War, human suffering, industralised land clearing, climate change, over population...the list goes on and on and on and one thing unites them all. They're caused by money. I'm sure when money was introduced it seemed like a good idea, a standardised unit of value to create a "universal" valuing system; and in that purist form it's a brilliant idea. The problem is it's a system which doesn't account for emotions like greed.

Humans have a huge tendency toward greed and it never ceases to amaze me how even a relatively small sum of money can absolutely change an otherwise kind, generous person into an arrogant, selfish monster. Oh yes, the statement money is the root of evil is entirely true. Think about it.

Ever war in recent history was fought over money, heck some of those wars were only fought so the arms dealers could stay in business. Think about how many 100s of MILLIONS of lives have been lost due to wars fought over money. Not freedom or defending territory or anything like it's made out to be, but pure cold hard cash. This Iraq war being fought at the moment for example, all over oil and keeping a few big name arms dealers in business. It makes me sick to think all those soldiers are dying or coming up with mental disorders, all their families worrying and suffering, so a few rich blokes can make some more money. That is disgraceful and disrespectful to the soldiers and their families.

And climate change, geez. Industralisation occurred to produce products in greater numbers so the business owners could make more money. From Industralisation green house gases were released setting in effect a chain reaction for which we are seeing the beginnings of the results now. Massive land clearing, logging, mining and so forth, all spurred on by money, all adding to the climate change effect. And when presented with the climate change data over the passed 40 years the excuse to not do anything about it? "It will to strongly negatively impact on our economy" or in other words, money.

Without money there would be no poor, homeless or starving people in the world. Not less! NONE! Think about it. If you got rid of money over night what that would mean for these people. Even over population has it's roots in money, for with money as an incentive larger and larger farms have been developed making an abundance of readily available food. As food becomes easier to obtain population booms. It's basic biology 101. Yep, there really aren't many problems humanity is having today that don't have their roots in money.

Now defenders of money might say "it's not a perfect system, but it's all we have". That is a complete cop out. Before money it was barter, if the advocates of the barter system had copped out like that money would never have been invented. What we need is to develop further on the system of money, to advance forward in our system of trade. I mean money, as a system was created thousands of years ago, isn't it about time we brought our trade system into 2010?

I've been thinking lately about getting some life insurance quotes, see what it would cost me to be insured. I think it will take some looking around though and a lot of reading of "fine print" before I decide on one. I often wonder if it's even really worth it, I mean lets take funeral insurance for example. I know that $5000 worth of cover costs $2.30 a week. If I assume, like the insurance company does that it's most likely I'll live on to at least 86 then I can produce the following equation.

$2.30 per week times 4.3 weeks in a month equals $9.89 paid per month.
$9.89 per month times 12 months in a year equals $118.68 paid per year.
$118.68 per year times the expected 60 years of life left equals $7120.80

That means if I simply put the same insurance fee away in a bank account every week (I could set it up to be automatic for example) for the rest of my life and I did live an extra 60 years then I'd have $2120.80 EXTRA then if I'd gotten funeral cover. I wonder if it's the same sort of savings with life insurance? Never know until I find out I guess. And I suppose there is the fact that I don't know how long I'll live, I could drop dead tomorrow. Hrmmm... lots to think about, best get those quotes.

Ok so it's 3:16am and this aboriginal show called "message stick" is on the ABC. This Aboriginal woman was just on and tried to claim that aboriginals are *cough* invisible to Australia. Excuse me? How do they figure that one? Invisible people don't get their TV shows aired on the government run ABC. They don't have special warns put at the front of TV shows which have people who have died in them because that effects their culture. Invisible people don't have land rights like in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Invisible people aren't counted as citizens and aren't allowed to vote. Invisible people aren't given special payments from the government and invisible people aren't allowed government provided lawyers even when everyone else isn't allowed one.

Fact of the matter is Aboriginals get a LOT of liberties afforded to them, a LOT of them. There is a great inequality going on which is now in the favour of Aboriginals and they have the nerve to complain and say they're invisible? WTF? And they want a treaty allowing them to take some powers away from the state governments because they were here first? They're not even joking, they're being serious..

Seriously, how many of them where alive in 1788 when Australia was colonised by the British? Oh right that would be zero. Ok, so what about the generation immediately after that, how many of those are alive today? Oh right, that would be zero. So what they're saying is NO LIVING Aboriginal has EVER lived in an Australia which wasn't colonised by the British. But beyond that, NO LIVING Aboriginal has EVER lived in an Australia which didn't contain WHITE AUSTRALIANS, that is to say white people BORN in Australia. Excuse me but if you've never known a world other then the one you live in now outside of stories, then seriously what makes you think for a second you have a right to go back to it?

EVERY country on the planet has at some stage in its history had people who invaded and took over. Deal with it. Stop living in a past that you've never known, we're talking about something almost 300 years ago here!! Seriously! You don't deserve ANY special rights at all, NONE!

You're an Australia, no better than any other Australia. Stop making excuses to get special treatment, because nothing is going to make all the white people pick up and leave, nothing is going to turn the clock back 300 years and NOTHING is going to make Aboriginals in charge of Australia. Deal with it.

I'm getting fed up with all this nonsense, it's seriously time to move on with yourselves. Stop beating each other up and breaking the law. Stop getting drunk off your head all the time and chroming. Stop all the anti-social behaviours and blaming white people for them. Take some responsibility for your own damn actions. GET A JOB! And don't give me some crap about no one will give you a job because you're Aboriginal because that's just utter bullshit now days. Sure there was once a time that was true, but now days it's an utter lie. Not only will employers give Aboriginals a go if they have the right skills, but there are even employers and jobs that ONLY aboriginals are allowed to apply for, which in itself is absolute bullshit. Apparently the anti-discrimination laws don't apply if you're a healthy, normal, fully functional white person who is discriminated against.

I'm tired of the excuses from Aboriginals, and I think most Australians are getting fed up with them too. There were a lot of people 10 years ago who were behind the Aboriginals, who helped fight for their rights and junk who now can just see a lack of movement by the Aboriginals themselves to better themselves. People who once backed Aboriginals, can now just see Aboriginals are all about excuses and getting something for nothing. It's stupid and it needs to end.

And I'm sorry but none of this is racist. Racism means that I am prejudice against someone because of their race. I don't dislike Aboriginals, I'm not trying to harm them, I'm not saying they shouldn't have equal rights, I'm not trying to belittle them or anything else along those lines. What I am saying is that they are getting ridiculous in their claims and their demands. What I AM saying is that instead of talking about something from 300 years ago, instead of talking about how different they are and their delusional land rights, they need to accept themselves as AUSTRALIANS. They need to accept the COUNTRY THEY LIVE IN and they need to focus on how they are the same as other Australians, what they have in common with other Australians and just become productive, useful members of society.

