13 Reasons Why Season 2

13 Reasons Why Season 2

This post contains spoilers about 13 Reasons Why, Season 2 from Netflix.

I’ve finished watching “13 Reasons Why” season 2, and as a way to digest the themes in the show Netflix put together an addendum “Beyond the Reasons”. They did this with Season 1 after there was a bit of an uproar around the notion that the show glamourised teen suicide by showing not just one suicide but also an attempted suicide, and they have continued it after Season 2 to help talk through some of the heavy topics it contains.

Season 2 of “13 Reasons Why” includes more depictions of sexual violence, drug use, gang-violence, gun-violence (though thankfully thwarted on both attempts), teen abandonment, victims facing their abusers, and so much more. So there is a lot to talk though.

It’s great to see the show was so entrenched in the idea of reality and care that they had counsellors and therapists on the set to talk to the actors about what they would face in each scene before it happened and to wind down the actors after the scenes were complete. I imagine some of the scenes were very hard to film.

One series of events this season revolved around Hannah, the catalyst for the show, having a loving and consensual relationship with Zack, which included sex. A relationship ending when it became obvious to Hannah that Zack was more interested in keeping up appearances with his friends than making their relationship public.

Well in the events of season 1, when Hannah is raped by Bryce in the hot tub, we’re pretty much lead to believe she is a virgin, but season 2 reveals this not to be the case by letting us know about the relationship she had with Zack the summer previous.

The disappoint real-life thing is that Kathryn Langford, who plays Hannah, says she has been approached by people who said to her upon learning Hannah wasn’t in fact a virgin “so that means the thing that happened with Hannah and Bryce doesn’t mean that much anymore.” And I was like WHAT! Why would people say such a thing.

Kathryn went on to say she would hope that viewers would take away that just because Hannah had had sex with Zack, doesn’t change the severity of what Bryce did, it doesn’t matter what your sexual history has been makes sexual violence any more acceptable. And how true is that.

I was sad to think that people think that a person who is sexually active would feel any different about being raped. Rape, any form of sexual violence, isn’t about sex, it’s about power, it is an act of violence, one that nothing can prepare you for.

Compassion should always be the response to a declaration of pain. Embrace the ones you love. 

The other gut-wrenching part of the show is when Hannah’s mum, Olivia, played by Kate Walsh, hands Clay a sheet of paper with the reasons “Why not”, on which there were “11 Reasons Why Not”. Olivia then confirms with with Clay that he knows there are ALWAYS more “Reasons Why Not”.

So our second big point to take away from the show is there are always more reasons why not. Go on and live your life, live your truth, and live it right. Reach out to your friends and family, reach out to support services, in Australia you can contact:

  • Kids Help Line: 1800 55 1800
  • Lifeline: 13 11 14

No person should get to a point where they feel their only option is death. We only have one life, it’s the most precious thing, make yours great.

In Defence of the ‘Good Bloke’

In the wake of the murder-suicide of seven people in Western Australian town of Osmington there have been calls for the ‘good bloke’ narrative to go away and to honour the victims rather than the perpetrator of the heinous crime.

This isn’t a new request, often when someone commits a murder or a crime there are plenty of folks around who will step up and refer to the goodness of the perpetrator, particularly if the perpetrator has died, and in recent years there has been a strong push for the removal of the ‘good bloke’-type reporting. People want the perpetrator tarred as the baddie HE clearly is.

I feel like, sure, there are times that’s appropriate, but the calls for it in this case are in my opinion misguided.

In the Osmington murder-suicide we find a father, Peter Miles, 61, who killed his wife, Cynda (58); his daughter Katrina Cockman (35); and her four children (Tay, 13; Rylan, 12; Arye, 10 and Kayden, 8), before calling 000 to report himself, and then took his own life on the porch of their home.

The crime will be under investigation for several months, but it doesn’t stop the reporters reporting, and many headlines carried the “Good Bloke” narrative. Where friends and acquaintances of Peter Miles referred to him as that, a good bloke who they couldn’t imagine could commit such a heinous crime.

