This Saturday Australia will vote for who will lead the nation for the next term of government. What disturbs me greatly is that despite all that Julia Gillard has done, she remains high in the opinion polls and seems to have come out looking squeaky clean; whilst Tony Abbott gets labelled negatively. This isn't to say that I think Tony Abbott is a great man or anything of the sort, and perhaps he does deserve how he has been labelled; what I am saying however is that Julia Gillard has done far worse and will do far worse again.

Lets think about this logically for a moment, Julia Gillard as the Minister for Education was directly responsible for the School halls rip offs, directly responsible for wasted tax payer funds rebuilding the exact same class rooms schools already had without room for expansion. As deputy Prime Minister, with Kevin Rudd out of the country on he's tax payer funded world trip, Julia Gillard was to blame for the stimulus blunder which seen millions of tax dollars paid to dead people or people living in other countries than Australia. Last I knew dead people and people in another country can't directly impact retail sales in Australia which is exactly what the stimulus package was supposed to do. Heck retail sales are still low even after 310 BILLION dollars of debt.

Julia Gillard voted against the increase to the pension. She voted against any form of government run/funded paid maternity leave. Then she claimed she was only saying wait we need to get the numbers first to make sure we can afford it. Sorry Julia but I need an explanation as to why you were apparently being so fiscally responsible with these two initiatives but took no care fiscally in the initiatives in the paragraph above. It all happened around the same time, so it's not like she had learned from her mistakes and grown as a leader. I can not accept her reasoning because frankly she's lying through her teeth.

And lets seriously not forget the historical event where for the first time in the history of Australia a deputy Prime Minister challenged the leadership of the current Prime Minister. Australia voted for and elected Kevin Rudd as our representative, I didn't like it but it's who the majority chose. Julia Gillard had NO RIGHT to remove him from his democratically appointed position! If Labor didn't want Kevin Rudd as their leader at this election, they should have had Kevin Rudd call an election and then trumpet Julia Gillard as the person who would take control if Labor won the election. Instead, there were whispers and secrets behind closed doors. Conversations that the Australian public is not being allowed to hear, and a two faced persona where up until the very day she challenged Kevin Rudd she was claiming full support behind him as the Prime Minister. Julia Gillard is clearly a self serving, manipulative, two faced person with NO INTEREST in the great good for the Australian public.

This election she has come to Australians and instead of announcing the FACT that she intends to pass an ETS if Labor is elected, she has come at us with this non-sense about a public forum to discuss whether we have an ETS in Australia or not. She has on countless times dodged the question by the Media, but has once on the sly answered it. On Q&A when the host pushed and pushed her on the issue she quietly and quickly noted that she never said the "citizens assembly" would actually count towards policy. In other words, it's a waste of time and a waste of tax payer money. Labor intend to bring in an ETS, without any evidence it will have a positive effect, and if their CPRS is anything to go by such a lower carbon reduction amount as to have NO (ie. NONE) benefit to fixing climate change.

She has also gone into this election and literally two days out, has still failed to announce who would be taking up which cabinet positions should Labor retain government. Who would be our foreign minister? Our minister for Defence? We don't know basically anything about who would be in what portfolio if Labor wins on Saturday. How can we honestly vote for Labor when we don't know who will be handling what sections of the community?

She has been talking up the NBN, but can't answer how many houses will be connected during the governments next term should Labor win on Saturday. But beyond that has out right lied about the speed of the NBN and has completely failed to mention the retail costs. In fact the NBN won't be delivering speeds of 1Gb/s as Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy have claimed, it will be capable of a max speed of 1gbps per switch which contains 32 connections. In other words that 1gbps gets split between 32 houses, making the theoretical maximum 312mbps. While that's still super fast, nothing like those speeds will actually be on offer to the public anyway. If you visit any of the ISP websites who are providing retail packages for the NBN (iiNet, iPrimus, Internode, Telstra) you'll note that the top speed on offer is 100mbps download SPEED with a still slow 8mbps upload. That's the very top on offer. Ultimately though, those speeds count for nothing if you go over your data limit, so if you're after a 100mbps connection with a reasonable data limit you're actually looking at around $160/month! Go over your download limit and you're back to DIAL UP speeds anyway making the NBN worthless given it's costing Australians $43 BILLION and rising to build! Heck did you even realise that those speeds count for nothing if you visit a website hosted outside Australia?

Julia Gillard is a member of and supported and backed by Emily's List. I wasn't actually sure what this organisation was until recently when I did some digging. In fact Emily's list is a powerful pro-womens group with some pretty messed up thinking. Emily's List supports FULL TERM abortions; ie. Abortions right up until the moment the mother gives birth! So in a world ruled by Emily's List members if a woman got to 36 weeks pregnant and decided she no longer wanted to have a baby, no problem she could STILL have an abortion! Seriously! You can delude yourself all you like about a baby in the first trimester not being alive, but at 36 weeks gestation there is absolutely no question that baby is alive, fully formed and taking down memories. As a backed and supported member of Emily's List, Julia Gillard agrees with this stance on abortion! Emily's List also supports something that have dubbed affirmative action in the work place; ie. Where men will be actively discriminated against when it comes to promotions until there are an equal number of woman through-out all levels of business as there are men. This would make promotions based on gender rather than genuine talent. Again, as a backed and supported member of Emily's List Julia Gillard supports affirmative action in the work place!

Julia Gillard until very recently was the secretary of the Socialist Forum, an organisation devoted to turning Australia into a socialist country much like North Korea is. As the former secretary Julia Gillard shares this view.

As I've said, in the past Tony Abbott has done some stupid, odd and down right dreadful things, but if you compare everything he has done, to date next to Julia Gillard, he isn't even fit to stand in her sneaky, sleazy, manipulative shadow. I don't intend this post to sway your vote, we live in a free democracy where each and every Australia has the right to make up their own mind and vote for whoever they wish. But what I do want this post to achieve is a better understanding of who and what Julia Gillard actually is. So if you do vote for Julia Gillard in 2 days time, please remember what you are voting for and don't whine and cry bloody murder when she retains government and truly screws Australia.

With worse than poor ratings in the opinion polls for both Labor and Kevin Rudd himself, at 9am this morning an Australian Labor Party (ALP) ballot seen Kevin Rudd removed as leader of the party, and thus from the office of Prime Minister, replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard. While I greatly contest this motion as undemocratic on the grounds the Australian people weren't able to decide if Julia Gillard was fit to lead them; this is not the topic I will be discussing. Instead I want to discuss why nothing will change under her leadership.

The thing about Kevin Rudd's term as Prime Minister is that a great deal of it, perhaps even a majority there of, was spent outside of Australia visiting leaders of other nations, going to overseas meetings and so forth. As during this time he didn't actually achieve anything, nor really intended to do so, lets call it a tax-payer funded holiday. Now for this and countless other reasons I certainly feel that Kevin Rudd wasn't fit to lead this country and of course should have been voted out at the next election, but so should Gillard. The fact is that while Kevin Rudd was out of the country, the Prime Ministers duties fall to the deputy, which until 9am this morning was Julia Gillard.