That's a decision each individual person in the Aboriginal community will need to make for them self. That instead of sitting around fighting to have more power and junk, put all that energy into bettering the country for ALL Australians not just a select minority. If we want to stop racism to stop then those who feel persecuted against have to stop making themselves out to be so different. Stop going on that you're black, you're aboriginal, you need this special treatment or blah blah blah. Just get on with it and people will follow suit. Geez, common sense much.

As the number of obese and morbidly obese persons begin to rise and the United States of America even have to create a new category called SUPER morbidly obese for those people who weigh in the vicinity of a TON (that's as heavy as a small car!) you have to wonder, does the government have a roll to play?

While we all like to think we're in charge of our on destinies, our past influences our decisions far more then we'd like to think. If for example you grew up in a household where it was junk food every night and sports weren't encouraged, then guess what you're likely to be like as an adult? Even more so, guess what you're likely to be like as a parent?

I do agree that the individual needs to make their own decisive changes in their life. Over weight and obese people need to exercise, with an active lifestyle. If you feel self conscious about exercising in public or like Sarah you have in your head that walking places is "scummy" (which of course it isn't, I walk a lot and I'm certainly not scummy) then you could always buy a treadmill or other at home exercise equipment until you feel more self confident. The families of Morbidly and super morbidly obese people; people who can't even get out of bed due to their shear weight; need to stop enabling their food habits. If you can't get out of bed then you'll eat what you're given. People need to get up and move around, they NEED to exercise, daily and develop an active lifestyle so that exercise becomes a part of every day things instead of a chore they have to schedule in separate to everything else.

But I also think government has a role to play. It is clear at this point people are NOT going to change on their own, they need a good hard kick in the right direction which is where government comes in. There are several measures governments in the western world need to take.

(1) P.E. before school for pre-school, primary school and high school students. That used to be a part of schooling in the 70s and it worked well. Governments cut it to free up money, but it was actually a very valuable tool. Not only will it mean every child exercises daily, but it means they will be able to concentrate better in school, be more confident and are far more likely to carry on the approach into adulthood.

(2) The development of more Parks and sporting fields. There are some areas where there is a distinct lack of these sorts of facilities and without them people are unable to include certain activities in their lifestyle which would aide in the weight-loss problem. Sports are a major part of combating obesity, so without a facility to hold sporting events people can't expect to be healthy for very long.

(3) Proper dietary and exercise education. For far to long people have been going on about diet. About cutting foods out and limiting calories. This is a MAJOR factor in why we have the obesity problem the western world is facing today. Our bodies have evolved in a way that requires us to move around and use energy. But our society has evolved in such a way that we don't really move around and use energy anymore. This is the BIGGEST systematic problem of all and the REAL cause for the obesity problem.

You can attempt to blame fast food all you like, but the fact of the matter is the average diet in the 50s contained FAR more calories and FAR more cholesterol then we consume today. Our lack of movement is the huge problem. Food isn't the enemy it has been made out to be, it's simply food. ALL food is perfectly find in MODERATION. Too much of anything even carrots will cause you problems. In this way government should educate at the primary school, high school and adult levels about the importance of MODERATION and ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

(4) Legislation making it a crime for gyms and weight loss services to give INCORRECT information on weight loss or to misrepresent the facts should be brought forward. It should be a crime for a weight loss service to continue the lie that it's all about diet and you need to cut out foods and calories.

(5) Cooking classes should be reintroduced to schools. One of the biggest reasons fast food has become so popular is people have lost the skill of home cooking. If we teach it to our children in a proper way they are more likely to make good food choices.

(6) Amendments to the child protection laws to include obesity. Children can only become obese through ineffective and neglectful parenting. If you are teaching your child the correct eating and exercise habits then there is no possible way you child can become obese.

(7) Legislating more strongly about the advertising of food. NO FOOD products of ANY kind should be advertised during children's television viewing times for example. Children shouldn't be in the drivers seat, that's the parents job, therefore children shouldn't be advertised to.

(8) Parenting classes, perhaps mandatory, for people with new babies. These classes would address general issues like diet and exercise, conflict negotiation, basic first aide, child development, looking at things through your kids eyes on their level and ideas about games that can be played with your child at different stages of development.

(9) The banning of gastric bypass surgery. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long run and is bound to have some undesirable long term side effects.

The long talked about and much contested Australian mandatory internet filter has new opposition in the form of the "Australian Library and Information Association and Inspire Foundation". Dubbed the 'Safer Internet Group' and with members such as web giants Google and Yahoo! the group actually stand a good chance at achieving their objectives, which would see a revision of the legislation to better target illegal acts such as child porn while leaving the rest of the internet open, uncensored and free to use.

The filter works in the same way any home blacklist software on either your modem/router or home PC does. The government plan to place URLs of websites they and the public find which you wouldn't want a child to see onto the black list. Once on the black list no one in the country will be able to view the site or any pages listed on it. This I believe is why companies Google and Yahoo! are stepping in, because at the end of the day it would hurt their bottom line.

Take for example if the URL to a specific YouTube video was placed on the list, this would have the effect of causing ALL users who visit YouTube to pass through the filter leading to YouTube videos that aren't blacklisted under the filter not loading and a general slow down of the site. Independent testing by the government in Tasmania in 2009 showed the filter would also significantly slow down general web usage, dropping your speed by 30% during normal usage periods and during high traffic periods by up to 70%!

The Safer Internet Group is points out something I have argued since the inception of this filter, stating

"As a large proportion of child sexual abuse content is not found on public websites, but in chat-rooms or peer-to-peer networks, we know the proposed filtering regime will not effectively protect children from this objectionable material,"

and continuing

"In fact, the policy may give parents a 'false sense of security' encouraging them to reduce their supervision."

Under this filter arrangement websites of a criminal nature will NOT be mandatory passed on to the police, they will ONLY block the content under the filter and leave the matter there. The AMCA (the government body responsible for rating commercial TV and radio) will manage the filter and attempt to apply the same guide lines to the internet that apply to TV. Meaning if they find something you wouldn't want your 9 year old to see, then no one in Australia can see it either, regardless of age.

As I have already previously stated, if the goal is ultimately to stop cyber crime there are FAR better and more effective ways of achieving that goal than instituting a mandatory filter across the internet. Education is key, explaining to the general public internet safety, about email scams, phishing and so forth. It troubles me that there are still grown adults who will today fall for a Nigerian 419 scam (The ones where they say you've won a stack of money, but you need to give them a few grand to collect it). And the filter isn't designed to combat these types of problems, in fact it really isn't designed to combat ANY kind of truly harmful cyber crime.

Kiddie porn will still be just as prevalent as it is now, but legal porn won't be viewable. Everyone will still get just as many spam and scammer emails as they are right now, but watching a legitimate video YouTube will become slow and tiresome. Phishing websites will still continue to exist as often by the time anyone figures out it's a phishing website the phishers have already abandoned the site in search of the next prize. Yet internet banking will take forever (opening people using wireless internet to even future hacking attacks and fraud).

