In Australia recently there is a lot of talk once again about "boat people"; and in particular a vessel holding 163 of such people coming from Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan people on the boat are claiming asylum and want to come to Australia, however they're docked in Indonesia. But for some reason there are a LOT of people whom are giving the government a tough time over this issue and whom think we should let them come here.

Most advocates for letting these people come to Australia cite that there is only 163 and thus use the argument that this small number makes it ok to let them in. We have reporters hyping up the issue and making statements like "the government are probably breaking international laws". Did you catch it? The word probably? The existence of that single word invalidates the entire sentence. Seriously, do you think these stations lack the ability to research these things?

Of course not, they have teams of people whose job it is to look up such things, so the use of the word "probably" turns the sentence from a fact, into an opinion; at the same time as demonstrating it has no scrap of truth to it. It's far better for news ratings to prove the government is definitely breaking an international law, than it is to say "probably". They know it's a lie, its there because it makes you feel something.

The international organisation UNHCR states on their website there are as of June 2009 42 million displaced people in the world. Of those people 26 million are simply displaced inside their own country, but 16 million are claiming refugee status. 16 million! That's a damn sight more than 163. I wonder how all the proponents of letting in "boat people" would feel if they woke up tomorrow with boats containing all 16 million of these people were headed toward Australia? I wonder how they'd feel if the flood gates were opened and all the worlds displaced flooded in. Forget the fact it'd be near impossible to find work in such a situation, and start thinking about how water and food resources would hold up.

Yes, I agree that some of these people on the boats come from countries were they can't queue for an asylum visa. But that is reason to fix the way people apply for asylum visa's, not reason to allow in queue jumpers. The government have taken this stance because it's the right stance to take. We do NOT want to show a message to all the displaced people of the world that Australia will let them in. We simply can't support them.

As it is we have far to many Indians coming into Australia, we certainly don't need a bunch more Sri Lankans which are almost the same thing. Sure it's sad that children are displaced and have been through a lot, but heck there are plenty of displaced Children right here in Australia in the form of the homeless. What about these AUSTRALIAN children? Does their pain not matter to you? Worry about them before you worry about people displaced in another country.

We aren't the wealthy country some people seem to think we are, near 50% of Australians are living under what the international community defines as the poverty line. If you look at just the financial data for Australia and nothing else, you'd have to classify Australia as a third world nation.

Our water supplies are already failing. Our electricity supplies are near breaking point and electricity providers are getting ready for government imposed power rationing. Heck, some places in Australia already have power rationing. Our public transport systems already can't support the small percentage of the community who use them. Our road infrastructure already is having trouble supporting the number of drivers on the road. And the price of food is already through the roof. Tell me, under those circumstances, how on earth are we meant to be letting in an ever increasing number of immigrants? Of refugees?

Think about this, if the government not letting in "boat people" was such an international law breaker, then why does every other western country do the same thing? The Americians SHOOT Mexicans who jump the border ON SITE! No trial, no jail, no deportation process, you jump the border, you die. Australia is an island nation, there is no way for people to jump out borders other than by boat! This is about protecting our life style, about protecting the nations interests and more over about protecting Australians.

This is about having order and control. WE should decide who comes in our country and who doesn't. WE should decide the terms. Otherwise what is stopping people coming and going from Australia as they please? What would stop criminals and terrorists from entering our country and leaving after they'd achieved their objectives? We'd be in chaos! So the question is, do you really want that?

links;

Sri Lanka Tourism
UNHCR article
Sri Lanka Tourism Portal

It's a relevant question; what happened to horror films? Once upon a time, good nature slashers with oldly little blood and psychological thrillers filled out screens. It was the age of classics, the age of masterpieces, when horror was how it should be. Sure they weren't always realistic, but that was part of their charm. Part of what made them greats; that separation from reality which reminded you it was just a film.

Cinema was created for escapism, a means for the common person to take an hour or two out of their lives and escape to somewhere else. For horror, this was a change to get a good, fun scare and have a giggle about it after the movie. Sadly, cinema seems to have lost it's way. The ideals which addicted us to film in the first place are lost or waining, and this is none more truthful than with horror.

Today's "horror" films have removed the safety net. They have chosen not only to turn their films more realistic but to ablitterate the classics as well. Gone are the cinematic greats, the super killers. Originals like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ruined. Turned from horror to snuff.

And that is all horror has become; snuff. Filled with torture, gore and rape. The viewer is placed in the thick of it, close up, unable to turn away, unable to disassociate it from reality. Gone is the laughter from viewers when the movie ends, replaced by a sickening feeling and slight guilt, like perhaps you shouldn't have just witnessed that.