One headline in particular, the one often quoted, read “Grandad the killer. ‘Good Bloke’ shot wife, daughter and her four kids then himself“, sure it probably should have had a comma after the word ‘kids’ but he wasn’t being called a “good bloke” by the headline, the term was in inverted commas which implies that the writer didn’t really agree with the sentiment, but was reporting what he heard about the guy.

The reporter, Robert Ovadia, has been raked over the coals by this descriptor and has reaffirmed his reporting with a follow-up article calling out those who railed against his reporting. Many opinion pieces have been written, including one by Van Badham “When we make excuses for male violence, we encourage it“, in which she argues “There’s a single good reason to be outraged at the ‘good bloke’ narrative: prevention”, her article in part reads:

Reports of the far-away murders broke over my own phone, and I sobbed. The handful of personal details revealed about this family are enough to imagine anyone similar into their unbearable horror. The mind demands: who does this to kids? Who does this to anyone?

The answer, according to Australian reporting tradition, is a “good bloke”. This was the description a tabloid applied to the alleged murderer, under the headline “Grandad the killer.”

It’s a dangerous frame for reporting domestic homicide we have grown too used to in this country; commentators were quick to call it out. Juanita Phillips remarked that “nobody in the story” had “actually described (Peter Miles) that way”. Reminders came from Georgina Dent and Clementine Ford that the “good bloke” trope is a media habit. It was used to describe wife-murdering Greg Floyd in 2017, and, in 2014, Geoff Hunt – who murdered his wife and three children.

To this I’d like to point out a couple more domestic murders in which the perpetrator was described with the “good bloke” sentiment, but wasn’t a bloke at all.


Sidonie Thompson was murdered by her mother with an axe in 2011 before her mother drove the Brisbane’s Story Bridge and jumped to her death, leaving her 12 year-old son in shock in the back seat of her car. Sidonie’s mother, Kim Patterson, was described in stories about this as “a devoted mother who lived for her children”.

Of Kim Patterson a friend is quoted as saying: “She just put all her time into her family. Out of anybody I know, she is the least likely person I’d ever expect to do anything like that because Kim adored them completely”.

Another friend described Kim Patterson as a “‘saint’ who would never hurt anyone”.


Another murder-suicide in 2011 was committed by Heather Glendinning in Port Denison. Western Australia. Glendinning taking the lives of two of her three daughters before killing herself. She stabbed her two daughters to death and then stabbed herself to death with multiple stab wounds.

A friend Robyn O’Brien said of Heather: 

“I am absolutely shocked. I just can’t believe that, I have other friends here that I have spoken to this morning and for Heather to kill her children is not what we know of Heather, it’s not possibly something she could do.”

“Justice and ethical behaviour is what she was fighting for,” she said.

She said she was angry that her friend’s last memory would be in such horrific contrast.

“It breaks my heart, it just can’t be Heather. They were so close, they weren’t problem kids and all the other people who knew her down here say the same thing,” she said.

“I do feel really, really angry on her behalf and on behalf of the girls. The Heather we knew and the family we knew would never do that.”


Cara Lee Hall murdered her husband in December 2015, and also attempted to kill two of her four children with the same knife she used stabbed her husband to death.

Hall claimed during her trial that she acted in self-defence after suffering years of abuse. A finding not backed up by evidence including testimony by her children. She further claimed to not know how the children were injured during the attack but witness statements by the children report she actively stabbed them in an attempt to kill them.

Hall’s friend Wendy Lourenco said “Cara is a loving mother, I don’t think she ever meant to hurt her children.”


In addition to these cases of mothers who have killed their children I also found a report “Mothers who Kill” in which the methodology found 28 cases of women who have killed their children under the age of 2 between 1997 and 2012. However, they only used a subset of these in describing infanticide as some states define infanticide as being a victim under the age of 12 months, while others are 24 months, in attempt to keep the methodology clean they only looked at victims under 12 months of age in their study.

None of the mothers who killed their children in a act of infanticide since 1997 have received a custodial sentence. Infanticide is treated, as it likely should be, as a product of a mental illness; such as post-natal depression. Infanticide statistics also don’t include cases of neonaticides which is the killing of a child within the first 24 hours of life.

I’m sure I’ve read of many infanticides written up as outliers, as actions of women who are typically described as loving and family-oriented.