The ONLY criminal activity that I can see the filter would actually combat is the downloading of copyrighted materials such as music, movies, games and software through bit-torrent sites and so forth. But again, that will only stop the use of it in a web based way, it will NOT stop peer-to-peer downloading using software like LimeWire. Beyond that, it will all be business as usual to the cyber-crime world. The ONLY people who are impacted by this filter are the law abiding Australian public whom will lose their right to freedom of information. Not only will legal porn sites be blocked, but so will any sites which even so much as TALK about things that are "undesirable". This includes NEWS sites and BLOGS which are seeking to educate on the issues surrounding a criminal activity or just talking about a criminal activity in a negative light.

Think about it, all those websites giving you tips on how to avoid pedophiles getting in touch with your children, clearly community education groups, being added to a blacklist that no one can visit. How does that make logical sense?

Thankfully with the "safer internet group" lobbying the government, combined with the legal action the Australian Internet Services Association are taking to try and block the filter things should hopefully change on this front. Hopefully someone amongst this group can get Senator Conroy to understand he does NOT know what is best for Australians better than they do themselves, nor does he know what is best for our children better then we their parents do. Lets hope they move fast on this though, as the legislation only needs to pass through the senate before it's law and is already scheduled to be in place by the end of THIS YEAR!

Links;

iTWire Article

The data coming out of the United States is showing the economy is beginning to improve, but what does this mean for the average joe? The unemployment rate is showing it's first real signs of beginning to fall, which I can only assume means it's becoming easier to find a job in America. I have no doubts however that there are still a lot of people hurting financially having lost everything.

I find it appalling under those circumstances that the board members of banks and financial institutions who caused this whole mess, the same group of companies that the US government had to bail out in the the order of trillions, received bonuses at the end of 2009. Bonuses for what exactly; crippling the global economy and causing financial distress to billions and causing millions to become homeless? It's moments like these that make government regulation of financial services sound like a good idea.

None the less there are signs of hope on the horizon. Things are improving, and regardless of the distress and pain being caused now, and the loss of the past, the future looks bright. Now is when things can really start to be rebuilt for the individual. With work comes hope and the promise of a better tomorrow. We can only hope.

I've embedded using YouTube this week to see how well it's received. I want to see if more people will watch and share the video if I embed with YouTube instead of vimeo. If you like this video, please be sure to rate it 5 stars and pass it on to as many other people as you can. Thanks

I recently seen a guy by the name of Jonathan Safran-Foer (No, not John Safran the mega awesome comedian, another guy), on The Colbert Report and again at 1am on Big Ideas on the ABC. He's written a book, which I must say I have not read, and he has started on a bunch of keynote addresses as part of a book tour. It's from these keynote addresses that I want to talk about today. See Jonathan has decided eating meat is really bad, but instead of taking a confrontational stance like PETA would, he's trying the buddy buddy, logic path to try and turn people vegetarian.

A vegetarian human race would be a terrible thing, and I hope I don't live to see a day when the majority of people are sustained on a vegetarian diet. I've actually downloaded one of his keynote addresses, and I'll prove you with a link to download it yourself and watch it. Does Jonathan seem like a nice guy? Sure, he seems like a great, normal guy. Does he present a halfway logical argument, sure I'll concede that too. But that doesn't mean some of the things he says aren't lies? No, it certainly doesn't. Does that mean that his way of thinking is the only way of thinking, the most logical or the best way of thinking? No. And I also MUST point out that MOST of his arguments are for things happening either solely in the USA or only in small scale in other parts of the world.

So the major thing Jonathan talks about is how bad Factory farming is. How it's bad for your body, bad for the environment, bad for the animals involved. I'm not arguing that point, in fact I agree totally with him, factory farming is bullshit and should be banned. But that doesn't then mean the only option in vegetarianism, nor does it mean that vegetarianism is better or healthier or that the same sorts of problems don't exist in the fruit and vegetable farming world. I don't know how much research Jonathan has put into fruit and veg, but he certainly isn't talking about all the bullshit happening there.

He makes great repetition of the fact that turkeys can't reproduce naturally anymore because their bodies are so distorted; but fails completely to mention that MOST of the fruit or vegetables you buy in the supermarket now days (and this IS a global issue) are genetically altered so they can't reproduce anymore. Their seeds are sterile, due to what is known as a terminator gene which has been introduced to all the grains and most fruit and veg so that farms have to continue to buy seed each year.

He talks about how animals in factory farming require antibiotic shots to survive their conditions, but fails to mention the genetically altered crops which now produce and excrete their own insecticides and herbicides. For a man who claims to want a balanced discussion on the issue, he doesn't seem to be talking much of a balance argument. Indeed there are countless genetic modification to the fruit, veg and grains you eat every day and in much larger quantities than you do meat. It is a LIE to say that fruit, veg and grain is healthy for you when there is evidence starting to come through connecting these wide spread genetic modifications with numerous health issues.

And while there MAY be a couple of factory farms in Australia I know very confidently they are very uncommon. I know extremely confidently that when I go to woolies, coles, IGA or even my local butcher that the meat I buy will come from an animal which has been able to graze, which was fed grain and grass/hay. I've seen the process, I know how it works over here.

Which leads me to my first main point; Just because factory farming is a bad idea, doesn't make eating meat a bad thing. In fact as I've talked about in previous posts meat, particularly red meat is an important part of your diet. Your human body has evolved in an omnivorous way, and without meat in your diet there are loads of things that can go wrong. Your iron levels plummet (unless you eat huge amounts of veg; eg 14.1Kg of broccoli has the same iron content as 500g of steak), you won't have any animal protein in your diet (which actually your body has evolved to use best), amongst a number of other things which I've already talked about in previous posts.

To me a FAR more logical stance to take to factory farming, far from deciding to not eat meat anymore (which lets face it would be nothing more than some sort of deluded protest) is to fight to have those commercialised and industrialised farming practices BANNED. THAT is the logical conclusion, to fight for farming returned to sustainable ways. Jonathan touches on that for only 20 seconds in response to someones question and remains impartial to it.

It is a LIE to state that humanity needs to become vegetarian in order for our continued existence. We don't. What we DO need to do is control our population and our wastage better. Explain to me how ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that 1/3 of the global human population lives in the tiny country of India. Clearly over populated countries like India and China need to look at how to stop their population problems (and no immigrating to other countries is not a solution, we need LESS births). Explain to me also why ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that the USA uses 1/4 of the GLOBAL resources, and WASTES in the quantities it does.

Drop the population to sustainable levels and the amount of wastage to almost zero; if not zero itself; and you immediately need to produce far far less food to feed them. And the thing is that over population of humans plus wastage are major problems not just for food production but in every part of the environment. If we don't fix those 2 fundamental things then the earth will die taking us and every other creature along with it. So it is a MASSIVE lie to say if we all turn vego everything will be ok, because that simply isn't the case.