In fact, it seems that most of the major Labor screw ups which occurred during Kevin Rudd's term as PM, such as the misappropriation of Stimulus package funds, the insulation scheme debacle and so forth, all originated while Kevin Rudd was out of the country. Or in other words, they happened under Julia Gillard's watch. And the stuff ups which have occurred in Public Education funding relate DIRECTLY to Julia Gillard and her department, as the minister for Education. The simple fact of the matter is Julia Gillard is a spineless buffoon, completely unfit to be a minister at all, let alone lead the country. During her term as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, she has been marred by countless screw-ups and debacles, it seems even the simplest of political tasks escapes Julia Gillard's abilities.

So with this change of leadership, and expected continued party infighting, don't expect change for the better. Expect more screw-ups and a complete lack of direction. That is the Julia Gillard that we have seen as Deputy Prime Minister, and the Julia Gillard we will see as Prime Minister. It has come to a point, where Labor are completely not to be trusted with anything. They can't even be trusted to leave the guy Australia voted for in office until the next election. We can't trust them on reform, we can't trust them on education or health, we can't trust them on the environment, we can't trust them on whaling, we can't trust them with the economy & Australian Jobs, we can't trust them with ANYTHING. When it comes to election time in March next year, if Australia is going to have a safe, democratic, prosperous future we MUST vote Labor out of office.

Links;

News Article

It's always been my plan to establish a new federal political party comprising people from all walks of life (as opposed to the current major parties comprising the wealthy business elite) to truly represent Australians. It's always been the plan to bring back democracy and rid Australia of this elitist leadership whose interests lie with themselves. What wasn't planned was a decision I've made in the last week or so to attempt to run as an independent for the house of reps in this years election. I figure it will create awareness and give me some experience of the voting system from the candidate side.

Of course while I'd love to win and become the federal member for Oxley, and I would hope I would get a reasonable amount of support I don't expect that I will actually win. The primary function of running in this election is to gain experience so that the next election will run smoothly. But as I said, at this stage I'm only attempting to run, as I have a few discussions with the Australian Electoral Commission to have yet, so we'll see how it all turns out and I'll keep you updated. If I do get on the ballet and you live in the federal seat of Oxley, give democracy a kick in the pants and vote for me

Links;

Australian National Democratic Party (facebook fan page)

Dear Senator Evans,

Can you please explain to me why it is that you are unable to grasp the issues around immigration, whilst the opposition shadow minister Scott Morrison has a great understanding of the issues? Can you please explain why the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that 300,000 immigrants lived in Australia for a period of 12 months or more during 2009, and how you, the relevant minister plan to reduce that number to a more manageable level?

Senator Evans, that figure might include international students here on temporary visas for a minimum of 12 months; but it is my understanding that those students still drink and use water while they are here, they still produce garbage, they still use our roads and public transport during there time in Australia and they still consume electricity. I do invite you to correct me if that understanding is in fact incorrect and they somehow manage to not do any of that during their time here, but I strongly doubt there is such a way.

In addition, it is my understanding Chris that these students also require housing from the general rentals market, and of course as they are students require a place at an approved learning institution, such as an accredited university. Again I invite you to make the same corrections of my grasp on the situation if I do indeed have it wrong. On the assumption however that the above statements are correct however (and I really don't see how they couldn't be) can you please explain why it is that you, as the relevant minister have set the immigration number so high?

As someone who lives in Queensland, were suspiciously the majority of immigrants seem to end up, I have seen a break down of basic and essential services in part as a direct result of immigration numbers being set above manageable levels. When a state starts running out of water, and begins water rationing, how does it make sense to dump tens of thousands more unskilled immigrants into that state? There is also a distinct housing shortage as a direct result of having to house all of these new immigrants, and Queensland is preparing for electricity rationing on top of water rationing.

Last I checked Senator Evans, the idea was to let in immigrants on the basis they would in some way improve our quality of life, whilst at the same time not taking away from it. I fail to see Chris how an immigration policy which both increases the number of immigrants allowed into the country whilst simultaneously directs focus AWAY from skilled immigration is in anyway beneficial to Australia. Sure we get an industry specific economic boom as a result of the international students, but at what price? Do you really feel the reduction in quality of life to your follow Australians is worth that industry specific economic boom?

As the Honorable Scott Morrison has pointed out, the idea of immigration is meant to be to supplement the natural increase in population, not override it. I would like to know what your thoughts are on these issues Senator Evans and what you plan to do about them.

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.

This week there has been a bit of hoo-har in New South Wales state politics; with one politician turning anothers words into a declaration that women are responsible when they are raped. But the seat of the real argument is the over sexualisation of our youth and culture. A culture where young boys and girls are being taught to look at girls as objects only suitable for sexual pleasure.

While a certain state liberal MP seems incapable of understanding what youth of today are doing, the facts of reality are Rainbow parties (where all the girls take turns giving the boys headjobs leaving different coloured lipstick; like a rainbow) happen almost every weekend. Teen pregnancy is through the roof and still escalating, heck children as young at 10 YEARS OLD are having sex. Seriously! TEN! You can buy G-Strings (thong) for girls as young as TWO (2) YEARS OLD, and mini skirts from only a few months old.

Our children are not only becoming increasingly exposed to sex in the media, but they're becoming increasingly exposed to sexualised children in the media. Lets take Lady Gaga for example, the woman who started the media coverage of this political debate. Here you have a woman who is clearly high on drugs for most of her performances, whose lyrics would make a sailor blush and whose "dance moves" equate to little more than a stimulated lap dance. And yet we let 12 year old girls go to her show? I've seen girls as young as 6 listening to Lady Gaga.

But beyond that we have a systemic problem where sex is conveyed as love. While schools may teach the mechanics of sex to children, they are ill equipped to teach the emotions of it. Where as music and their video clips portray it as love, as the begin all and end all. Sure in a loving relationship sex is important to the longevity of said relationship as a bonding tool. But sex with some guy you've known a week and break up with 2 days later... not so much. And someone you just met, yeah sex isn't an expression of anything in that case, other then of course the fact you're easy.

But perhaps this is part of the point, women are becoming WAY to easy. Their sense of self respect and dignity out the window when their idols and role models are people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lady Gaga. At what point did being a slut become cool? I know when I was a kid being a slut was a recipe to social suicide, now it's the complete opposite! And you only need go stand in front of a club on a Saturday night to see the over the top revealing clothes women are wearing now days.

So to answer the question, no women aren't responsible when they are raped, they're not asking for it. BUT that said, women who dress in a provocative way then go on to flirt and present as somewhat of a slut certainly aren't helping matters. In cases where women have dressed and acted in this manner and been raped; their presentation and actions did play a role. That of course isn't to say it is an excuse for the rapist or in any way taking any of the responsibility off the rapist. We all own our own actions, and at the end of the day, no means no. But you can't shake the fact that acting and dressing like a slut did play a role, however small, in the outcome. Even more so when alcohol is introduced into the equation.

