Before a group of men took control of 4 US domestic bound planes, in September of 2001 we still had Muslims immigrating to western countries like the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia. The number of such immigrants was still on the rise and I assume, the same things that offend them now, offended them then. The difference? No one cared! The idea of banning the burqa wasn't a taboo subject to us, their religion was hardly even considered in our dealings with them, let alone having governments and business through-out western countries notice that anything they did could possible offended them. And finally they were (and may I remind you still are) a MINORITY immigrant group & WERE thus, treated as such.

Flash forward to today however & despite the minority status of Muslims, how things in OUR countries and OUR cultures might offend them seem to be constantly on the minds of government and business; if not the general populous as well. Fast food outlets have changed their cooking methods so as not to upset the Muslim minority, UK toy stores have begun removing toy pigs from farmyard play sets, the burqa suddenly has to be protected by law with any mention otherwise is socially wrong, in Australia; the land of the bikini; it's now against the law to swim at some victorian public pools without being totally covered so the Muslim minority won't be offended by the sight of feminine skin and we continue to change OUR culture to better fit THEIR culture. I'm sure you can think of a few examples yourself. So what in the last decade changed?

In the USA during 2001 4 civilian, domestic, commercial aircraft were hijacked by force and flown into important economic and military buildings. In the UK during 2005 4 suicide bombers targeted British metro and buses during the busy morning peak hour. And in Australia during 2009 an attempt was made by 5 men to take over Holsworthy Military base. After each of these events & with each subsequent THREAT of more attacks the level at which we attempt not to offend this minority group of immigrants increases. Ha, and they say terrorism doesn't pay off; or that our governments won't give in to terrorist demands, yet here we are.

Suicide bombings in the middle east have been going on for decades, yet they only started being reported in the news since our troops have been there. These bombings never used to bother us, and I suggest, if our troops weren't there I doubt they would bother us now. So the question is, how is a war in these countries a war on terrorism? The terrorists we want to stop aren't over there, they're in OUR countries, quietly going about their lives, paying taxes & blending in. The real terrorists aren't in some far off land, they're in OUR own backyard waiting for the right time to strike; and we all know it.

And yet what really are we doing to fight that war? This isn't a war on terror, the terrorists have already won as we sit in our homes to fearful that our cultures and ways might offend Muslim IMMIGRANTS to OUR countries.

That of course is not to say violence against Muslims should be undertaken, because it shouldn't & achieves nothing; so please don't do it. It's also not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or plotting against us. What I am saying though is that OUR culture should no be changed, warped & distorted in order to not offend a minority group of IMMIGRANTS. If someone for sale offends a Muslim, they should do what the rest of us do in such a situation and simply not buy it. And if they don't like our way of life could they please remember, no one asked them to move to our countries, THEY asked us if they could move here; there is nothing keeping them here so they can always just go back to where they came from if they think we're so offensive.

When we take up our pre-9/11 attitudes towards minority immigrant groups once more then we win against terrorism. Sure we might be subject to further attacks, but at least we'd still have our national dignity and integrity which is much more then we can say for ourselves now.

British pop singer M.I.A has sparked world wide criticism in the media over the video clip to her new song Born Free. The 9 minute video clip which depicts U.S authorities going house by house to round up all the red headed men for execution has even been banned on YouTube!

I'll be first to admit the video is over the top graphically violent, and honestly the song itself is none but a bunch of noise (maybe I'm just getting to old) but I don't think it deserves the sort of criticism it's getting if on the other hand we're going to say pop stars like Lady Gaga are allowed to have their extremely sexually explicit video clips and movies like Saw IV are allowed to exist. In fact if anything I'd have to say M.I.A's video clip is rather tame compared to any of the remade films Rob Zombie has done. And more over, M.I.A and ROMAIN GAVRAS were attempting to make a political statement with this video clip. Sure the clip does a clumsy job at making it's statement, but it quite clearly has hit people hard (otherwise it wouldn't have so much media attention) so one must assume it has at least partly fulfilled it's purpose.

Do I agree video clips like this should exist? No, of course not, but I disagree with video clips like those of Lady Gaga and movies like Rob Zombies remake of Halloween even more. None of this crap should exist, it's not art, it's not expressionism, it's not about complementing music or benefiting society. It's pornographic sexuality and violence for shear shock value and commercial gain. All of these types of videos should be banned, not just one video that has a bit of violence in it. I certainly don't think it's appropriate that I walk into a shop like Big-W and my children can see Lady Gaga half naked, dancing around like a whore on the LCD Tvs. We need to really take a long hard look in the mirror at the crap we're allowing Record companies to pump out and expose our children to.