True horror, as the past has proven does not require gore. It should have a healthy balance of comedy, suspense and death. But it seems the new generation of horror film makers have failed to learn the principals of a good horror flick. Borrowing a classic title and a character may be a guaranteed way to generate some box office dollars, but turning it into these monstrosities only serves to annoy and frustrate people.

It is almost as if, somewhere in Hollywood 2 bets were placed, one for who could make the most horrific film and another for who could screw up a classic the most. Irreparable damage is being done to people by watching this new breed of horror. Their brains are literally being physically damaged! Will it be that at some point, someone will be able to sue the writers, directors, produces and studios behind these films for the brain damage they've caused? Will these films one day serve as reason enough to get someone off murder?

We need to remind ourselves what the purpose of cinema is, to escape reality. It is not, and should never be, to watch mindlessly as a freak realistically kills people in the most horrific ways imaginable. Horror has become sick, ill and twisted. A perverted version of the glory it once held. For what the slasher film did to revive the ailing horror genre, the staged snuff is reversing. All in the name of a quick buck, but I ask you, if horror dies, where will the next quick buck come from?

When did love become a commodity; exploitable for entertainment and profit? When did it become ok to exploit someone else's feelings in order to win a competition and some cash? And honestly, what sort of message are we sending our children by allowing such shows to be broadcast?

I'm not some hopeless romantic who is going to talk about true love and there being only 1 person for each of us. Truth is that isn't how love works. Indeed we are capable of loving anyone, if only we allow yourselves. But that doesn't make it right to exploit peoples feelings in order to make cheap popular television. In fact it is this point that makes it less condonable to exploit such emotion; for the basis of the show is to stick a bunch of people together in a house for so many weeks were by they fight for the love and affection of the bachelor or the bachelorette.

This very situation, of going in expecting to fall in love, of being in situations which open one up to falling in love, these are all designed to fit around the human psyche in such a way as to induce in every individual whom participates in the competition, strong feelings of love and affection. Sure a competitors pain and anguish ends for you the moment they leave the competition so you only get to witness a very small amount of it; but for the individuals whom participate the pain will surely last long passed the season finale.

We the viewer a cradled away from the heartache these shows produce, because lets face it, if you knew how much pain this show caused people would you really still watch it? And more over, would people enter to be in the next season? Shows like this are dangerous, because they show us, and especially our children, that it is ok to date multiple people at once. That it is ok to hurt people, and that you shouldn't feel bad or sorry for doing so. It removes empathy and sympathy from our social conscious.

So where will it stop? Were will we draw the line in reality TV? At what point will we picket the networks for airing their "reality" rubbish? Just because it has the word real in the title, doesn't make it so. Think about it, when was the last time you got locked up in a multi-million dollar mansion with 25 hot guys or girls all competing to be with you? When did you last get to go on loads of awesome out of this world dates? If these people met under normal circumstances, the likelihood of them feeling anything for each other isn't incredibly high. For an animal that is already completely insane, does humanity need to drift further down the rabbit path by drifting into a bigger fantasy about what love show be like?

As the "free love" spirit of the 60's disguises itself as being an "independent woman" I thought it might be appropriate to talk about DNA Transfer. But first what is DNA? DNA is the common and abbreviated term for Deoxyribonucleic acid. Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chain of protein polymers which through the laws of biochemical attraction, form genetic code. Essentially like most of you already know DNA is the blueprints that make you, you!

So how does this relate to being liberal with your affections? Whenever you ingest, touch or otherwise come in contact with another bio-organic organism, be it a plant or an animal (this includes humans); part of the DNA from that organism breaks off and mutates your own DNA. In this way the saying "you are what you eat" is entirely true as you will have small parts of DNA merge with your own DNA from whatever you eat.

In the same way as eating, so does this DNA transfer take place when you hold hands, kiss, fondle or indeed have sex with someone. It is for this reason that couples whom have been together for a long time can start to look like one another. Indeed, if a couple starts to look like one another it's often a good indication of a healthy relationship with plenty of affection and sexual activity.

The amount of DNA that is transferred between partners is relevant to what sort of interaction takes place. For example, a quick touch of the hand will transfer less DNA then walking down the street holding hands. Kissing will transfer even more DNA, pashing someone even more, and of course sex, good, long sex will transfer large amounts of DNA between partners.

In this way, if you "make out with" or engage in sex with multiple partners your DNA becomes ever more corrupted by the DNA of said multiple partners. Another way of saying it is, if you sleep around, you take a little bit of each of partner with you, and lose a little bit more of what it was to be you.

So next time you go in for the pity pash, or the pity fuck, think about this concept. Indeed before you engage in any sexual activity ask yourself, do I really want a piece of this person inside of me forever? Is this person really worth giving up some of who I am? Think about it.

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.