I guess I’m not winning any brownie points here, and it’s not my aim to do so. I just think it’s time we understand that why someone commits an act so egregious against their family we may never understand.

Yes what Peter Miles did was horrible, it guts me to think there are seven people who are dead now because of the actions of one. The driver for these actions though, we can never understand. 

Sherele Moody writes in the Daily Mercury newspaper “‘Good bloke’ Peter Miles was a violent selfish monster“. She goes on to say: 

Much of the public discussion around Peter Miles’ deadly actions focuses, almost sympathetically, on his “troubled” life while managing to neatly tip-toe around the fact that this was a clear-cut case of domestic abuse and male violence – both major issues in our society.

But was it? When his daughter left her husband, she returned to her family home, to stay with her mother and father. It doesn’t seem likely a mother would take such action if she was walking back into a home in which “a monster lurks”.

We can’t know the mind of another, we’re foolish to think we ever can. When we realise that perception is reality for humans we’ll think about things differently. When family kills other family in a case like Peter’s or, any of those documented above, we as outsiders can never understand it. Especially if mental illness is at the core of it.

From some reports Peter’s actions were driven out of a desperate need to care of his family. It’s reported he was under the impression his time was short and he worried for the family he’d be leaving behind when he died of his illness. A family that he seemingly felt had no other resources and would struggle to survive once he was gone.

The brain is an amazing thing, it can decide what it wants to know, and when it decides, the human it controls is taken along for the ride. I’m sure the mothers mentioned above all had their issues that saw them believing the only way to truly protect their children was to end the lives of their children. They weren’t monsters, they we just humans, and sometimes humans break. Note I don’t say “snapped”, because sometimes when the brain breaks it’s not the flip of a switch, it’s a shift in perception, their view of the world is different. Sometimes different from reality. Sometimes it’s all consuming and it sticks on an idea and ruminates on it until it becomes an action.

These aren’t cases of the perpetrator attempting to gain from their actions, they are often considered, from evidence left behind, or by the surviving perpetrators as acts of compassion. Most often there is a case of some form of untreated, or mistreated, mental illness at the core. And more often then not it’s seen that the person committing the act has considered their actions carefully, as illogical as those actions seem to us, to them they were reasonable to take.

I can’t see that Peter’s actions could be described as an act of family violence or part of the epidemic of domestic abuse. It was a confused mind making confused decisions, but decisions that seemed reasonable to the mind at the time. Those looking for a poster-boy for the “‘good bloke’ = monster” cause are looking at the wrong guy here.

Tragic it was, but an act that should see the man branded a “monster”? I don’t think so.

Phage Therapy

The folks at Kurzgesagt have a new video out, about Bacteriophages and their possible place as our saviours in the not-to-distant future.

The one standout piece of dialogue from the video for me is:

“Unfortunately this treatment is still experimental and pharma companies are reluctant to invest the necessary billions in a treatment that has no official approval yet.”

The sad truth is, many of our great medical achievements follow this pattern.

  • The governments pour the billions in via grants, the researchers at universities and the universities themselves, set up ‘companies’ to receive the grant and to do the studies,
  • The studies that are successful patent their findings as the company, the makers and the university often co-writing the patent.
  • Then the pharma companies vie for the research and the patents and buy the company at a fraction of the cost of the research and for a stake in the patent.
  • The pharma company ramps up production, and sell it to the masses at a marked up cost, often claiming it’s justified in doing so because of the cost of research, that some countries tax dollars often paid for.

At the moment big pharma doesn’t want to know about it, it’s promising, but they have their antibiotics to sell and they sell a LOT of them. Even with the rise of superbugs many doctors continue to prescribe antibiotics as a matter of course, almost as a placebo it seems, while other people all is need is relaxation maybe visiting an spa service you can find at sites like https://complexcityspa.com.

Having said that, I have seen at least one paper that has been written on bacteriophages that was funded by Nestlé Health and Nestlé Health Science, so I guess some companies are investing in it, but clearly we need more of mommy makeover doctor located in NYC services.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. The video is very interesting to watch.