Stephen Conroys great internet filter is clouted as the only of it's kind in the western world, and whilst that very well may be true (I'd like to hear from someone who knows), Australia isn't by any means the only country in the western world talking about censoring the internet. In fact, it seems we're a little late to the table with the U.S.A and Britain already censoring.

As free press reports, the fight for net neutrality is underway in the U.S.A with public figures on both sides of the debate. Interestingly however unlike in Australia where it is the government leading the charge on censorship through an ISP level filter, in the U.S.A it's the ISPs themselves who are leading the charge, with LIVE monitoring and blocking of undesirable content. That's right, for Americans their ISP is able to have a real live person look through your personal messages (including Instant Messaging and email), look at any websites you own &/or run, the people you communicate with, etc and determine whether action should be taken.

According to evidence given at the Federal Communications Commission by Michele Combs, American ISPs have been speed throttling and blocking content of political &/or social nature which the ISP itself doesn't approve of. For Americans there is no spin that it's "for the children" like it is here in Australia. There are no delusions about making a safer internet being propagated, nope it's just flat out social control and censorship by corporations held in broad daylight.

For the British it's worse, as ISPs have willingly teamed up with the Government to invade privacy and provide censorship. Calling no line ISPs will log every website, email, download and upload you make in a named account which is then passed to government. The ISPs are happy, they uses the data to better send you advertising, both through the browser and through email. In fact Britain has one of the highest rates of spam on the planet, and it's all down to this ISP level snooping.

The argument for a lot of people against the Australian filter seems to be that in other developed countries that filter internet, it is a voluntary system on behalf of the ISPs, but the fact is, in countries like the U.S.A and Britain these voluntary actions are being taken up by all the major ISPs in the market, giving the same blanket effect to the community that our Australian filter is meant to achieve through being mandatory. It seems in fact that ISPs and their corporate partners see the benefits to their organisation of such controls and censorship.

Imagine a world where no corporate entity, no government, no military, no public figure ever had to worry about a scandal or cover up story again? A world where if something, be it a download, a news article, a blog, a fan page on a social networking site, a video and any other material, was placed on the internet which exposed wrongful actions of a corporate entity, government, military or other public figure they could simply and explicitly block the content from being seen by anyone.

A world where the richest, most influential political parties are able to block out from national view, what opposing political parties have to say. A world where websites such as wiki-leaks can be blocked from view at an ISP level across the countries for which such websites are trying to expose wrong doings. A world where the giants of business can simply block out their competition, instead of having to beat them in the market place. That is the world we are fast moving toward. The days of freedom of speech and zero censorship on the internet are coming to an end.

So here is my prediction, one of two things will happen, either we will continue into this world of censorship, continuing to rely on and connect increasingly more of our lives to the internet, resulting in an incredibly ill informed, fascistly controlled community, bound into bondage and slavery to corporate brainwashing. OR, we as a people will decide that censorship and invasion of privacy is to high a price to pay for the "convenience" and "improvements in our lives" the internet has provided, and thus there will be a mass disconnect. Both of these options have their pros and their cons, so we as individuals, families and neighbourhoods need to decide which option best suits us.

A reminder for parents to stay vigilant while their children are on the internet came this week from a somewhat unexpected source. It seems a Pennsylvania school is being sued after the deputy principle went ahead and punished a 15 year old student for "inappropriate behaviour" while he was in his BEDROOM. The "inappropriate behaviour" is of course rumored to be in the context of self pleasure.

How did the deputy principle even know about this event taking place you ask? It seems the webcam in the school provided macbook was remotely turned on allowing live, remote viewing. The deputy principle was certainly all to happy to furnish the boy with photographic evidence.

The FBI have now been called in to investigate the potential breech of multiple federal and state laws. The scary thing is it isn't isolated to this one child. There have actually been rumors going around the school between students that the teachers were spying on them through the webcams with a large amount of students claiming the little green activity light on their webcam would turn itself on randomly.

But beyond the obvious privacy issues this sparks off I fail to see where any one at the school thought that had not only the right, but responsibility to discipline a child for actions taking place in their own home. Their authority ends at the school gate as far as I'm concerned. What a child does whilst in the care of their PARENTS is certainly none of the schools business. The school district board now claims to have disabled the feature, but given they had denied it's existence for months, and are trying to cover up this whole indecent I really don't believe much they have to say.