Of course none of this is to suggest that I think we should strip sex from film and all women should dress in burkers. That would just be an over reaction; what I am saying though is young people need good role models. They need to be taught the emotions of sex AT HOME. We need to ban over sexualised video clips from TV screens at times our youth may be watching. We need to make it harder for our youth to get hold of these sorts of songs. And women of all ages need to re-equate themselves with self-respect and dignity.

I think honestly, a systemic lack of self-respect, dignity and self-esteem amongst our women is one of the leading causes towards male attitudes objectifying women. We need to teach our women and young girls that acting like a cheap hooker is not cool. Of course you can have sex (once you've reached maturity) with someone you're dating and want to continue dating. Of course I'm not saying you should only have sex after marriage. But honestly if you give it away on the first night, why should I bother seeing you again? Sex is not love and neither is spreading STDs.

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.

I read an article today in iTWire which suggested that Google were hypocrites by opposing the Australian governments planned mandatory internet filter. The article claims that because Google filter their YouTube videos (or more over what they actually do is selectively take down videos which violate their Terms Of Service) that they are no different from the proposed nation wide mandatory internet filter. What an absolute joke of so called reporting that was. They couldn't have gotten that piece anymore wrong and have just made their entire publication look ridiculous as a result.

Google are a single company, a company from which you have a choice to use or not to use. If you don't like the terms of service on YouTube there are literally thousands of other video hosting sites on the internet, all with their own spin on acceptable terms of service. So if in fact you want to post something that YouTube doesn't allow there is always a place somewhere else on the internet that does. And heck if you really can't find someone to host your video, you can always host it yourself. So my first point of order is CHOICE! You as the consumer have a CHOICE as to which websites you frequent with your views. If the Terms of Service for a particular website weren't acceptable then they wouldn't become very popular, but the CHOICE for those who DO want to engage that site remains.

The ISP based GOVERNMENT internet filter in Australia however is MANDATORY. ALL ISPs will have to engage it into their system and ALL Australians will have to suffer through it. Meaning that you have NO CHOICE. The government gets behind the wheel of the drivers seat telling you what is and isn't acceptable and whether we like it or not we are forced to accept their decisions. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, not just because of the censorship it hales but also because it dangerously gets people hooked on not having to make a decision anymore or take responsibility for the consequences. Under such a scheme it would no longer be the parents fault if little billy looked at a porn site because his parents failed to supervise him adequately whilst he used the internet, instead it would now be the governments fault for not blocking the site out in the first place. Dangerous territory folks.

The second thing that differentiates google from the internet filter is that YouTube is NOT googles only asset. They have literally hundreds of them now. Their biggest asset being their Search Engine which the iTWire article strangely lacks mentioning. Google Search and it's variant Google Image Search both have the option to turn off "safe search" filtering allowing FULL access to the internet. Type in any keyword from the internet filters "Restricted Content" list into Google Search and you'll get back thousands if not millions of results. Google don't make judgments about your character or effect how you use the internet. They don't squash your voice.

The mandatory internet filter on the other hand does squash your voice. The Australian Media & Communications Authority (AMCA) which is currently in charge of rating TV and radio content would be in charge of rating and blocking out INTERNET content as well in much the same way the rate TV. The government have failed to realise that the internet is a vastly different medium to TV and can not and should not be subject to the SAME rating policy. If Senator Conroy has his way the internet will be G rated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Websites engaging in legal adult services like legal pornography will be blocked if they don't verify your age first by asking for your credit card details. Gone will be the free porn sites from Australian views. In addition, any pornographic content, even those who do verify age which can be classified as X-rated (that is shows full frontal sex scenes instead of hiding away the action) will be blocked.

This same strategy applies to legal gambling websites, and any other content you wouldn't want a 9 year old child seeing. If someone in a forum somewhere discusses how valid for example the terrorist nature of the 9/11 attack that forum page can and probably will be blocked under the filter. In direct contrast Google would still serve that page up indiscriminately. Anything the government deems to be racist, prejudice or discriminate in nature ban and will be blocked under the filter. So for example if you don't like the immigration policy Australia is currently engaging and the flood of Indians it has brought into our country and you write about it in your blog, it can and WILL be blocked by the filter because someone could wrongly view that as racism.

And while I don't in anyway agree with or endorse their politics or views, even sites which hate certain groups in society have their place on the internet. I don't agree with what they have to say, so I would never visit such a website, nor would the majority of our community. In fact the only people who WOULD visit such a website would be those who ALREADY feel that way. But just because I don't agree with their point of view doesn't mean they don't have a right to it. Who is Senator Conroy to say what people CAN and CAN'T talk about?

This is a filter which contrary to what the iTWire article claims will NOT be transparent. The blacklist used in the filter will NOT be publicly available. Think about it, why would you not make the list publicly available if you are innocently blocking out ONLY content which the community could understand why you blocked it. Not only is there the clear historical danger of this turning into a filter which blocks out everyone who speaks against the government, it's political, social or economic views or anything else they don't like; but it also has the fowl whiff of such an event in the making. China ringing any bells to anyone?

And while I will admit I do NOT agree with everything Google do (some of their privacy policy models for example spring to mind) in general they genuinely seem committed to a better working, more accessible and easier to use internet which sponsors freedom of speech and expression for all. It is because of this reason, and the millions of dollars Google has to put into lobbying the government for changes to the filtering legislation that I am glad to have Google onside. So thank-you Google for joining the fight to keep the internet free for everyone.

Links;

iTWire Article

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

In 2009 the Australia Federal Police raided 20 residences across Sydney and Melbourne after a massive operation looking for terrorists. 5 immigrant men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. This is the FIRST recorded time in Australia's history that ANYONE has attempted to commit an act of terrorism on Australian soil. A HUGE stock pile of tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition was found at the homes of the men as well as stock piles of chemical agents used in the production of explosives.

The 5 men subsequently CONFESSED to their terrorist plot, explaining to Australia Federal Police offices (ON RECORD) that they had planned to attack the Hollingsworth Army Barracks in Sydney, take the complex over and hold Australia at random with it. That's right, they wanted to take over an entire Army base, and with the amount of ammunition and explosives they had stock piled, it was certainly something that they were likely to have achieved should they have been able to execute their plan.

Fast forward now to earlier this week when the 5 men were sentenced to jail. Individually the men received sentences ranging from as little as 17 years to a measly 21 years MAXIMUM jail time! That is to say, that is the MAXIMUM amount of time they can be held for these crimes, but can be paroled much earlier. With such like sentences it isn't any wonder the men were laughing and smiling in court while their sentence was handed down. The men have maintained the whole time that they HATE Australia, resiting exactly that publicly as late as just before they were sentenced.

