical relevance?

The small print reveals that the research is talking about women who drink one standard drink or less per day.

Microscopic amounts – especially by Australian standards.

Less than two thirds of a can of standard strength beer . . . .

Less than 20 teaspoons of table wine . . . .

Professor Jennie Connor of the Dunedin Medical School in New Zealand comments, “I feel very strongly that there is no scientific justification for the promotion of alcohol as health-enhancing for any subgroup of the population. The potential for harm is great and the potential for good is unknown.”

* * *

This Friday, September 9, has been designated Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) Day.

Did you know that FASD is the leading cause of mental retardation in Western countries?

The media don’t seem keen on telling us that. **

FASD is totally preventable if mothers-to-be drank no alcohol.

It seems there is no safe minimum amount of alcohol-drinking in pregnancy.

For more facts on this, Google “Isabella’s List”.

** www.come-over.to/FAS/FASDfacts.htm