This is certainly a case in proof that you really CAN'T allow your child, even teenager, alone with a computer that is connected to the internet. Of course that doesn't mean you have to sit next to your teenager while they muck around online like you would a younger child, but it does mean computers with internet access should be in high traffic walk ways of the house. In this way you can glance at their screen (and the activity light of the webcam) every time you walk passed. If they're rushing to close something down when you do, then you know you need to investigate further.

The internet can be an utterly powerful tool, which enables better education, flow of truth and friendships. But it does need to be understood properly BEFORE you mess with it, and children (and teenagers) need to be supervised while using it and taught proper, responsible usage skills.

iTWire Article 1
iTWire Article 2

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 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 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

The Rudd government is one step closer to realising their dream of having an CPRS in place before going to Copenhagen next year. The government announced changes to their proposed CPRS today after talks with the Coalition. While some Liberal front benchers still don't back the CPRS, the wider Coalition now seems too which means it is likely to be voted through when it is next introduced to parliament.

The government promises the new changes should mean individual Australian's who volunteer to cut their carbon use will "be rewarded". It furthermore goes on to promise Industry will be compensated. Hold on a moment, what? More tax payer money promised to be forward to privately owned companies? I get they're trying to protect jobs here, but seriously you're either going to do something about climate change (which means massive lay offs in certain industries, or you're not going to do anything which is basically what this CPRS does).

The big thing I can't get my head around is what the labor parties rush to have an CPRS through is. What is so important about having one in place before Copenhagen? Seriously, does Kevin Rudd think the rest of the world leaders will see it and go, oh yeah Ruddy you're awesome?

Passing an CPRS through before Copenhagen is an idiotic move. No other developed country is doing this, so why is Australia rushing? Climate change can not be fixed by one (1) nations actions. Australia having even the most stringent of CPRS policies in place won't really have very much of a lot of an effect on climate change, unless all the other nations follow suite. That is the whole point of the Copenhagen conference, to discuss what we as a planet will do to stop climate change. And here Kevin Rudd goes rushing his CPRS through before Copenhagen. This could be very easily seen as arrogance on Australia's behalf viewed from the world stage.

We need to discuss the issues as a planet and come up with a global decision. Anything less than that is simply wasting time and money. I mean lCPRS think about this, we get the CPRS in place, industry start spending money, tax payer money starts following into these privately owned companies. Then Copenhagen comes and goes and we find the rest of the world is doing something else. Oh great one there Kevin Rudd, now industry will have to pay even more money to change over yet again, even MORE tax payer money will pour into these companies and you'll get even more job losses.

Yeah, this sounds like a seriously terrible idea to me

So often we preach of free society, so much so we are willing to send our young men and women off to protect it. But in a country where democracy has mutated into the beginnings of dictatorship what freedoms do we truly have left?

Our system of government is meant to function in a way where a politician is merely a representative of their electorate, no different then any other member of the public. It is designed this way because it's far easier to have 1 person demonstrate the general will of their electorate then it is to have everyone in the electorate demonstrate it.

To do this a politician is meant to be a part of the community able to understand what the majority of that community wants and how they feel on issues. They are then meant to take that will and represent it in parliament, doing their best to achieve said will. This is democracy, how it is meant to run. Democracy isn't just the choice for who to vote for, it is a set of rules on how they will operate once voted in.

What we get today is NOT democracy. Sure we get to vote, but what happens after we vote? Are our voices heard? Is the general will of the people followed? People talk so much now days about politicians being "out of touch" and brush it to the side as if it is just normal. But the mere fact they are "out of touch" is a demonstration of how little democracy is actually left.

Another is the fact that hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars are spent on advertising to sell us new schemes, laws, taxes or anything else the government want to do. In a democratic society these things shouldn't need to be sold to the public, because they should already be the will of the public. If you have to sell something to us, then it shouldn't be happening in the first place.

We but face facts, we are not a democratic and free society anymore. We are a society where a government tells us what we can and can not do. We are a society where our wills are not heard nor followed. We are a society where our freedoms and privacy are lost, more and more daily. None of this is down to a terrorist in a far off land, it is due to greedy, power hungry people in our own country. And it is a violation of the constitution by which this country is governed. Think about it...

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has his sights dead set on having an emissions trading scheme in place before the Copenhagen conference on climate change later this year. Like a kid who wants to have a toy before the other kids, Mr. Rudd is pressuring the federal opposition to pass the proposed emissions trading scheme. But all non-government senators have blocked the bill, and with good reason.