To me this is absolutely INSANE! How can people convicted of conspiring to murder Australian soldiers on Australian soil, to hijacking an ENTIRE military base and holding it for ransom be give such absolute light sentences. These are the sorts of people you either want to execute under the treason act (They're immigrants who have undergone citizenship of all things) or jailed for their ENTIRE life without chance of parole.

Was the judge off his rocker with this one or what? Does the judge honestly think they're going to come out of jail and not want to commit another act of terrorism? I'm sorry but these are the sort of people who hold conviction to this sort of plan. Sticking them into an Australian jail is only going to make them more angry with Australia and more committed to killing Australians. This is wrong on so very many levels and puts our nation at risk in the future.

I don't even get the logic of the terrorists here; I mean they're a group of men who have immigrated to Australia with their families from a poorer country. They have been given multiple opportunities they would not have been granted any other way. We have welcomed them as citizens and they have undergone at their own free will that process. And yet they hate Australia? I'm sorry but why is that exactly? And more over, if you hate us so freak'in much the answer is simple, don't come here And if you get here and then realise you don't like Australia...LEAVE! Is it really that hard a concept to get? I think it's an easier concept to grasp then learning how to make complex explosive devices and do surveillance on a military base.

The government needs to step in here and declare this a matter of national security. The men need to be remanded in custody for the remainder of their natural lives. Unless this happens (and honestly I can't see it happening) expect a terrorist attack on Australia in around 21 - 22 years time.

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?

Once again the media has attempted to state a debate about changing the Australian flag. There was once a time, when I was a teenager that I supported the idea of changing the flag. The argument that we aren't apart of England any more, so we shouldn't have the union jack on our flag, somehow used to make sense to my teenage brain. Thankfully however, age has set me straight, I no longer feel it's a good idea at all. Indeed now days I can't think of a worse idea and there is a great deal of logic to me thinking this way.

Most often the argument for keeping the flag realise entirely on our history, but while that argument is a very good one; I mean most of our grandfathers fought for the rights and freedoms that flag represented; it isn't the only argument for it not to change. I think the best reason for us not to remove the union jack is simply that contrary to what proponents of changing the flag might say, we are actually still technically part of England and the commonwealth. Now if we want to have a serious conversation about becoming a republic that is something completely different, and does not require us to change the flag at any rate. But certainly while we are still officially and technically a part of England and the Commonwealth then the union jack should remain in place without question.

Another quite major point is that Australia is only recently starting to make a name for itself and gain some respect on the international stage. Where previously we were thought of as some tiny backward country in the middle of the pacific, suddenly world powers are starting to sit up and take notice of us. We suddenly have the weight to have our say actually count for something and be included in some pretty important global discussions which we previously would have been excluded from. By changing our flag we seriously risk losing the respect of the international community.

Flags are the symbol of a nation, by changing it you risk sending a message of instability and/or the loss of national identity. If the international community were to think of us in such a way, we would lose serious political respectability and clout. It is extremely important for our nation and our region that Australia continue to have a voice on the international stage. If we lost it, then it would spell doom for our nation in a number of ways.

We would no longer have a say in the direction our country moves, instead going back to the days were we simply followed. Australia is a country of innovation and leaders, I don't think any one wants to go back to being sheep. But more than that our economy would crumble. If was became somewhat of a joke to the international community then we risk losing private, corporate investment in this country. Both from foreign companies already here and from those whom might otherwise have come in the future. Say what you will about foreign investors; but when it comes to the crunch they provide hundreds of thousands, if not millions of AUSTRALIAN jobs. Chances are that if you work for a large company then foreign investment has played a part somewhere in there. Changing the flag could threaten your job!

Another point of order is simply that there are no viable replacement designs. I find the suggestion we place the aboriginal "flag" where the union jack currently is offensive. Aboriginals had no concept of flags prior to European settlement, after which time they became incorporated under the Australian flag. The idea that aboriginals have their own flag is ludicrous and goes well to show their unwillingness to become a true part of this nation. There is no alternative to the current flag design that is viable! Without a viable alternative why is anyone even bringing up this debate in the first place? Seriously...

But mostly, the flag as we know it inspires pride by all Australians. It's a flag that celebrates our history; good and bad. It's a flag that our fathers and grandfathers have fought for; and some of them died for. It's a flag that helps define our national identity both locally and in the international community. You only need look around tomorrow (Australia day) to see the absolute pride that it helps to develop. Our flag is perfect the way it is and should NOT change. What should change however is this debate periodically being brought about by the media. I understand that they want news that will make you watch their show or read their paper, but honestly if this is the best they can come up with then it's no wonder their entire industry is in danger to bloggers, podcasters, vodcasters and amateur news distribution.

So I was thinking about this Mandatory Internet Filter that Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy are bringing in to Australia and something dawned on me that hadn't before. See previously I was pissed off that this filter will stop Australians' seeing anything and everything that the ACMA decide someone under the age of 16 shouldn't see. Not just legal stuff, but just stuff in general that someone under the age of 16 apparently shouldn't see.

But it dawned on me that a filter of any kind has to take our information about where we're going online and what we're doing online and sort through it. Of cause due to the nature of the internet your ISP already has this information but under the privacy act can't do anything will it. But as this filter apparently exists to keep us safe from harm and includes sites which are illegal in nature; one would expect there to be logging going on.

Logging is the capture and storage of information pertaining to computerized activity, in this case being your online activity. It's something ISPs aren't allowed to do, but something the government do intend to do. It's bad enough we have companies like Google and Facebook giving us the online big brother treatment without our government giving us the same.

I for one think Australia is better than that. That we aren't a paranoid country, and up until now haven't had paranoid governments. The ability for a government to collate data about each households internet usage without criminal cause for line tapping, without the consent of those who occupy the household and on a mandatory basis is unconstitutional. Sure our constitution doesn't protect freedom of speech, but what the Australian constitution does protect is the individuals right to go about their business in a lawful manner without interference from a government agency.

Seriously, who voted for Kevin Rudd? Because everyone who did is a freak'in idiot. I tried to tell you all not to do it, I warned you he'd screw up Australia. He's more interested in playing fairy tale princess meeting "important people" and flying around the world than in anything that benefits Australians. This government artificially took Australia into a time of economic downturn through scare tactics and misinformation. It lost a lot of Australians their jobs and set us back quite dramatically. They then blew out the budget and put us into such heavy debt that our childrens children will still be paying it off.

But not only are they a clueless government, incapable of making a truly healthful decision, not only are they wasting billions of tax payer dollars, dollars you and I worked hard for, but they have also shown themselves to be a fascist, big brother government intent on controlling the populous at whole. This isn't what our fathers and great grandfathers fought and in some cases died for. They'd roll over in their graves to see the country like this. So thank-you to everyone who freely chose to vote for Kevin Rudd, because in that free choice you have doomed all Australians to have none.

