Australia News 3

A GRIEVING father cried with relief and joy after a jury found his ex-wife guilty of murdering his two little boys.

It was the second time David Fitchett had been put through the agony of a trial. Donna Fitchett, 51, was convicted of killing Thomas, 11, and Matthew, 9.

Mr Fitchett said outside court two juries had now got it right.

"Another 12 people saw through the absolute shallow, shallow, pathetic defence she put up," he said.

"She is a manipulative, cunning, street-smart woman and she knew all along what she was doing was wrong."

But Mr Fitchett cannot forgive the system that allowed his ex-wife to drag out his pain. She was convicted and jailed for 18 years but granted a retrial last year on a technicality.

"The law is a joke. The law is an ass," Mr Fitchett said.

"One judge got one sentence wrong, so we had to go to a retrial."

Asked if he had a message for his ex-wife, Mr Fitchett replied: "You don't want to hear it. You don't want to know about it."

He walked from court flanked by supporters who cheered: "For the boys!"

Donna Fitchett drugged and smothered or strangled her sons at their Balwyn North home in September 2005.

The Supreme Court jury of eight women and four men returned their verdict after just four hours.

They rejected a claim the mother was mentally impaired and so depressed she thought killing the boys was her "greatest act of love".

The court heard Fitchett killed her boys after deciding her marriage was intolerable and over.

She told her husband to enjoy the Father's Day weekend because it "would be their last as a family".

The qualified nurse gave her sons a cocktail of prescription drugs and put them to bed.

Fitchett used a sock to strangle Thomas and then placed a pillow over the face of Matthew as he struggled.

She then took some pills herself and wrote a letter to her husband.

But before Fitchett could take her own life Mr Fitchett arrived home.

In a letter to her psychologist Fitchett wrote: "I am not a coward nor am I crazy."

And the jury agreed.

Justice Elizabeth Curtain remanded Fitchett in custody for a plea hearing on a date to be fixed.

Comments:

Another news about homicides was found in the online newspaper. This shows the seriousness of our society's situation where the social security is in a bad condition. Everyday we can't pass without hearing any news about murders. Therefore, some drastic actions should be carried out to curb this social problem. For example, government should not only regulate stricter rules but also announce the decisions to the public so that the message can be passed to all the people. Thus this can alert those who have the intention to commit crime to think twice before they do any reckless actions. Besides, all of us should be more aware of our own safety. We should not easily trust any stranger and even follow them to somewhere else. Girls should be extra careful because they are vulnerable as compared to guys because they are smaller in size and weaker in strength. All in all, all levels of societies should work hand in hand to bring the crime rate down.

Television Viewing Draft 1

Television is created in the past to serve as a tool to provide entertainment for us. As evidenced in the America Time Use Survey (2003), the population in United States catagorised into female and male in the survey averagely spend 2.5 to 2.75 hours per day to watch television during their leisure time. Besides, another survey in United Kingdom, UK Time Use Survey (2000) also depicted a similar result. This shows that there are certainly many benefits in watching television. However, some skeptics of this issue argue that watching television is not beneficial but on the other hand it brings a lot of adverse effects to the viewers. It has become a provocative national interest to discuss whether television viewing is beneficial or detrimental to the viewers. I strongly assert that television viewing will bring more advantages than disadvantages. Therefore, it is significant for us to discuss the importance of television viewing which include that it helps the viewers to gian knowledge, to think critically and to assuage stress.

Firstly, television programmes provide a variety of information for the viewers, enabling different groups of viewers to gain knowledge that they want. For example, children before they reach the age to enter kindergarten, they can commence learning colours, numbers and letters from programmes like ‘Sesame Street’ (Rutherford 2002). In addition, for teenagers, they can learn knowledge ranging widely from animal kingdom, geography, astronomy, general knowledge, contemporary issues and science from television (Rutherford 2002). These knowledge are important and are always not found in the textbook. Teenager with little of these knowledge can learn better from television because convoluted scientific questions are explained in a diverting and pleasurable way (Rutherford 2002). In fact, they can remember better through programmes because they do not merely see and read but also listen. (Leigh 2001). Besides, they can also comprehend their cultural uniqueness and the role of the other cultures to the nation through television viewing.