While there are a few countries in the western world considering an emissions trading scheme, and even a couple ready to implement one they are doomed to fail on both an economy and environment front. Economically, as Australian steel manufacturer OneSteel points out, an emissions trading scheme will cost jobs. The rise in costs will cause companies to do business off sure in countries which do not enact such trading schemes. With the relaxed laws it will be business as usual, smog and all.

This leads us to the simple fact that without global consensus on an emissions trading scheme, then you end up with mighty large holes in your trading scheme. If some countries, regardless of how small fail to enact an emissions trading scheme they stand to gain from increased business flowing into the region.

With a global economy which is already in the toilet, can we really afford to lose our major industry to smaller, less environmentally friendly countries? I mean it's all good and well to think of the environment, but only as long as you can afford to feed yourself. We have painted ourselves into a corner so to speak. On one hand we love our capitalist society which equates the ability to survive to how much money you can manage to earn. On the other hand we have to transition to an environmentally society.

At some point we in the west need to realise that the time for nationalism has passed, as has the time for such extreme capitalist society. We must now find a way to work together as global partners, not just with the large nations, but the small developing ones too. We must now find a way to benefit our selves, our countries and our neighbors, while not harming the environment. It is a harsh lesson we have been set, but one that is much overdue.

Links;

ABC news story on OneSteel

There has been much discussion on whether amalgam fillings are safe or not due to their mercury content. The fear is that the fillings which contains about 45 to 54 percent mercury are poisonous, causing all manner of medical problems; and this fear is causing Americans to flood into dentists to have them removed.

Many people, even some dentists themselves question why amalgam fillings are still used, as such a wide variety of other materials to use, but for many people it comes down to price. Amalgam fillings are cheaper and quicker than other composite dental materials. The American Dental Association (ADA) insist that amalgam fillings are safe, and pose no health risk as elemental mercury is used.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have also offered a report which references anecdotal evidence (from dentists) to state as a matter of scientific fact that amalgam fillings are not harmful. But the question is, with this claim resting on anecdotal evidence alone, where is the science? When tested dentists who work with amalgam fillings are found to have raised levels of mercury in their blood/body, but this is not thought to be at the levels of toxicity.

There is however a difference between handling the stuff for a few moments and having it installed into ones mouth. Proponents of amalgam fillings site that while the fillings do release a small amount of vapor it is not harmful when swallowed. But those on the other side of the argument site how easily element mercury is able to convert into methylmercury under conditions inside the mouth. Methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance, and while there is much anecdotal evidence from dentists that the fillings are safe, there is also a similar amount of anecdotal evidence from patients who have suffered illness since having amalgam fillings.

It seems we have a situation here where a health organisation is putting their bottom line, before the science and before patient health. Amalgam fillings may, or may not be safe as anywhere in medicine we find anecdotal evidence that tell of illness after treatment. The problem with anecdotal evidence is it is often misguided, and unrelated. People go to the doctor and receive medicine and become ill, failing to take into account something they have done earlier, or later in the day.

Anecdotal evidence in science is not to be relied on and it is amazing to me that organisations as highly respected as the American Dental Association and the Federal Drug Administration would rely entirely there on. The bottom line is, where is the science? Where are the tests, the short and long term studies? There is no scientific research here to definitively say, yes these are or are not safe. Until such a time as actual scientific research has been carried out and we can say conclusively that they are or are not safe, I personally would suggest opting for the more expensive composite fillings if you are able.

We need tests done on mercury levels found in dental patients with amalgam fillings, who have had them fitted over the short, medium and long term. We also need to see tests done which monitor what health affects might occur from exposure to small levels of mercury. A study should also be done on the affects of amalgam fillings in pregnant women, on the development of the fetus. Indeed there are many more things which need to be tested, and we should not constrain the testing solely to physical illness; as mercury is known to affect mental health (thus the expression mad hatter). The health and well being of the community should come far beyond the bottom line, yet sadly in a capitalist society it does not.

US Secretary of State is finding out just how much of a mans world this still really is. With constant references back to her husband and him completely stealing the lime light from her last week, with his humanitarian mission to North Korea to secure the release of 2 US journalists; Hilary seems to be feeling the pressure.