The following letter is from a network engineer named Mark Newton whom has brought up multiple concerns about the internet filter with the AMCA. But instead of addressing these concerns, in true fascist nature Senator Conroy and his office have attempted to bully Mr Newton into a campaign of silence on the issue. I am reposting this letter as I feel it captures a great deal of the concerns at the heart of this issue. I have pulled this letter from homepagedaily.com

Senator Stephen Conroy

------

Mark Newton's letter:

20 October 2008
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Youth and Sport
161a Main North Road
Nailsworth SA 5083

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am writing to you to express my concerns about moves by Senator Stephen Conroy to implement the "clean feed" proposal described on page 5 of Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety by Senator Conroy prior to the 2007 election.

My objections to this policy are detailed below. In your reply to this letter, I would appreciate a direct, detailed response to each of these issues. I am making the assumption that collating such responses will be a simple matter, because a proposal as important as this one obviously wouldn't have proceeded as far as it has if these basic concerns had not been considered and alleviated. If that assumption is unfounded, then that fact should justify revisiting (or, alternatively, abandoning) the "clean feed" proposal.

While I approve of the general thrust of the Cyber Safety proposal, I have serious objections to the "clean feed" section, which will erect an online Government censorship regime in Australia for the first time.

I also have significant objections about the professional conduct of Senator Conroy as he has pursued this issue. The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers; refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their "speculative" remarks; lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an "opt-out" in December 2007; and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian stakeholders who will be most affected by this plan, in contravention of the Prime Minster's oft-repeated aim to implement a "Government for all Australians" [1, 2, 3]. Rather than addressing the serious policy objections which I outline below, Senator Conroy has preferred to respond with aggressive, offensive, extremist bluster.

The Government has not demonstrated a need for an online censorship regime.

While I accept that the presence of illegal material on the Internet is a cause for some concern, I'm appraised of two important points which the Government appears to have missed.

Firstly: Australians have been using uncensored Internet access for at least 30 years, and there's no evidence of a burgeoning problem concerning access to illegal material. I have been using the Internet almost every day since 1989 and have never seen any content that I'd expect to require Government intervention. Without demonstrating a need for this system, how can the Government credibly claim that it should be mandated?

Secondly: There is little evidence that Australian parents require Government assistance. Indeed, those who claim that parents require such assistance have a remarkable track record of being wrong.

In 1989 / 1990, the Senate Select Committee into Online Services carried out an enquiry into the nature of content available online, and made a rash of recommendations in favour of some kind of censorship scheme based on the expectation that unfettered access would harm the fabric of Australian society.

The passing of time has shown that 1990 Senate's concerns were completely wrong: Almost 20 years have passed since that enquiry, and Australians have enjoyed uncensored Internet access for the entire period. Society has not fallen apart, there is no emergency, children are not being raised in moral vacuums and turning into rapists and axe-murderers, parents are diligently and capably excelling in their efforts to raise their children into fine, upstanding citizens. Today's parents are comfortable with ubiquitous access to unfiltered Internet, having grown up using Google to assist with homework assignments, publishing blogs and websites, using email to stay in touch with friends and family, and treating the Internet in its current unfiltered form as a valuable resource for the education and social engagement of their children.

This fact is reinforced by the public's unresponsiveness to the previous Government's offer of free filtering software for family PCs. When only 140,000 users downloaded the free software over 12 months, and less than 29,000 of them were still using it three weeks later, Senator Conroy concluded that the $84M filtering software distribution plan failed because it wasn't mandatory, rather than the more rational conclusion that the failure of the initiative could be traced to lack of public desire.

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large. Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

It is thoroughly insulting to Australian parents to undermine their efforts by asserting that the way to prevent societal decay is for the Government to step in and make decisions about the appropriateness of online content. That is a parent's role, not Senator Stephen Conroy's role.

The government has not demonstrated that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasibly.

Senator Richard Alston, in his tenure as Minister for Communications and the Arts, passed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999. As accompaniment to that legislation, the Minister directed the ACMA (then ABA) to establish NetAlert, and for NetAlert to carry out periodic assessments of the "state of the art" of filtering technology.

Since that time, NetAlert and the Department have commissioned separate studies by the CSIRO, Ovum, and most recently RMIT and Enex Testlab. All of the studies have uniformly demonstrated that online censorship technology:

* slows down Internet access;
* inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked;
* inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked;
* is ineffective at inspecting or blocking "Peer to Peer" traffic that comprises over 60% of Australia's Internet traffic; and
* fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions.

The most recent trials, conducted in Tasmania by Enex Testlab earlier this year, found that the most accurate product tested incorrectly blocked 3% of innocent material, and incurred a "slowdown" performance penalty in excess of 70%, and failed to reliably block the ACMA's prohibited content list. It stuns disbelief that the Minister for Broadband would be interested in pursuing these systems whilst at the very same time advocating for a $20B National Broadband Network (NBN) intended to increase Internet speeds.

There is no evidence on the public record to demonstrate that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasible. Every time experts have been asked, they have uniformly concluded that it is not possible. Furthermore, advances in technology cause Internet speeds to increase faster then censorship systems' speeds, meaning that as time passes the performance penalty caused by these systems becomes worse.

It is very poor public policy to proceed with mandatory implementation of provably failed technology.

The government has not demonstrated that online censorship is effective.

Any Australian can obtain encrypted Virtual Private Network (VPN) access from the United States for less than $5 per month [1, 2]. This is the same technology that human rights activists use in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to hide their activities from the Government, and provides an effective, guaranteed bypass of any effort by any National Government to filter Internet content.

There is no requirement for complicated software to use these services, VPN clients are installed by default on all common Operating System platforms. Australians who wish to hide themselves from Government Internet censorship efforts are only a few clicks away from total anonymity.

The government has failed to consider unintended consequences arising from the policy.

In order to implement a censorship scheme, the ACMA will need to make its blacklists available to ISPs.

There are approximately 400 ISPs in Australia. Even if each ISP only has a handful of staff in a position to access routers and scrutinise network configurations, that still leaves several thousand ISP technical staff with full knowledge of the contents of the blacklist.

A moment of consideration of that state of affairs yields the unavoidable conclusion that the blacklist will be "leaked". Many sites on the Internet specialise in providing repositories of "sensitive" Government data for the purpose of providing public access to documents against Governments' wishes, and a Government blacklist is exactly the kind of content those sites exist to publish.

When the Government makes a mistake, it will be public [1, 2, 3]. It is simply not believable that putting the same people who called for the destruction of the Bill Henson photographic exhibit in charge of a blacklist of pornographic imagery can end well. It also strains credibility to assert that there is value in putting the people who decided that Mohammad Haneef should be pursued on terrorism charges, or that David Hicks should rot in Guantanamo, in charge of a list of illegal terrorist material. Governments of both sides have a long and distinguished track record of embarrassing failure in these areas, and the public is wise to be sceptical of moves to place further faith in the demonstrably flawed judgement of our public officials and political representatives.