Furthermore, television viewing can stimulate the viewers’ critical thinking. Critical thinking is an indispensable skill to socialize as well as to excel in studies. It can help to resolve many setbacks in life. As an illustration, family can learn how to solve conflicts more appropriately after watching programmes which show solutions to these problems (Sharif 1999). More importantly, television programmes encourage critical thinking which is also essential in analysing global issues. Viewers can learn about various significant world issues ranging from globalization to homelessness (Leigh 2001). In this way, they can also become more involved in the society. Since they know about current issues, they can voice for their rights so that the councils, major companies and national governments take their needs into consideration more seriously when making decisions. As such, television can be said to be a force of democracy (Rutherford 2002). In addition to this, viewers can be aware of global problems such as the famine in Africa. Exposing news to the viewers is vital because the victims of catastrophes need help urgently. Hence, television viewers can contribute their help, for instance, by donating to assist the victims (Sharif 1999).

Lastly, television viewing can alleviate stress of the viewers. Viewers, particularly, teenagers who are still in school need entertainment after a solid school day. As the saying goes, “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”. Teenagers will feel fatigued, pressured when their teachers and parents’ expectations on them to get good result increases. By watching television, they can concentrate on the shows and forget about all the hassle temporarily. After that, they will feel recharged and more motivated to finish their homework. Moreover, they can use television viewing as an opportunity to regain their focus and hence, will be able to view problems from another different perspective (Rutherford 2002).

In a nutshell, it is apparently true that television viewing is advantageous for the viewers if moderation is practised (Rutherford 2002). Everything has two sides of it, bad and good. As human beings, we should be able to differentiate these two and adapt only the good one. The effects of television viewing can be disastrous if we are to become couch potatoes, though, by managing our time wisely, we, in fact, can gain abundant benefits from television viewing.

Argumentative essay final draf

Junk food is referred to any food with low nutritional value and considered to be unhealthy (Smith 2005). Lin (2005) also states in his article that the nutritional value of food has dropped over the past 30 years because people start to consume more and more junk food nowadays. According to Medical Association President, Dr Cray, junk foods prohibit students to get the adequate amount of nutrition they need in growth and this will reduce their learning potential (The Food Show 2005). In my opinion, I strongly support the banning of the sale of junk foods in school. Therefore, it is indispensably necessary for us to discuss the reasons why junk foods should be banned in schools.

Junk food is unhealthy. Most junk foods contain synthetic chemicals to improve the flavour and colour as well as to prolong the shelf life. Proven, many of these chemical additives are believed to cause behavioural problems in children, such as hyperactivity and poor concentration (Smith 2005). This theory is further supported by Caputo, a child psychologist, in The Food Show (2005). In addition, Lin (2005) also states that junk foods have high levels of fat, sugar and salt. These junk foods include takeaway foods, pre-packaged meals, sugary snack foods, instant noodles, potato chips and chocolate bars. Some of these junk foods will increase the calories level and lead to childhood obesity. This problem is getting worse as young people now seldom exercise. If childhood obesity is not handled carefully, heart diseases, osteoarthritis and some cancers will be the consequences in future. According to Dental Association, a drop in dental health of Australia primary-school children is also linked to the habit of eating junk food.

In addition, schools have the responsibility to take care of the students' welfare and safety, including their health (The Food Show 2005). According to Lin (2005), thirty years ago most students brought home-made food such as sandwiches and fruits to school rather than eating in school canteens. On contrary, many students nowadays consume junk food as their lunch in schools. Lin (2005) also quotes from Reynolds that the sale of junk foods in school is one main contributor to obesity in youngsters nowadays. Reynolds also claims that healthy foods in canteen can help the schools to establish healthy food policies more efficiently as the students will get appropriate knowledge about good nutrition and good practice of balanced diets. If the sale of junk foods is not banned, the students may think eating junk foods has no spillover effects. In short, the banning of the sale of junk foods is necessary to ensure a healthy lifestyle led by the students at home as well as in school.