I also reject entirely the comment made by Jonathan that humanity is the stewards of the earth. That is perhaps the BIGGEST lie propetuated by humanity, particularly animal rights groups. It is a LIE to say that humanity is special, different (in a way that makes us superior) or separate from other animals. And is certainly a lie to say that humans are the only animals capable of choosing what their diet will contain. My best example of why that particular point is a lie is that my dog is currently experiencing a moment in time where he is choosing NOT to eat the dog food I provide him and instead trying to get hold (by whatever means necessary) foods like crisps and pizza.

That is a conscious choice HE has made. In fact I have no doubt that any animal when presented with a seemingly endless choice and variety of food would be capable of making dietary choices on their own accord (and yes sometimes good choices and sometimes bad choices, just like humans). The biggest lie ever invented is that you're somehow special. You're NOT! If for example human only disease wiped humanity off the planet tomorrow, no other creature would blink an eyelid, except perhaps in relief. The fact of the matter is humanity is as far from special as it gets, humanity is also as far from good for the planet as it gets too.

Humans have NO extra rights, no special responsibilities, none of that. It's all LIES! We do not have the right nor responsibility to "cull" (which is a polite way of saying massacre) the populations of other animals; especially when ours is so over populated. If we want to cull animals, lets start with ourselves. If everyone who thinks culling other animals simply picked up a gun, stuck it to their head and pulled the trigger, then we'd at least be on the way to getting our population in check . That isn't to say I think we should cull humanity, but we certainly shouldn't be culling another species. The day that humanity realises just how far from special they are, how intelligent other animals actually are and honestly how stupid and insane humanity actually is will be the day the earth moves forth.

I also reject Jonathans idea that the only reason humans hunt is for thrill. That's absolute bullshit. THAT IS A LIE! What's to say a hunter doesn't grow his own fruit and veg? In fact hunting is natural, it's how humanity was built. It's fairer on other animals, much fairer than penning animals in and then killing them. It also means you can get close to nature, close to your roots. You can most certainly kill to eat. Think of it this way, a vegetarian or vegan makes a conscious decision to only eat plants, even when that means going out of their way, even when there is plenty of other food down at the local supermarket. A hunter can be the same, in that they may sure have a supermarket within shopping distance, but they can make a conscious decision to hunt their meat instead of buying it from the supermarket.

In fact Jonathan Safran-Foer introduces NO new arguments to the table. He is the same old vegetarian coming with his arguments why everyone else should be the same way as he is. He pretends to not try and get other people to be like him, but if this was truly the case there would be no book, there would be no keynote addresses and this post wouldn't exist because I would never have heard of him. Fact of the matter is, yes the people who operate factory farms lie and yes the state of the food system (like basically EVERY OTHER SYSTEM) in the United States of America is broken. But it's also fact that Jonathan Safran-Foer is trying to convert you, it's also fact that he (like all vegoes) tells as many (if not more) lies than the people who run the factory farms.

Links;

Jonathan Safron-foer's keynote @ Sixth & 1

Have you ever noticed that everything in our increasingly overly capitalist society can be assigned a monetary value? If a fall over in the street and break my ankle I can sue the council for money. If at work I lose a finger I can sue for money. In fact there is actually a list which the courts go by stating how much you can get for different injuries.

We buy and sell other animals, assigning them a dollar value; when lets face it they're actually another intelligent (much more so then most of us give credit for) sentential being. Heck we even assign our own lives a dollar value through life insurance and funeral insurance. It seems nothing is without a dollar value these days, think about it.

But how can you assign dollar values to some of this stuff. I watched an ad on TV for funeral insurance that said if your "loved one" dies in an accident you'll get $45,000 extra to "ease your pain and suffering". Yep, even your pain and suffering has a dollar value now days. But lets be honest, if you just lost you partner, the mother or father of your kids, they're dead, gone forever. Is any amount of money, let alone $45,000 going to ease your "pain and suffering"? It certainly wouldn't mine.

If Sarah died I can tell you no amount of money is going to make that good with me, nor should it be able to. Sure with Life Insurance the money helps you survive, but lets be honest here...if you have kids and a mortgage even half a million dollars isn't going to last you to long. No matter what, if you lose the bread winner in your family, your lifestyle is going to change. You will eventually need to go out and work, the amount of life insurance you receive only dictates how long you can delay it. It certainly doesn't ease the pain of losing your "loved one"!

So why do we do it? Why as rational but emotional beings do we attempt to assign a dollar value to everything in our world? And more importantly how do we expect that our children will grow to have good morals and values, as well as being emotionally well adjusted if they live in a world were everything is defined by how much money it's worth? What do we think happens to our attachments to each other, our attachments to the environment, our self value and emotional state if we have money attached to everyone? Together, we as a community design our own society, so we need to start asking these questions of ourselves before it's to late. Remember, extremism, regardless of it's reference is always a bad thing.

In the whole of Australia's history until 2009, terrorism in our country has been limited to 1 single plot to assassinate the Queen during a visit in the 1970's. Beyond that we have always lived in a safe, happy country, free from extremist views and forth coming violence.

In late 2009 that all changed when at least 5 Arab immigrants conspired to attack and take over hollingsworth military base. Fast forward to today and you'll note that two acts of terror occurred! First we have an attempted hijacking of a Sydney commuter bus by an immigrant man trying to escape police. While over in Darwin an Insurance building has been bombed! And while thankfully no one was fatally injured in either of these events, they do certainly highly a growing trend.

Here we have persons whom have immigrated into our country, committing acts of terror on our soil. A country which was previous a sanctuary from terrorism now exposed to it on our own soil. And I blame Kevin Rudd and his ridiculous approach to immigration. The simple fact of that matter is that it's precisely because of situations like this that until Kevin Rudd came along Australia had always maintained such a minimalist immigration policy.

Honestly, what does Australia need with 260,000 Indians a year? How does that help our country? It's time we took a real hard look at our immigration policy and set things right. The way things were, whether you agree with it or not, worked. It kept us and our way of life safe. Enter Kevin Rudd and his extremely liberal immigration policy and suddenly we have a growing trend of terrorism inside Australia. It's not racism, it's common sense. Large numbers of immigrants, especially when they can get in without proper security checks through student visas, will cause extremists to enter our country. We need to take a good hard look and decide if we want to continue our peaceful way of life, or whether we'd much rather plummet into a country plagued by terrorist attempts and inevitably terrorist successes. I know which I'd prefer, how about you?

In an effort to compete with free office software such as OpenOffice.org and GoogleDocs, Microsoft have announced a free, ad-funded version of Microsoft Office 2010 which will come pre-loaded on new Windows 7 PCs. Microsoft have announced that the full version software will be loaded on the PC and a product key will be all that is required to unlock it passed the "Starter Edition".