Leaks have other hazards: It will only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere in the world, testifies in open court that they knew where to find child pornography due to the assistance and enablement of a leaked copy of Senator Conroy's Internet blacklist. The Government will no doubt launch a flurry of PR spin to demonise the leaker and portray itself as an innocent victim of circumstance when it happens, but one fact which will not be in dispute when it happens is that the Government was warned and carried on regardless. How much child exploitation is the Government willing to accept as "collateral damage" associated with this policy? More than zero? How much more?

Encouraging people who wish to bypass censorship to use encrypted VPNs carries a further unintended consequence, namely that the Australian Federal Police are unable to effectively execute Interception Warrants on encrypted traffic. Implementing censorship will drive criminals towards encryption by blocking non-encrypted methods of accessing the content they desire. I invite you to ponder the likely political effect of the revelation that Australian law enforcement was unable to gather evidence to convict a child abuser or a terrorist because the ALP's censorship system had inspired the offender to encrypt their Internet traffic.

Senator Conroy has invalidated the government's claim for a mandate by lying to the Australian public about the scope of the policy.

In December 2007, Senator Conroy was widely reported in the press as stating that "...anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service."

In October 2008, Darren Pauli from IDG/Computerworld obtained confirmation from the Minister's media spokesman that no opt-out will be available, "... the filters will be mandatory for all Australians."

As far as politicians' lies go, this one is breathtaking in its audacity. The Minister took the false impression that Australians will be able to (in his own words) "opt out of the service" to the last election, and allowed it to persist for almost an entire year even as the policy progressed to "live trials" with no opt-out provision. Then when the truth was exposed he launched personal attacks to denigrate critics as "extremist" "speculators".

Summary and Conclusion

Nearly a year has passed since Senator Conroy announced his plan, and none of the concerns described above have been addressed. The 21 million people comprising this policy's largest stakeholder group have not been consulted. We have not even been provided with the details we'd need to assess whether Senator Conroy's efforts to implement the policy are consistent with the Australian values, societal fabric, and child-rearing aims that the policy is purportedly designed to protect.

It disturbs me that Senator Conroy's response to these criticisms has been to label those who disagree with him as "speculators" and "extremists" and to compare them to child abusers. My criticisms are not "extreme", and I am not a child abuser. I am a voter, and I expect Senator Conroy to show some respect by answering my concerns without resorting to hysterical personal attacks. Senator Conroy's job is to convince the Australian public that his idea is worthy, but his habit of resorting to bluster, offensiveness and secrecy has severely undermined that role. Without Senator Conroy's detailed responses to these issues, the responsibility for any undesired "uninformed speculation" lies directly upon his shoulders.

I call upon you to:

1. respond to the policy concerns that I have outlined above; and
2. represent my interests in the Party Room to persuade Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd to change track by abandoning the "clean feed" proposal.

The general aims of the ALP's cyber-safety initiative are worth defending. In particular, budget allocations for education programs and investigative law enforcement are commendable. But the "clean feed" proposal is impossible to defend on technical, moral, financial and public policy grounds, and should be reviewed for suitability for inclusion in the Government's policy agenda before being allowed to proceed any further.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Newton

-----

On the 15th of December it was announced that a Mandatory Internet Filtering system would indeed be installed in ISPs around Australia and should be switched on within 12 months time. Supporters of the filtering cite that it will stop child pornography so it's a good thing. How wrong can you be?

"Fact, online child pornography is most often distributed by private email attachments to avoid detection. The internet filter will ONLY block out websites"

Child pornography which is distributed online, is most often by private email between pedophiles as apposed to putting it on a website which would open the creator of the website, and it's members up to all sorts of criminal prosecutions. Simply put, if the main distribution network for child pornography was websites, then there would be a lot more pedophiles in jail. If your sole reason for supporting the filter is stopping child porn, then you need to rethink your position.

So what are the facts about the list? Well, the filter has it's roots all the way back in 1999 when the then liberal government introduced laws which gave the Australian Communications and Media Authority; authority over internet content displayed in Australia. Under that law Content hosted in Australia and classified Classification restricted, or 18+ without an age verification system would be issued a take down notice. Such content hosted internationally would be added to a black list for use in voluntarily installed software on home PCs.

In August 2007 the Australian government through it's NetAlert department offered free, voluntary downloads of internet filtering software to be installed on home PCs. Late 2008 the scheme was shut down, with ACMA Senator Stephen Conroy citing it had not been successful with very few Australian's downloading the software. Clearly that should have woken him up to how Australians feel about filtering the internet, but instead it only inspired him into ISP level filtering instead.

"This very much seems to be a situation where Stephen Conroy feels he knows what's better for Australian's then they do for themselves. If you look up fascism in the dictionary, it will define it very much in that way."

During the elections which seen Labor form the federal government, they claimed the ISP level filtering would be an opt-out scheme. Of course an opt-in scheme would have been more desirable but at least in an opt-out scheme you of course have a way to not be filtered online and gain unrestricted access to information on the internet. But since forming government the policy has changed to one of mandatory filtering at the ISP level. This means every household, school, business, organisation or other entity connected to the internet will be under the power of the internet filter without any way to remove it. If you have an internet connection, the internet filter affects you.

So what is the big deal right? I mean surely they're only going to block out websites that are illegal... right? Wrong! All Restricted Classification content, X18+ content and R18+ content will be blocked. Speficially the AMCA criteria states;

• * Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
• * Content which is classified R 18+* and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes.

In other words, ALL pornography will be subject to the filter not just child pornography. As well anything which is of an adult nature, that being something you wouldn't want someone under the age of 16 to see. All added to the filter and blocked from view for EVERY Australian, regardless of their age. But this isn't subject just to porn, there is so much more on the list than porn but before I get into that, consider this.

On the 18th of March 2009, wikileaks leaked a copy of the black list onto the internet. A user of the popular internet consumer forum whirlpool posted a link to the black list on the site. The AMCA then issued a notice to Whirlpools hosting company Bulletproof Media that fines of 11,000AUD would apply per day, for every day the link remained on the site. The AMCA furthermore when to extraordinary lengths to forcibly have the black list removed from the wikileaks website. So, consider this, the black list comprises simply the URLs (or domains names) of websites which can not be viewed through the filter. If the filter is such a great thing, then why is it that they are so guarded against the general public viewing the list?

The answer? Because of what the list actually blocks out. From the leaked list it was found that a Brisbane dentist's website was blocked, as was a tuckshop vendors website and the website of a dog kennel. These websites clearly have nothing to do with anything even remotely illegal or 18+ in nature, but yet somehow they're on the list?

But it goes further. In may of 2009 the Australian press, citing wikileaks as it's source broke the news that Dr Philip Nitschke's online Peaceful Pill Handbook, which is a website dealing with euthanasia has been added to the list, as have a range of other websites dealing with the same topic. Apparently the right to a peaceful death for the terminally ill remains out of the scope of reasoning for the federal government even though it isn't illegal in several Australian states.