Another problem which is caused by the sale of junk foods is the increase in litter as students just throw away cans, crisps packets, cartons, and plastic containers everywhere in school compounds. If the sale of junk foods is banned in schools, the litter amount will be greatly reduced. As a result, school groundsman can take shorter time to clean the school grounds and thus spend more time in maintenance projects (The Food Show 2005). Besides, litter is considered as a safety and health hazard and it also causes the cleaning costs to rise and brings down the image of our communities (Smith 2005). Last but not least, according to Jack Green, a teacher in Hillview Primary School, in The Food Show (2005), after his school has banned junk foods in the school canteen, there is an impressive improvement of students’ attitudes in class, particularly that they have become less hyperactive after lunch.

In a nutshell, junk foods must be banned in schools. Childhood obesity should not be underestimated because serious health problems will arise in future out of unbalanced diets now. Foods such as biscuits, cookies, confectionery, hamburgers and soft drinks have low nutritional value and therefore should be avoided in daily diets (Health Foundation 2005). Furthermore, government should provide funds to support health policies in schools. It is only a small price to pay for the future health of our country (Lin 2005).

Argumentative essay draft #2

Junk food is referred to any food with low nutritional value and considered to be unhealthy. (Smith 2005) Lin (2005) also states in his article that the nutritional value of food has dropped over the past 30 years because people start to consume more and more junk food nowadays. According to Medical Association President, Dr Cray, junk foods prohibit students to get the adequate amount of nutrition they need in growth and this will reduce their learning potential. (The Food Show 2005) In my opinion, I strongly support the banning of the sale of junk foods in school. Therefore, it is indispensably necessary for us to discuss the reasons why junk foods should be banned in schools.

Junk food is unhealthy. Most junk foods contain synthetic chemicals to improve the flavour and colour as well as to prolong the shelf life. Proven, many of these chemical additives are believed to cause behavioural problems in children, such as hyperactivity and poor concentration. (Smith 2005) This theory is further supported by Caputo, a child psychologists, in The Food Show (2005). In addition, Lin (2005) also states that junk foods have high levels of fat, sugar and salt. These junk foods include takeaway foods, pre-packaged meals, sugary snack foods, instant noodles, potato chips and chocolate bars. Some of these junk foods will increase the calories level and lead to childhood obesity. This problem is getting worse as young people now seldom exercise. If childhood obesity is not handled carefully, heart diseases, osteoarthritis and some cancers will be the consequences in future. According to Dental Association, a drop in dental health of Australia primary-school children is also linked to the habit of eating junk food.

In addition, schools have the responsibility to take care of the students' welfare and safety, including their health. (The Food Show 2005) According to Lin (2005), thirty years ago most students brought home-made food such as sandwiches and fruits to school rather than eating in school canteens. On contrary, many students nowadays consume junk food as their lunch in schools. Lin (2005) also quotes from Reynolds that the sale of junk foods in school is one main contributor to obesity in youngsters nowadays. Reynolds also claims that healthy foods in canteen can help the schools to establish healthy food policies more efficiently as the students will get appropriate knowledge about good nutrition and good practice of balanced diets. If the sale of junk foods is not banned, the students may think eating junk foods has no spillover effects. In short, the banning of the sale of junk foods are necessary to ensure a healthy lifestyle led by the students at home as well as in school.

Another problem which is caused by the sale of junk foods is the increase in litter as students just throw away cans, crisps packets, cartons, and plastic containers everywhere in school compounds. If the sale of junk foods is banned in schools, the litter amount will be greatly reduced. As a result, school groundsman can take shorter time to clean the school grounds and thus spend more time in maintenance projects. (The Food Show 2005) Besides, litter is considered as a safety and health hazard and it also causes the cleaning costs to rise and brings down the image of our communities. (Smith 2005) Last but not least, according to Jack Green, a teacher in Hillview Primary School, in The Food Show (2005),after his school has banned junk foods in the school canteen, there is an impressive improvement of students’ attitudes in class, particularly that they have become less hyperactive after lunch.