Zuckerberg Testifies Before Congress

Mark Zuckerberg testifies before congress

A day a lot of people have been waiting for has come. I’m currently watching a Facebook live stream by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Mark Zuckerberg testifying to a joint hearing titled “Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data”.

Senator Cruz just grilled Mark Zuckerberg on whether Facebook is a political platform (acting as an entity entitled to First Amendment rights) or a safe-harbour (which would allow users to post anything). Mark Zuckerberg replied that Facebook is a platform for ideas. Cruz, not happy with the answer repeated the question two more times then went into a mini-tirad about republican and “conservatives” being oppressed on Facebook. He cited pages that were removed, he specifically referenced them as “Republican”, “Christian”, “Conservative”.

Cruz wanted to know Zuckerberg’s personal knowledge of the 15,000+ safety workers whose job it is to vet content for hate-speech and the like, he wanted to know if Facebook only hires liberal employees who may have a bias towards removing Republican content.

I’m thinking Cruz missed the point as to why this Judiciary Committee was formed… because of the role of Facebook in the election of a Republican President through the use of Facebook user data that was mined by an app developer and used to set up Cambridge Analytica, a company that has been involved in a bunch of misleading activity in a bunch of elections all over the world.

Largely the questioning that I’ve heard, which is only a little bit from the hours during which Mark Zuckerberg testified, seemed largely ignorant about how the system works, indeed how computer systems work. Cruz in particular seemed only interested in getting it on record that he felt his people were being actively oppressed. Cruz cut Mark Zuckerberg off often when he was attempting to answer a question… it seems that the senators are restricted by time and some want to get as much of their views out as quickly as they could, limiting Mark Zuckerberg’s replies.

The data that Facebook uses is largely provided by us, the user. The other data you may not know Facebook is getting is from the way you interact with other data on the site. The pages you like, the photos your friends post that you like. Also when you’re not actually on Facebook, but you’re browsing other websites, if they use something like the Facebook Pixel, which is invisible to the user, then Facebook gets data about what you’re doing on the site you’re visiting. The same with any site that has a Facebook-supplied “Like” button or Facebook-supplied commenting tools.

A senator asked about Facebook’s declaration that you, the user, own your data, but that you, the user, don’t get a cut of the money Facebook makes from selling access to that data. But Mark Zuckerberg did of course remind him that in the TOS, you are agreeing to allow Facebook to use that data without financial compensation.

A question came up about how the users get to control their content usage. And Mark Zuckerberg replied that for each post, of any kind, users get to decide how that data is used. The senator then went further to ask if the user can determine how Facebook uses the data… and Mark Zuckerberg replied that yes, and quoted the Facial Recognition service that would tag you in photo automatically, he replied that “yes, users can say they don’t want Facebook to recognise them in photos”… but he didn’t say that Facebook STILL records that data, they just don’t show it.

The was clearly a push for Facebook to allow a user to see ALL of the data Facebook captures, including the information about you they buy from data brokers and then match to users through their algorithms, but is never shown to the user.

The hearing continues as I press publish on this post. I just don’t have time to watch it, I have things to do, and I’m not a US citizen and it seems that the blinkers are firmly on with the senators about their own direct constituents and how Facebook affects them. Some of the senators brought up how Facebook allows users to post or target things which would be deemed as illegal if Facebook themselves posted it and in fact are illegal for the user to target or post. An example raised included a realtor who was targeting ads for a new property development to exclude people of colour and how that was illegal according to the Fair Housing Act… I’m all for Facebook doing what they can, but as a global company they can’t also do the work of the police and judiciary of all the nations of the world and all the sub-locations within those nations, to have them do so would be a massive overreach and would effectively make them an arm of the law. If they had to report that a housing firm was targeting only white folk, would they also have to report people who broke local statutes such as drinking alcohol on a Sunday in a location that doesn’t permit it, which they may determine from a person posting a photo of themselves (or being facially recognised in a photo posted by a friend), drinking alcohol where the photo was created on a Sunday. It seems laughable that the government would want Facebook to do something like that, but then maybe, through the call for oversight, they’re also hoping to get access to Facebook’s systems so THEY can have access to all that data at no cost.