The idea here I expect is the same concept that seen Internet Explorer become the most popular browser on the planet. If you place it on the users hard drive from the start, they are more likely to use it rather then go to the trouble of finding another service. It will probably work too, I mean how many people honestly are going to be bothered to go and download openoffice.org and download the suite when they already have a perfectly usable and more importantly STANDARDISED office suit installed on their system.

Very few of the main stream, that's who! But I can however see a few flaws in Microsoft's plan to regain global office suite domination. The first of which should be clear from the outset, it will after all be staring you in the face while you use Microsoft Office Starter Edition 2010. Ads! This isn't a choice you have, it's something that is pre-installed on the production line. Basically, as soon as you take your computer out of the box, without even connecting it to the internet, you'll be hit with spammy ads! No choices, it'll just be that way.

Given the current trend in ads, I'd say they're be context sensitive as well, which raises another question, which is privacy. Microsoft are well known for having very few morals, especially when morals stand in the way of making a buck. So the question begs, if the ads do indeed end up context sensitive, how much of your data are they collecting? Indeed how much free raine over your system are you signing away? And who gets the data, and what can they do with it? Those are pretty big questions.

I wonder if starter edition will be as difficult to uninstall as Windows Messenger is on Windows XP. Even by clicking "uninstall" it doesn't uninstall, all that achieves is making it invisible to you. So I do have to wonder, will it be the same with starter edition 2010?

The second major problem I see; and this is more a problem for Microsoft rather than the consumer, is that plain and simple if the full software is already installed, and all the end user need do is enter a product key then a crack &/or keygen will be produced and you will get large amounts of people getting the professional version of Office 2010 for nothing.

I mean it's not like that have to go find a working pirate copy now is it? All you need is a pirate key and you're in. So perhaps the same force that may get people to use MS Office 2010 over other free alternatives, may also be it's downfall. For all the genuine product checks Microsoft develops, the pirate computer finds a work around. At some point Microsoft is just going to have to understand that their old business model is over, done, kaput. The days of selling software are coming to an end as we enter the age of open-source, free and ad supported software.

Taxes; they're meant to go to keeping this country running. They're meant to go into Hospitals and Schools, into Roads and essential services. They're meant to go into a fair, equal and reasonable welfare system. But they don't. TJandSarah.com has received insider knowledge of Australia's social welfare system and how through it, you're paying to keep drug addicts in habit.

Centrelink has many payments which it offers, which with different rules. None of which however is more cooshy then the Disability pension which see's recipiants not required to look for work, but still earning quite a reasonable and livable sum of money. It is a payment which is meant to be for people who have a disability which prevents them from holding down employment.

TJandSarah.com have been advised by a source at centrelink that this payment is NOT living upto what it is meant to be. We were advised of a case involving a man who had lost one of his arms and had come into centrelink to claim the disability pension. You would think this would be easy for him wouldn't you? But his claim was denied because he still has one arm which apparently makes him capable of work.

So what does this all have to do with drug addicts you ask? Well while people who have lost limbs are denied the pension, TJandSarah.com have been told by a senior Centrelink offical, that Drug Addicts regularly qualify for the payment. Apparently chosing to drink excessively, shoot up or otherwise take drugs qualifies you as a disabled person under Centrelinks definition.

A payment, whose funds are gathered from our taxes, and was meant to support those in our society phsyically incapable of doing so themselves is being rorted by drug addicts the nation over. While you go to work day in, day out these addicts are able to live it up on money collected by the government from YOUR tax dollars! They then use this money to continue thier lifestyle of addiction, and even to purchase their substance of choice!

Furthermore, by being under this payment there is no incentive for them to ever stop their addiction. There are no requirements to look for work, no requirements to seek rehab, no requirements to report in at all. Drug addicts are getting a free ride, and we the tax payers of Australia are funding it.

If we want to truly battle the drug problem then how can we honestly enable these people in their addiction? Why would anyone ever stop using if they get such a sweet ride because of it? If anything the system in it's current state encourages addicts to remain that way, as if they were to ever clean themselves up, they would lose their payment.

We need urgent welfare reform to (1) disqualify any addict from receiving the disability pension (2) require all persons whom have addictions to not only seek employment but to undergone a mandatory drug rehab program and (3) make the disability pension easier for persons who genuinely have a disability to access and claim.

I've been getting called from the Child Support Agency lately harassing me, not to pay child support, but to collect it. Seems they feel now that bro lives with me, I should collect child support. Not that I even know how they found out he lives with me, I certainly didn't tell them and I can't see Chelsea doing that. It's ridiculous that an agency like the CSA can find out information about you like that, they're responsible for collecting Child Support, not hunting down escaped criminals.

The thing they don't seem to understand is that I'm not interested in collecting Child Support, it's an idiotic system. I don't need someone who doesn't live with me, who isn't my partner, and realistically isn't a part of my life, providing me a portion of their income. I mean lets face it, that's how this system works. It's unfair, unwarranted and completely foolish.

In reality separated families fall into one of 3 categories. In Category 1; both parents share care of the child 50/50, in this case how can you decide who should pay child support? Whoever earns more? Being penalised because you happen to have a better paying job is just ludicrous.

In Category 2, the child lives with one parent and visits the other; honestly if this is the case shouldn't the visiting parent save their money for when they actually see the child(ren)? Or is the idea to give all your money to the other parent so you have none when the child(ren) visit and thus visitation sucks? My view is simple, if you can not provide for the child, sufficiently in a financial manner WITHOUT child(ren) support, then honestly, what business do you have, having the child(ren) residing with you?

When you agree to have the child live with you, you take on the financial responsibility that carries with it. You shouldn't be looking to your ex to provide for you, that's just silly. If you can't handle it on your own, perhaps you should consider joining category 1 instead, then the load gets shared in a reasonable manner.

Category 3 families have the child(ren) reside with one parent, and the other parent not see the child(ren). Honestly, in this case why on earth should someone pay child support for a child they don't even get to see? Sure there are some people who don't want to see their child(ren) but those are the minority of this category. The vast majority have no contact with their child(ren) forced upon them by the other party.

The final insult being that you have to pay part of your income to someone who denies you the ability to see your own flesh and blood. What makes the situation worse is there is often no legal recourse, no way to fix the matter. Parents who deny their child access to their other parent have no business being parents in the first place, but it is made all the more terrible if they go for child support too. You have to be pretty low to be like that. It highlights a character flaw which means the money given in child support wouldn't be spent on the child(ren) anyway.

At the end of the day, child support isn't about children. It's a government sanctioned way for greedy, selfish and angry people to get back at their ex. If it where about children then the money would pool in an account for which the CSA is the trustee. Receipts would have to be produced to the CSA for all monies used from child support, to prove it's being used for the child(ren). But it isn't that way at all. It goes from the CSA straight to the other parents bank account, where they can use it however and whenever they feel like it, regardless if it's to buy something for the child(ren) or to buy themselves something nice and shiny. It's a system plagued with flaws, and I for one would much rather do away with it all together.