In a nutshell, junk foods must be banned in schools. Childhood obesity should not be underestimated because serious health problems will arise in future out of unbalanced diets now. Foods such as biscuits, cookies, confectionery, hamburgers and soft drinks have low nutritional value and therefore should be avoided in daily diets. (Health Foundation 2005) Furthermore, government should provide funds to support health policies in schools. It is only a small price to pay for the future health of our country. (Lin 2005)

WORKING families will not get further tax relief or family payment increases in this year's Budget because most are almost $4000 better off under Labor, the Rudd Government says.

Labor's risky strategy for the May 11 Budget will favour infrastructure spending over individual tax cuts and family welfare, which have been budget centrepieces for more than a decade.

As it prepares to sell the benefits of long-term investment in infrastructure, the Government has given the Sunday Herald Sun a Treasury analysis it will use to show that working families are better off. But welfare groups say the $4000 figure is theoretical. They argue there is still room for tax cuts for lower-income families.

"Food prices have been rising by 9 per cent on average year on year, and some foods by 14 per cent," said Victorian Council of Social Service chief Cath Smith.

"Rents have also been rising by about 15 per cent a year," Ms Smith said. Increased utility prices were also taking a big bite out of the average family budget.

"Water bills will rise by an average of 15 per cent on the first of July, electricity bills are going up by 15 per cent and gas by 9 per cent," she said.

While interest rates have fallen since the Rudd Government came to office, the size of the average mortgage has risen in the past two years from $264,000 to $324,000.

The Treasury analysis assesses the effect of two Swan budgets and the next round of tax cuts on July 1 on three low-income families.

The July 1 tax cuts are the third part of a series of income tax relief measures announced in 2008 that will put an extra $20 a week in the pocket of someone earning $70,000 a year.

The families in the analysis are very much Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's "working families".

The first is a couple with two children earning $100,000 a year, the next an almost identical family with a single income of $100,000 a year.

The last is a single parent with two children earning $45,000 a year.

The first two families will be more than $3900 a year better off from July 1 and will have received one-off payments of $5700 and $5050 respectively. The single-parent family will be almost $3500 a year better off and have received one-off payments worth $5700.

Speaking from Washington yesterday, where he is attending the G20 Finance Ministers meeting, Mr Swan said Labor was still committed to families, but wanted to change their focus.

"Now it's time to get on with the job of converting Australia's successes during the global recession into long-term gains, and that's what the upcoming Budget will be all about," he said.

"The Budget will mark a new focus on delivering for families by strengthening our community for the long-term, which is why delivering our health and hospital reforms is so important."

In many ways the new strategy is one of necessity.

To fund stimulus packages, the Rudd Government has accumulated debt that will take another decade to pay off, according to projections.

In addition, the health reforms signed off last week add pressure to the Budget bottom line.

Hard heads such as Mr Swan and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner want to shed the Howard legacy of "everyone gets a prize" in the Federal Budget.

The Budget has yet to be signed off.

Critiques:

The new financial budget by Australian is aiming to change their focus from families welfare to investment in public infrastructure. Families in Australia should not worry about this because the Government are going to use the funds to carry out other activities that will benefit not only individual family but the whole society. If the public infrastructure get better, citizens's standard of living will be upgraded, country's image will be improved, businessmen's confidence towards investment will increase, leading to more spending and thus generating more employment and national income will also boost up. There are many macroeconomic benefits behind this new Treasury budget, so everyone should not be panic first to worry about the reduced tax cuts and other kinds of families benefits.

Twilight-1. FIRST SIGHT pg2

It was to Forks that I now exiled(self-imposed absence from one's country) myself--an action that I took with great horror. I detested Forks.

I loved Pheonix. I loved the sun and the blistering(intensely hot) heat. I loved the vigorous, sprawling(spread out in a disordered fashion) city.

" Bella,"my mom said to me--the last of a thousand times--before I got on the plane. "You don't have to do this."

My mom looks like me, except with short hair and laugh lines. I felt a spasm( a sudden burst of emotion) of panic as I stared at her wide, childlike eyes. How could I leave my loving, erratic, harebrained (foolish, flighty-unstable and irresponsible) mother to fend (to attempt to manage without assistance) for herself? Of course she had Phil now, so the bills would probably get paid, there would be food in the refrigerator, gas in her car, and someone to call when she got lost but still...