But still, EVEN MORE FILTERING! In June 2009 the AMCA and the Australian government confirmed that the internet filter will block downloadable games, flash-based web games and websites which sell physical copies of games (like ebay and amazon) that do not meet the MA15+ standard. If the AMCA don't think someone under 16 should see it, then neither should anyone over 18 apparently.

"This isn't about stopping cyber crime; it's about controlling information the public see"

Already many anti-censorship websites campaigning for the filter to not go through have been forcibly taken down by the government. Other sites containing content which is anti-government, or does not support the government has been either forcibly taken down, or added to the black list.

In short the filter classification system stops anyone from not only committing an illegal act online, but from discussing anything that is illegal online, be they for or against the action. It further stops any member of the Australian public, regardless of age viewing any content not suitable for children. It blocks out anything that is deemed to be racist, or that submits a view other than that shared by the censor. Under this classification system, websites like wikipedia (which is a free, user contributed online encyclopedia)have already been announced to be added to the black list; and social networking websites like facebook (due to their user groups, fan pages and applications) have only a limited amount of time before they too are added.

It seem the ONLY way this filter is going to be revoked is if the majority of the Australian public, publicly announce this distaste for the filter and their desire to axe the scheme. If even that didn't work, well then it would be clear that we indeed no longer live in a democracy society. As it stands the labor party are moving very steeply toward a fascist dictatorship not only on filtering but on many issues. It time Australia, that we cut the government back down to size, before we end up in a situation where we suffer from tunnel vision due to lack of information and millions of Australian jobs are lost.

Links;

Wikipedia Article
Electronic Frontiers Australia
No Clean Feed
Labors plan for cyber safety (pdf)
USA Today article
Sydney Morning Herald article (March 19)
Sydney Morning Herald Article (December 15)
ABC News Article

The Australian Labor party announced the terms of their new proposed CPRS, which looks set to be implemented as early as this week. Labor of course are all hearts and smiles about the package, selling it as if it's the best thing since sliced bread. The greens however aren't so pleased. Senator bob brown has emailed me twice in as many days about the scheme and has revealed the scheme will see another $5.8 BILLION of tax payer money going to privately owned companies.

That basically means we're paying these companies money just to run their business in accordance with laws being set in place. To me, this doesn't seem very fair, or in accordance with the ideas of the capitalist society we live in. An economy built on debt and on robbing other vital projects of funding, is an economy destine for collapse. As I've said before, the only real reason we had any consernable dip in our economy during the "global financial crisis" is because of the scare tactics the government deployed. It's highlighted by just how quickly the economy has bounced back.

Now after placing us in such significant debt, the government is asking us now to take our tax dollars and give them to privately run companies. This is money that should have gone towards other government funded programs OR to paying off their ridiculous debt. Meanwhile, while these massive polluters in industry with their millions and even billions of dollars in profits get a tax payer hand out, what about the Average Australian?

Well the Labor website has said:

Voluntary Action: The Government will ensure the CPRS takes into account voluntary action by households. Voluntary action by households will now allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 emissions reduction target. In addition, the CPRS will be amended to ensure that all existing and future purchases of GreenPower will be counted, and allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 national targets.

So the current subsidy scheme will now let you buy solar panels and junk like that beyond what is needed to meet your 2020 targets. Great, so the average aussie who is cashed up and wants to go beyond their legal requirements will have some subsidy to their purchases. Meanwhile private companies like those in the coal industry, get everything paid for by tax payer money. Nice.

And why is it the coal industry is even in there? Surely the government realise here that the coal industry, has to die in order for us to actually affect climate change.

But the big kicker? We're paying 1.1 BILLION dollars of tax payer money towards ELECTRICITY bills for these private companies. Seriously, not only do we pay for their shiny new stuff that they'll over charge us to use, but we're paying their electricity bills as well. Remind me, how are these private companies still if everything is publicly funded?

If they're going to introduce funding for these companies, then it should be solely on a LOAN basis! I as a tax payer expect that my money will be used wisely in the best interests of the nation. If I'm going to have to prop up an old world company trying to change for the new, then I expect a return on my investment as should all Australians.

Links

Labors webpage on the CPRS
Detailed changes to the CPRS (PDF)

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

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

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...

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.

Last nights episode of "are you smarter than a 5th grader" on Channel TEN had Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister of Education Julia Gillard as the contestant. True she is donating all the proceeds of her win to charity but what is she really trying to win? It should come as no surprise I'm sure that the real prize she is after is a higher approval rating.

You have a government who are really starting to show their true colours and the Australian are beginning to turn. Stunts like this show just how desperate they are becoming. What is most disturbing is that Julia Gillard is the FEDERAL minister for EDUCATION and yet is having difficulty answering 5th grade or lower questions. Should the minister responsible for funding our schools, not have an education which surpasses them?

I mean surely the minister responsible for signing off on state run curriculum should understand what that curriculum is? Or is this a case of the blind leading the blind? And if so, are we honestly going to stand for that? Is it honestly any wonder that Mr Rudd is such an anal control freak with ministers as brain dead as Ms Gillard on the front bench? I can totally see why he would write out what they're allowed to say in front of the media, else this government would have been seen for the bunch of brain dead nit wits they truly are.

Political clout, nor public approval should be won by way of game show. While elections may be about popularity, politics is about leadership and truly representing the voice of the people. When will politicians learn that if they just do those 2 things effectively the popularity will form itself. Look at Sir Joe, he got those right and ended up being the longest serving prime in Queensland AND even though dead now is still remembered fondly.

In short, a game show isn't a polling station, it's not something you should be using to try and sell your new policy or get yourself re-elected. It's entertainment for which I should be able to sit and relax. It was a poor decision on Channel TENs part to accept Ms Gillard on the show, lets hope they don't make such a mistake again.

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

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

Live in another country? Sick of it and want a change? Perhaps you're being persecuted, or maybe your country just sucks. Think living in Australia would be great? Awesome, no need to fill in those pesky immigration forms to get permanent residency buy your way in! Yes dear reader there is a back door into Australia and it is the source of the Indian and Asian flood.

Legislation was passed awhile ago which made it guaranteed & easy to get permanent residency in Australia if you are an international student who studies here. The legislation which has no caps placed upon it, is now being exploited. In a move which is nothing more than people smuggling fake colleges are being set up around the country for the purpose of allowing people to buy there way into the country.

Students whom enroll in these fake colleges simply pay their money to the "college" then are told to go on holiday and they'll be marked as attending classes. We have a situation where people are not properly screened when becoming a student, nor are they screened when becoming a permanent resident as a result. This has caused a situation where-by persons whom would not ordinarily gain entry to Australia, let alone permanent residency are doing so.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? On one hand we are told "boat people" are evil and should be imprisoned. The cold truth about "boat people" is they are often simply people whom have undergone tremendous adversity and persecute in their own country and have paid to flee to somewhere "safe". Yet Australia is building an international reputation for mistreatment of assimilate seekers, as we imprison them without charge nor defined length of imprisonment, in appalling conditions.