Who knows what will come of the testimony from Mark Zuckerberg, likely not a lot, because as I said, Zuckerberg didn’t get a lot of time to respond to questions and the questions largely seemed ignorant of the system, the technology, or the implications of if Facebook did what they asked them to do, the gaping hole it would leave for that one new role for Facebook to have more power than they ever really wanted (or did they).

Partyroom Politics

Marriage Equality is the subject for today in the party rooms. They will, hopefully, be discussing Dean Smith’s private member’s bill and, hopefully, they will approve it for discussion and a vote in parliament.

The government is crazy if they think they can survive NOT putting this forward. It has gone on long enough, over 20 bills have been put forward and rejected over the last 10 or so years. This is an inevitability they must face. They can either be the party that lead the way to marriage equality in Australia, or they can get out of the way at the next election.

For those who worry about the religious exemptions in the bill fear not for two reason:

  1. The gays are just being added to a long list of exemptions that already exist for clergy. They currently are exempt from having to marry people who have differing faiths, from themselves or from each other, divorcees, and even people they don’t think should be married. They can currently just say, nope, I don’t think you’re right for each other, I’m not going to be the one to marry you. So we gays are just being added to a list that already exists, they aren’t making a new one.
  2. The churches will come around, and likely quite quickly. Their numbers are falling, the are bolstering them with rhetoric about the evils of the gays and their abhorrent lifestyle “choice”. But they are fighting a losing battle. Sure the Biebs and other music, and the brainwashing is bringing folks to Hillsong. But that can’t save the dying ideology that is structured religion.

    We know the churches will come around because they need the money and because we have historic precedent… black people and the church. The church was a driver behind segregation and preventing inter-racial marriage, but these days it’s mostly nothing to them. They embrace black culture and in the US the African American community have weird, in my opinion, embraced the church… the teachings of which once and continues to drive the KKK and other white supremacists.

So let’s not fear the religious exemptions as they exist in the bill. Let’s get married and let the church sort itself out. We don’t need them any more now than we did yesterday.

It’s time to join the new world of liberty and equality for all.

Tony Abbott shares more of his (so called) wisdom

Tony Abbott says of marriage:

“It is something that evolved many centuries ago to protect women and children in a world where they were much less secure than they are now. That’s why I would be very reluctant to change.”

And I might remind you, he’s talking about the times, centuries ago, when women and children were chattel to be bartered for (or bought), wives readily beaten for not obeying their husbands, and children were often forced to work in horrid conditions, sometimes as indentured servants.

I can promise you that no woman will be less secure by me marrying a man… no woman will even be involved in the union, so Tony, you’ve got nothing to worry about there my good chap. And I’m pretty sure if two women choose to marry then they’ll be as in love as any heterosexual couple and certainly won’t be going out of their way to make themselves less “secure”.

As far as children… as with all same-sex parented families, it’s a minuscule chance a child will come into them by accident. These children are most often planned for with their wellbeing and upbringing in mind. No same-sex family is the result of an “accident”. Those kids will be pretty secure, as long as you get out of the way and let them be them. Stop telling them there’s something wrong about their families.

The Retirement Business

OMGoodness these reports into the retirement business and in particular Aveo make me feel ill. We worry that pensioners aren’t being treated right by the government and then we read about how the private practice is taking them for a very expensive ride.

Read their special report: The Price Of Freedom

Hurts my brain that humans as corporations can be so inhumane. 😓

SaveSave

FU Facebook

Big FU to Facebook this morning… saw something on my phone earlier. Can’t find it in the news feed on my computer… went back to my phone app, it was there on launch and then reloaded and now I can’t find it no matter how much I scroll.

Whether a case of A:B testing on desktop/mobile that caused it to be in one place and not another or whether it was because Facebook has decided “you’ve seen that you don’t need to see it again” or even if it was just Facebook saying you’ve seen that so we’ve moved it out of the way but if you scroll for four days we might show you again… whether it is ANY of these, it’s a pain in the ass and a shit user experience all around.

They mess with stuff all the time and it’s frustrating as hell. Even from user to use the stuff is different. I have weird looking “like” buttons and normal comments… David has the old “like” buttons and a “conversation/messages”-type threaded comments. It’s just strange.