"I want to go'" I lied. I'd always been a bad liar, but I'd been saying this so frequently lately that it sounded almost convincing now.

"Tell Charlie I said hi."

"I will."

"I'll see you soon," she insisted." You can come home whenever you want-I'll come right back as soon as you need me."

But I could see the sacrifice in her eyes behind the promise.

"Don't worry about me," I urged. "It'll be great. I love you, Mom."

She hugged me tightly for a minute, and then I got on the plane, and she was gone.

It's a four-hour flight from Pheonix to Seattle, another hour in a small plane up to Port Angeles, and then an hour drive back down to Forks. Flying doesn't bother me; the hour in the car with Charlie, though, I was a little worried about.

Charlie had really been fairly (clearly, fully) nice about the whole thing. He seemed genuinely pleased that I was coming to live with him for the first time with any degree of permanence. He'd already gotten me registered for high school and was going to help me get a car.

Argumentative essay draft #1

Junk food is referred to any food with low nutritional value and considered to be unhealthy. (Smith 2005) The nutritional value of food has dropped over the past 30 years because people start to consume more and more junk food nowadays. (Lin 2005) According to Medical Assiociation President, Dr Cray, junk foods prohibit students to get the adequate amount of nutrition they need in growth and this will reduce their learning potential. (The Food Show 2005) Therefore, I strongly agree to ban the sale of junk foods in school and it is necessarily significant to discuss the reasons why junk foods should be banned in schools.

Junk food is unhealthy. Most junk foods contain synthetic chemicals to improve the flavour and colour as well as to prolong the shelf life. Proven, many of these chemical additives are believed to cause behavioural problems in children, such as hyperactivity and poor concentration. (Smith 2005) This theory is further supported by Caputo, a child psychologists, in The Food Show (2005). In addition, Lin (2005) also states that junk foods have high levels of fat, sugar and salt. These junk foods include takeaway foods, pre-packaged meals, sugary snack foods, instant noodles, potato chips and chocolate bars. Some of these junk foods will increase the calories level and lead to childhood obesity. This problem is getting worse as young people now seldom exercise. If childhood obesity is not handled carefully, heart diseases, osteoarthritis and some cancers might easily happen to those children who are overweight now in future.

Schools have credibility to take care of the welfare and safety of students, including their health. (The Food Show 2005) According to Lin (2005), thirty years ago most students brought home-made food such as sandwiches and fruits to school rather than buying food in school canteens. On contrary, many students nowadays consume junk food as their lunch in schools. Lin (2005) also quotes from Reynolds that the sale of junk foods in school is one main contributor to obesity in youngsters nowadays. Reynolds claims that healthy foods in canteen can help the schools to establish healthy food policies more efficiently as the students can get appropriate knowledge about good nutrition. If the sale of junk foods is not banned, the students may think eating junk foods has no any spillover effects. According to Dental Association, a drop in dental health of Australia primary-school children is linked to the habit of eating junk food.

Another problem which is caused by the sale of junk foods is the increase in litter as students just throw away cans, crisps packets, cartons, and plastic containers everywhere. If the sale of junk foods is banned in schools, the litter amount will be reduced. As a result, time taken by the school groundsman will be shortened and more time will be allocated to carry out maintenance projects. (The Food Show 2005) Besides, litter is also considered as a safety and health hazard. It also causes the cleaning costs to rise and brings down the image of our communities. (Smith 2005) Last but not least, according to Jack Green, a teacher in Hillview Primary School, in The Food Show (2005),after his school has banned junk foods in the school canteen, there is an impressive improvement of students’ attitudes in class, particularly that they have become less hyperactive after lunch.

In a nutshell, junk foods must be banned in schools. Childhood obesity should not be underestimated because serious health problems will arise in future out of unbalanced diets now. Foods such as biscuits, cookies, confectionery, hamburgers and soft drinks have low nutritional value and therefore should be avoided in daily diets. (Health Foundation 2005) Furthermore, government should provide funds to support health policies in schools. It is only a small price to pay for the future of our nation. (Lin 2005)