Links;

Child Support Agency

Australia's annual water report card has warned water prices will rise in all of Australia's capital cities over the next 5 years. This comes as a result of strategy change for civil water from dams to waste water systems and desalination plants.

In dams we had a relatively cheap source of water, fed by rain; the power required was minimal compared with these newer sources. Desalination plants have been traditionally expensive to run, and not a lot has changed now. This is due to the enormous amounts of energy required to strip sodium from sea water.

As we find ourselves in a position where electricity prices are rising, and will consider to do so dramatically over the next decade, we can expect water prices to follow. We have set ourselves into this position through a society of pollution and ignorance toward the environment, and not much has changed.

As climate change continues to have an effect on our country, and thus our water supply we can further expect prices to rise. And in the rising price of water we can of course expect a flow on effect into all products which require water. Yep, your grocery bill just got higher...

Links;

ABC News story

With the government uncoupling the Renewable Energy Targets bill(RET) from the Emissions Trading Scheme bill (ETS) the RET is expected to be passed through into law quite soon. The bill will legislate that energy providers supply 20% of their energy from renewable energy sources by 2020. But the big question for most people is, while it's all great that the environment is being helped, what does the RET mean for the average Australian? And you won't like the answer.

The coalition have joined the government in support of the energy sectors plan to rise energy prices in order to pay for the installation of renewable energy sources. It seems the major parties have taken on the interests of a minority, let rich business sector; above those of their wider constituents. The energy sector stands to gain dramatically from the drastically cheaper cost production associated with renewable energy sources.

Greens deputy leader Senator Christine Milne commented on the greens party website yesterday;

"While this is a disappointing move, the critical point is that we bring on the renewable energy target legislation as swiftly as possible, to unleash the tremendous potential of renewable energy to re-energise Australia and create tens of thousands of jobs.

"Modeling has shown clearly that the renewable energy target will reduce the pool price of electricity because it will smooth the most expensive peaks. Under this deal between the big old parties, the polluters will get windfall gains from cheaper electricity without having to pay to install the renewable energy in the first place. How is that fair or reasonable?

"Both the big old parties have been using Australia's clever and clean renewable energy industry as a political football. Both old parties bend over backwards to sandbag the old polluters, but neither is willing to give priority to the renewable energy powerhouse that the Australian community wants."

I agree with Senator Milne in that the energy sector are somewhat double dipping so to speak. They will on one hand gotten infrastructure for free, by forcing we the consumer to pay for it. On the other hand, their bottom line will increase as a result of the cheaper priced electricity, and the increased cost to consumers. Not only is this not fair, but it's completely un-australian.

Links;

Greens website

In a move which shows they were only ever playing politics the federal government has folded on pressure to decouple the Renewable Energy Targets bill from their Carbon Trading Scheme. The Carbon Trading Scheme which will cost the nation billions without having a dramatic effect on climate change is doomed to fail in it's current form, yet the government has promised to bring it back to the senate in November.

The greens and the liberals who have been calling for the government to unlink the two sets of legislation will no doubt be happy. The Renewable energy targets means a better cleaner environment, and new jobs for Australian's. With this legislation in place we will see the beginnings of a future industry in Australia that will employ far more people then the energy sector (including coal mining and transport) does currently.

Australia is uniquely positioned to be world leaders in renewable energy, an opportunity we have constantly faulted at. With the renewable energy targets in place, we are a step in the right direction. I look forward to a day when the energy targets increase from 20% of energy production to 100%.

Links;

ABC News

The consumption of goods and services, even when they are unneeded and sometimes even completely useless to us has steadily increased since the 1940s. As media has encroached ever more into our daily lives, so forth has advertising. The first major revolution in advertising came with the introduction of Television.

Suddenly with a television or a "TV", advertisers found a direct route into our living rooms. By linking their ads to popular TV shows or personalities, advertisers caught us while we had those warm fuzzy feelings associated with something we like. In doing so, we then associated their products and brands with those same warm fuzzy feelings. And so was born the age of the consumer, and we were set on a path which would have implications for social structure, mental health and even the environment.

With this new found power to creep into our homes, advertisers managed to con us into some pretty dodgy deals over the years. But as the years have moved on from the introduction of television, so has legislation and indeed the consumer. When advertising first appeared on TV, merely being associated with a program or personality was enough to send thousands running for the nearest stockist. As immunity to this approach grew, advertisers changed tactics, instead listing on the neat things the product can do or how great it will taste. We were shown fake images and told things which boarder on fraud. Again, the consumer changed, and so did the advertisers tactic.

Today, we find ads which instead of insisting a product is brilliant, we're simply told it will make us "cool", more popular or happier. These claims again are of course untrue and it is again only a matter of time before the consumer becomes impartial to such advertising campaigns and things have to change once more. But no matter how these ads are delivered, the core message is always there, and has been since the word go. It is the core message which ultimately drives consumerism; that being one needs all this "stuff" to be happy. That your life will somehow go unfulfilled without these products, and you will struggle to ever find happiness. Indeed we know this to be a complete and utter lie, and yet still the mass population fall for it.

In sheep like behavior, the mass population simply follow directions and purchase what they're told to. But indeed this is having the opposite effect than had been intended. There is much evidence to show consumerism actually decreases fulfillment and happiness, for it is simply an incarnation of materialism. Through consumerism we are fostering an "I" society; that is to say, a society focused inwardless in selfish need to make their own pile of "stuff" larger. We have a society which has over complicated itself in the aid of gathering said "stuff". Think about it, we go to work daily, to earn enough money to buy the never ending conveyor belt of "new stuff". We do this without thought or wonder, indeed like a trained monkey we feel happy about doing it.

The costs of which are our sanity and the environment we live in. For the many of us incapable of buying the "coolest" new toy, we feel less of a person, incomplete, after all that is the message the advertisers would have us believe. These feelings can lead to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, even obsessive compulsive behavior. We are bombarded to buy ever more "stuff", to the point that obesity has hit epidemic proportions. It is strange to think, but the very thing that keeps capitalist economies running could, through over indulgence, break the economy all together.

But perhaps before that even occurs, our environment is at the brink of collapse through pollution caused by consumerism. Our waste has caused the environment to wither and die. The only solution for which is to cease our consumer behavior, and removed the products from which, from our society. But, human behavior what it is, I can hardly see that happening. Greed runs rampant in this modern capitalist world. If you are what you buy, then truly, what are you?

--edit--
Part 2 in this series will appear on Friday the 21st of August 2009. I apologise for any confusion

A few days ago I told you of Facebooks acquisition of like minded service FriendFeed. At that time I speculated that, as the four founders of FriendFeed where not only "ex" google employee's but played crucial roles in some of Googles core brand products, that perhaps they were using FriendFeed as a way to get inside Facebook. That perhaps, just maybe, Google plans to take on Facebook and Myspace in the Social Networking stakes.