When asked by a Kinshasa university student what her husbands views on a deal between China and Democratic Republic of Congo were, Ms Clinton snapped angrily saying

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?,"

"If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion, I am not going to be channeling my husband,"

Which really does show you why Obama was elected as campaign runner for the democrates and not Hilary. Could you imagine the state of things if she had been elected president and not Obama? Politics is a tough road for anyone to ride down, made all the more tougher if you happen to be a woman, and indeed even tougher still if your a woman whose husband used to be the president.

This is a time where Hilary should be taking thing in her grace and showing some big character. But instead what we have is a woman, full of obvious resentment towards her husband and unleashing it on the world stage. If Hilary isn't able to get herself under control, perhaps the US should be looking for a new Secretary of State?

The Coalition and the Greens have joined forces in pressuring the Government to unlink it's renewable energy target legislation from it's Carbon trading scheme legislation. Both the opposition and the greens back the renewable energy target legislation, but are heavily critical of the governments planned Carbon trading scheme.

In response Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has been quoted on this mornings Insiders program on the ABC as saying

"Even with the increase in renewable energy, Australia's emissions will continue to rise, our carbon pollution will continue to rise," she said.

"So you need the CPRS, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if you actually want to turn emissions around, if you wan to turn Australia's carbon pollution around.

"We need both pieces of legislation."

But how accurate are her comments? Well the opposition and the greens both disagree with her, and I have to say I disagree with her to. It makes very little sense that if you dramatically increase renewable energy, that you will continue to have an increase in pollution.

Given that the vast majority of air pollution comes from the mining or utilisation of fossil fuels how does Ms Wong expect that by replacing these sectors with renewable energy, pollution will continue to rise? Yes, the renewable energy targets are at the moment minimal but they are at least a start, and can be built on as infrastructures are established and costs enviably come down.

Even with this argument to the side, Ms Wongs comments demonstrate how the government like to shift blame. Her comments are those of a woman who knows her Carbon Trading Scheme will never be voted through parliament. She knows she has gotten it terribly wrong and so, she has tacked it on to a piece of legislation that can be supported as a start to somewhere.

This is a government of fraudsters, more obsessed with their ego then protecting the nations interests. But this legislation goes far beyond the interests of Australia and affects the entire world. It is clear that Humanity has polluted the planet far beyond levels which can be sustained and it is effecting the environment in a dramatically negative way.

But instead of bowing to pressure the government are holding fast that their now linked legislation will remain so. Instead of getting at least some of the environmental legislation through parliament and then working with the other parties to come to an agreed model for a new Carbon Trading Scheme, they are playing it stubborn. And amidst it all Ms Wong has accused the Greens as playing politics, saying

"Today we see Senator Milne on television basically talking up the Greens prospects of a success if there were to be a double dissolution," she said.

"So if we want to talk about people playing politics, [are] we seriously suggesting it's a good thing for the planet, to vote to ensure that Australia's emissions continue to rise, but then talk up your electoral prospects?"

But Penny, who is truly playing politics here? The Greens whom are standing up for something they believe will harm the environment? Or you, who refuses to unlink it from your Renewable Energy Targets?

Links;

ABC News

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?

American government science administration NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) has released a damning report on climate change. The report finally recongnises that it is undeniable that we are already seeing climate change in action, and that it is down to human actions that these climate events are occurring.

The Obama administration is hoping the report will win over support in congress to pass through a carbon reduction scheme by the end of the year. This comes as other governments around the world, including Australia's continue to bicker over petty targets to be reached by 2020. The leading negative argument is always the economy, and more over the loss of jobs which would result.

But what both sides are failing to realise is that we don't have nearly as much time to deal with these issues as they seem to think. As NOAA has finally acknowledged climate change is already occurring and while it has so far been a gradual trend there is a tipping point where things speed up dramatically. One CSIRO scientist has already said we're past the point of no return, but I don't necessarily agree. We have at most 20 years to have carbon emission levels in the negatives, not 2000 levels, not 2005 levels, negatives.

This means a dramatic change in thinking, doing business and organising society, NOW. It means massive investment into research of technologies which will capture and store carbon, CFC's and other pollutants from the air and atmosphere. Arguing about whether we'll reduce carbon emission levels to 2000 levels by 2020 is not only useless, but counter productive. We do not have an eternity to deal with this problem, and it won't go away on it's own. Humans simply CAN NOT continue to live in the way they currently do, nor continue to rape the planet of it's "resources". You've been warned, don't say you didn't know.

Links;

CSIRO 2007 Climate Change report
CSIRO / Business round table report
NOAA FAQs Page
NOAA early action report
NOAA weather events report