Jump to content

Go To MikaSounds - Blog Updates Thread (Part 5)


Fmbm

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope keti, it's just the normal routine like sunday blog (ooooming does nothing really when it's not sunday) lol...

 

Nao foi nada Mary fui eu que pensei que havia um video mas li mal...é do frio tenho os miolinhos a congelar...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope keti, it's just the normal routine like sunday blog (ooooming does nothing really when it's not sunday) lol...

 

Nao foi nada Mary fui eu que pensei que havia um video mas li mal...é do frio tenho os miolinhos a congelar...

 

 

Well,at least he posted something. :bleh: I've been waiting for the continuation of Sophie's drawing for really long,at one point I thought that it has driven him up the wall so he just grabbed the artwork and smashed it,under the pressure of OCD!! :lmfao:

 

 

DON'T PANIC!!! NO VIDEO!!!

 

I was mistaken...;)

 

:sneaky2: you little teaser :roftl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey natives...can you please explain what the sentence mean? tax baby? . . .

 

What's a Tax Baby? . . .

MAYBE THIS?

Tax Babies 'to Save Planet'

By Tamara McLean

December 10, 2007

 

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

 

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

 

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

 

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

 

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

 

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

 

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

 

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

 

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

 

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

 

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

 

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

 

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

 

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAYBE THIS?

Tax Babies 'to Save Planet'

By Tamara McLean

December 10, 2007

 

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

 

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

 

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

 

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

 

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

 

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

 

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

 

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

 

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

 

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

 

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

 

Garry Eggers, director of the NSW Centre for Health Promotion and Research, agreed with the call, saying former treasurer Peter Costello's request for three children per family - "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" - was too single-minded.

 

"Population remains crucial to all environmental considerations," wrote Professor Eggers, a leading advocate of the personal carbon trading debate.

 

"The debate (around population control) needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution."

 

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalised.

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html#

 

grazie, ALICE!!!! thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new entry in the blackall project is grand! :punk: didn't he go for watercolours..? gotta love it. :wub2:

 

circus themed 24/7. addicted. :mf_rosetinted::sneaky2:

 

I don't like that he's into all the circus stuff way too much...I mean,I LOOVE the artwork,it's amazing and original and inspirative and very creative,but if he continues like that... :huh: I really wouldn't like the album to be circus themed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like that he's into all the circus stuff way too much...I mean,I LOOVE the artwork,it's amazing and original and inspirative and very creative,but if he continues like that... :huh: I really wouldn't like the album to be circus themed!

 

Why not?:original:

 

 

 

I love the artwork too. It's amazing!!:thumb_yello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...I don't like clowns and circus and those things very much...:bleh:

 

Yes,he's so amazing at that along with Sophie ! :wub2:

 

Oh I see...lots of people don't like clowns, or are afraid of them. I personally am not afraid of them but I'm also not crazy about them.:naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eureka Alice!!!

 

Yep Avoca, watercolour and crayons, thoug the trunk and the paws are not so great, in terms of dimensions i think...

 

Keti, the circus must no doubt belong to his tenderest childhood memories, and its quite hard for one to get away from those when creating, but then it's just my wild thinking ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Privacy Policy