This wasn't mere rederic, but instead a pattern that Google seem to follow. First they decide on an existing service &/or product they wish to go after, that they think they can improve on. Development starts secretly, then at some point along development they get inside at least one competitor's company, stealing their secrets and improving upon them. Then sometime, soon after we have a google rival product. The rival product continues to develop and mutate until they achieve something which people want to use. By which time, google holds the majority share of the market.

True to form, google have now beefed up "iGoogle" to give it a social networking feel. We will also no doubt see iGoogle morph into a full social networking medium in no time, packed full of improved Facebook technologies just to give Google the slight edge needed to cast it into controlling market share. As google unviel more products such as wave, android and voice, along with acquisitions such as YouTube, it is clear Google has a discernible objective. That being to hold the dominant market share across all media and communications technologies on the planet. We may well find ourselves shortly in a future where Google decide what news we do and don't hear.

But for now, they mask themselves as a company who are interested in making our lives better. In genuinely improving things so we can use them easier. This is brilliant spin, indeed it's at the heart of every companies marketing campaign, but google do it best. They have made it a core part of their company identity and thus people will follow google where ever it may go. Meanwhile, google remains a public company, responsible for it's shareholders and thus it's bottom line. You simply don't get as powerful as a company like google without slitting some throats along the way.

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

As google CEO Dr Eric Schmidt steps down as a board member of Apple, the iphone is about to be blown out of the water. As I've said in previous posts, the iphone is unworthy of it's place at the top of the mobile sales market. But all that is about to change with the first serious android contender. Previously the HTC Magic and the HTC Dream where the only Google android phones available, and they aren't all that hip. Enter T-Mobile's new myTouch.

The phone also made by HTC addresses all the issues of the previous android based phones, delivering a sleek, fully customisable phone. And when I say customisable, you haven't seen anything like this before! Through use of google android you can fully customise your home screen, widgets and applications, and being android there are thousands of apps to chose from, many of which are free. Place your music player next to your calendar and your email short cut so everything is within a single touch. This is truly a phone you can make your own. But the customisation doesn't stop there!

The outside of the phone can be uniquely designed! That's right, you can chose from preset colors and designs OR design your own! No two myTouch phones will ever be the same! And at only $199 on a 24 month contract you can afford to match them to your favourite outfits ladies. So for customisation the myTouch beats every other phone on the market, and backed by Google Android the phone is secure and stable.

Spec wise, the phone doesn't do to badly, but it certainly could do better. Similar to the iphone the myTouch comes with an inbuilt 3.2 mega-pixel camera, capable of both still photography and video. There is a full HTML browser so surfing the internet on the go is easy, and with 25 days of stand-by time (6 hours of talk time) the phone won't let you down in the battery compartment. Also similar to the iphone the myTouch has a 3.2 inch touch screen. As the myTouch has only been released for 2 days I have found it difficult to find a full list of specs for the myTouch and will update you with a full list when details become available.

What is for certain however is I would have liked to have seen some additions to this phone, that simply aren't there. Firstly I would have liked to have seen at least a 5 megapixel camera attached to the phone. The myTouch also relies on a virtual keyboard by way of the touch screen, much like the iphone, I certainly would have liked to of seen a full physical qwerty keyboard, which could be slid out from under the phone. While I do like the addition of a proper mouse toggle, there is as yet no mention of how much storage space is on the phone, if indeed any.

In essence the myTouch is a neat phone, but it alone will not break the hold the iphone has over the wider community. What the myTouch does however signify is that HTC are making some serious attempts, and that as with everything else google becomes involved in, they thoroughly intend to rule the mobile phone market through way of andriod. The myTouch will be great for the style conscious or anyone who wants a solid android phone. But whether you do buy a myTouch or not, be on the look out for the next generation Andriod powered phones, they're set to send Apple packing once and for all.

Links;
Offical myTouch website
ZDnet Review

I went into a 3 shop on Saturday to buy a phone charger and walked out knowing Australia as we've known it is in great danger. I was served by an appropriately dressed lady, in her early 20's and of Asian decent, no problems at first glance, but then we tried to communicate and it was a disaster. While I must credit her she tried her best to speak English (something many Asian immigrants don't bother with), her use of the language could be at best termed as novice.

As a result it took me not less than 15 minutes to get through to her that I was after a car charger that would fit both mine and sarah's mobiles. After all that effort I got the thing home, opened it up and found it was the wrong one. In the some almost 20 minutes I was in the shop, of the 10 or so customers who came and went, 95% of them were Indian, barely able to speak a word of English either.

Like wise, my local 7/11; once inhabited by a man with a 24/7 smile that made him look like he'd had one to many red bulls; is now over-run by Indians. Again, they are barely able to speak English and in some cases are completely incapable of it. In the week prior to my new mobile arriving I attempted to by a phonecard to use in payphones so I could call Sarah in hospital, but the Indian woman behind the counter couldn't understand what I was talking about; continually trying to sell me a telstra mobile recharge instead.

Increasingly I run into retail assistants who are incapable of communicating in English. Last I checked we hadn't changed the national language, so what is the deal with this immigration policy which is flooding our country with persons unable to communicate with Australians? If the current trend is to continue, the number of people speaking languages other than English will out number those whom speak English. So my question is, what is the government doing to combat this problem? To me, what needs to happen is immigrants from countries where their nation language is one other than English, should be mandatorily enrolled in English & Australian Culture classes. What do you think?

On a daily basis it seems increasingly harder to "spot the aussie" inside our own country. For a country which once has a Whites only policy there sure are a hell of a lot of Asian's, Africans and Arabs running about the place. So what's going on and is it isolated to Australia?

Sadly this trend is happening in all developed countries and it comes down to pure numbers. As the rate of education increases, especially the education of a woman, the amount of children that will then be born decreases. For this reason in the developed world we are seeing increasing numbers of white people having one or even no children in their life time. While this is brilliant for the plant; given there are far to many humans about as it is; it isn't so great for the white man as a species.

People in developing or undeveloped countries do not have access to the same education, and their culture; especially to women is usually rather different. Their numbers continue to swell, indeed India alone accounts for over 1 BILLION of the 7 Billion people on the planet and they're still rising dramatically. It is not unusual for a woman in these types of countries to have 7 to 10 children in her life time. 7 to 10 children, verse 0 to 1 child... wait on somethings going wrong here.

At this rate it's easy to see why it's becoming increasingly difficult to "spot the aussie". As far as white people go, we're an aging population; that is to say we aren't producing enough people to replace those that are already here let alone grow the population. When a population turns into an aging one, this causes major problems on the economy. The economy is supported by people of working age paying their taxes, if they isn't enough growth in the population then the economy WILL collapse.

In Australia the Howard governments first real go at trying to fix this was the baby bonus that we still enjoy today. It was aimed at stimulating white Australians into having more children. As Peter Costello said at it's unveiling "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country". And while this gave a small surge of increased white babies it didn't do the job. And so as most developed countries around the world are being forced to do, we have had some pretty inventive immigration laws passed. Their design is about letting enough people into the country to make up for the lack of people having babies.

White men ARE an endangered species I'm afraid, one which unless they start having more babies will go extinct at some point. So white people unite and to paraphrase Peter Costello "Have one for mom, one for dad and one for your species" I've had 4... how about you?

Sarah told me today about a store in England called "Iceland" where food is super cheap.

A 60 piece party platter for example costs a whopping £5!
24 mini chocolate eclairs are a whole £2!
A Frozen pizza is a whole £1
While 4 100% Beef patties each weighing half a pound costs £2.

Can you imagine how much these things would cost in your local supermarket? It's made me wonder, why do we not have something like this in Australia? The answer comes down to a couple of things, the first of which is obviously our geographical placement. But the price of food in New Zealand very low compared to Australia so it can't just be our geographic placement alone.

The other part of the answer comes of a more sinister nature and I bet you can guess it already. Woolworths and Coles, Australia's 2 main supermarkets have somewhat of a stranglehold on the market. Their agreements with wholesalers, manufacturers and farmers means combined they basically control the grocery industry completely. And make no mistake about it, when it comes to matters of mutual interest they do work together. Remember when Audi first came into Australia? They both fought long and hard to have Audi banned from coming into Australia. They lost the fight to have them banned but did win on the size of operation Audi was allowed to have.

Where Audi had originally wanted to open supermarkets the same size or bigger than the average Woolworths or Coles, they were told they couldn't. Which is why Audi is such a tiny store. When you put all this together with the simple fact that gaining even a slight ongoing portion of the grocery market is extraordinarily hard and you understand why stores like Iceland don't exist in Australia. The only way to change this is to change the laws to dissolve the hold Woolworths and Coles have on the Grocery Industry. By doing this food prices would drop, which I think we can all agree would make our lives just that much easier and better.

Links;

Iceland foods Ltd.

Being Australian has always meant mate ship. As Australian's we have always pulled together in times of hardship. But as our economy takes a hit, Woolworths aren't helping anyone but their bottom line. I have noticed that on Thursdays the price of some foods shoot up, sometimes quite dramatically. An example of this is Chicken Schnitzels from the deli, which on any other day of the week are $1.69ea but on Thursdays when most people are doing their weekly shop, the price is $2.49ea. That's almost a dollar increase on EVERY one you buy!

Last night (being a Thursday) I went to Woolworths and on their busiest night of the week they had run out of all but their most expensive breads. I went at 6pm! They have no trouble keeping bread stocked usually. I even asked a worker if they had anymore of the cheaper bread and he said no. I'm expected to believe that they have not even one loft out back? Rather convenient for a time people are just starting to come and do their shopping.

I also went into Big W which is Woolworths owned and had a look for a jumper for Sarah as it's starting to get cold and none of her jumpers fit her pregnant belly. They had thin, cotton hoodies, which used to retail for around $15-$20 and honestly should never retail for anything more. But Big W have pushed the price right up to $44.96! These are the same type of hoodies Supre` used to sell for $5! And that Fashion Fair, directly across from Big W is selling for $19.95.

This from a store who's motto used to be "the lowest prices guaranteed". Well that guarantee seems to have been lifted, and the rip offs are flowing through. Woolworths, lift your game you're being UnAustralian.

I have a few questions about p!nk which I think more people should be asking. Like for starters why do Australians love her so much? Do they not understand she advocated to the world that they boycott Australian sheep and wool products? It costs people their jobs, their livelihood and buckets of cash to the industry. Why? Because she misunderstood the practice of mulesing which while it looks painful, is much better than them having fly lava under their skin.

I know looking at the images it's hard to understand how this practice would be good for any animal, but it is. It stops Sheep fly from embedding themselves in the rump of the sheep, which will eat away at the sheep causing it pain and loss of the ability to walk. The lava will then burst out through the skin when they reach maturity. It's a common problem without mulesing. Honestly, if you where a sheep, which would you rather?

Now while p!nk has since retracted her statements to boycott Australian sheep and wool products, that hardly makes up for all the pain and heart ache she caused. She lost people money, and more over, lost some people their homes. And all they get is a "Oops sorry I didn't understand" before she skips off on her merry little way. How can True Australian's support a person like that? I am calling for a boycott on P!NK and a ban on her entering the country. She doesn't deserve to be graced by our beautiful nation.

My other question is; Is P!NK really Aaron Carter?

Links;

P!nk speaks for PETA

BOPO used to be the name to know in prepaid visa. They had an awesome service, but unfortunately collapsed. Along come heritage building Society to launch Canvas in it's place. Canvas is pretty much the same thing as BOPO except you pay a fee when you load money on your card.

The fee is quite steep at $3.75 for every load, so you always have to remember to put $3.75 extra on the card, on top of how much you want to load to cover the fee as well. I can see how this coupled with the $2.95 monthly service fee could be annoying, but there is no transaction fees on the card unless you use it at an ATM.

It however does seem like heritage are making a fare bit of money out of this card, so I doubt it will be disappearing anytime soon. Which can give you the confidence to go out and get one, if prepaid Visa is the way you want to go.

And prepaid visa does have a lot of benefits over a conventional VISA, with no interest or borrowing of money involved. There is of course a VISA Debt card offered by many banks, but some banks make these difficult to obtain and the fees can be quite high. With a prepaid visa you only load the money you need to use, which makes it perfect for keeping in budget.

That said, Coles Group and Woolworths Group won't accept Prepaid VISA cards at most of their stores which is a pain. But look, if you're just after a VISA to use to buy things online a prepaid visa might be the best way to go.

Heritage usually charge a $7.95 application fee for their basic card which lets you load up to $1000 onto the card at any one time. You can however get the card for free if you use the promo code "loadcashplay" when you apply.

I've ordered a card each for Sarah and I and we'll test them out to see how it goes. There are certainly plenty of places to reload the card which comes in handy. I'd say, if you just want a basic card for basic things, prepaid might be a go. It's worth a look anyway.

Links

Canvas
Canvas Product Disclosure Statement (pdf format)

In a bitter sweet move Rio Tino have dumped the controversial bid by Chinese government owned Chinalco, in favour of merging iron ore divisions with rival BHP Billiton. The deal however will take around 12 months to come into action, and has to be approved by the European Union.

China quite obviously is pissed. They thought they were going to be able to secure iron ore for they refineries and be able to set themselves a low price. Think again China. They have announced they will be spot sourcing, which means they will take small bits from many small suppliers rather then deal with a Rio Tino / BHP Billiton monopoly.

But assuming the deal with Rio Tino and BHP goes through, whether they like it or not, China will eventually have to do business with the monopoly if they want to continue their growth at the rate they currently are. Smaller suppliers tend to stuff things up more, which can mean long delays. Something I don't think China is fully prepared to deal with.