Meanwhile on the other hand, we are now letting random people from anywhere in the world enter and gain permanent residency without effective screening, simply because they came to Australia to study. It looks to me that your treatment in Australia depends on where you spend your money. Perhaps someone should let the "boat people" know all they have to do is pay to become a student and they'll get to fly legally into the country.

We need to plug this hole which left as is, will crumble our country and our culture under the feet of Indian and Asians. We need to set clear limits as to numbers of persons whom can study in Australia as an international student. We need to set clear legislation as to what constitutes an educational facility, and create a body capable of monitoring and enforcing said legislation. And while access to permanent residency should be made easier for international students in order to keep their skills in the country, they should not be exempt from the proper immigration process. Furthermore, permanent residency legislation in regards to students should be confined solely to Universities and TAFE colleges. Private college students should be exempt.

There are numerous countries around the world whom by way of immigration policy, their society is crumbling. The UK and America are examples of which. We need to heed the warnings which these examples demonstrate and create an immigration policy which protects our way of life, our culture and our society.

Digital TV; the government and the networks are plastering it as this wondrous thing. But realistically it isn't all that great. Sure I have a few more channels, and if you're lucky enough to own an LCD TV capable of 1080p then it looks a bit better, but at the end of the day, digital isn't that great. None the less, ABC Business News reported last night that by 2013 the government will have spent 63 MILLION dollars of tax payer money on advertising the digital switch over to you.

That is to say, some of the money the government collects from the pay YOU EARNED is then used to advertise a system which is being forced upon you; which in turn means you now have to spend some more of your hard earned cash to buy new television equipment. All for a system which lets face it isn't really going to benefit you much of a lot, but is certainly going to make a few rich men, even richer. Yep, great use of tax money there.

But this is only one example of gross amounts of tax payer money being used to advertise government programs, or what otherwise should be referred to as government public service announcements. What ever happened to the original idea that when it came to such announcements, the government would have free air time? Back in the days when swearing on TV could cost you your broadcast license, and the evening news actually reported the facts instead of meaningless gossip.

Spending such copious amounts of tax payer money on trying to get us on their side is just ludicrous. Sure free-to-air television stations are businesses too, and of course they rely on advertising revenue to make a profit. But responsible and reasonable legislation which would allow the government free advertising space on any network, say 3 times per hour, per network as a condition of holding a broadcast license would free up so much tax payer funds. Heck, there may even be enough for a tax break in there.

And going back to my original example, why are the government even advertising it in the first place? This is a situation where the television networks lobbied the government in the late 90s to allow for not only digital transmission, but the ability to cease analog transmission. This was granted. This is not a government fueled program, it is a free-to-air network collaborative program to improve their bottom lines, simple as that. So why should tax payers be fitting the bill, when they should be advertising their own damn program.

Chinese authority the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets claims Rio Tinto; a company the Chinese government recently attempted to buy majority control of; has been spying on Chinese steel companies. The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets alledges that Rio Tinto was able to over charge a total of $122 BILLION dollars as a result of spying on steel companies by four detained Rio Tinto staff, including Australian Stern Hu.

Rio Tinto maintains no spying ever took place on it's behalf by any of it's staff; and furthermore that all if their detained staff are innocent of the charges. While I certainly would not put industrial espionage passed a company as large as Rio Tinto, this sounds much more like sour grapes. The fact remains that the Chinese government are still rather pissed off at their failed bid to purchase majority ownership of Rio Tinto earlier this year. This sounds far more like the sort of thing China is likely to do as a result thereof.

The legal system being what it is in China means it likely that these poor soles will be charged and either imprisoned or killed, regardless of their guilt. Just another hard learned lesson about doing business with a country like China. And truly, while they may have the largest economy in the world today we certainly shouldn't base our economy on theirs as we currently do. Indeed if the Chinese economy went bust overnight Australia would be in a real pickle, and that is certainly not how we should be. Certainly now with a culture and politic manner that China holds.

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

The court room rant by suspected terrorist Wissam Mahmoud Fattal on Wednesday echo the inevitable culture clash. 33 year old, salami born, Mr Fattal said that the Australian military kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued

"You call us terrorists, I've never killed anyone in my life."

before expressing his dislike of Australia and that he wanted to leave.

But the last I checked up until he was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill Australian soldiers he wasn't being held captive here. In fact, if he disliked Australia so much and wanted to leave, why didn't he do just that? And this is the point, he didn't because even though he has Australian citizenship and thus swore allegiance to Australia; he still views himself as a Samali. And as a Samali man he wants justice for the people of "his" country, and friendly nations.

The point I have been trying to make isn't racist, it's simply an inevitable fact. If you bring people into a country, and those people still act as if they are in their previous country, and still have allegiance there to, you will no doubt create civil unrest. If you want a peaceful society, everyone has to be on the same page. That is to say, multiple cultures can not peacefully co-habitate the same area for an extended period of time.

As Australians we have, through the course of our history developed our own unique culture. A culture which is now under threat. This is not to say that people from another country are somehow inherently bad, or wrong or anything of that nature. It is not to say that we don't get many people immigrating who at their core are good people. What it is to say, is that for our community to exist peacefully, immigrants have to let go of their old culture and lives and embrace ours.

I would not for example expect I could immigrate to Iraq without accepting their local customs and ridding myself of those I learned in Australia. Similarly those moving to Australia can not expect to immigrate here without doing the same.

Wissam Fattal's comments highlight just how easy it is for extremists to gain entry into Australia. We have an immigration system now, which has inadequate screening and processing of potential immigrants. No person should be able to permanently reside here, who is unable to speak English, and who is unwilling to assimilate into Australian culture. We have gone from a system which let in 10,000 people a year, to one which lets in a similar number each month. Our country and our economy can't cope.

Reporter Tim Vollmer and a photographer from the Daily Telegraph have gained entry to Sydney's Holsworthy barracks by just showing their drives licenses. The pair where able to spend 40 minutes inside the military installation taking photos before military staff noticed their presence and called police. Sydney's Holsworthy barracks is the same military installation that the 5 men arrested in Tuesdays terrorism raids had planned to attack.

This incident has highlighted concern that unarmed private security are responsible for securing Australian military bases, as apposed to armed soldiers. One must question how an unarmed security guard is capable of securing a military compound, especially if said compound was ever to come under attack. The ease with which Time Vollmer and his photographer gained entry to the base is very telling of how capable private security are.

But it isn't simply a matter of the private security offices who allowed the pair entry to the base, it is the fact that it then took military personnel 40 minutes to become aware of their unlawful presence. One could easily take a stroll around a military base, take in the sights in that time period. Or more over, if one was so inclined would be able to gain entry, plant a bomb and leave without ever being caught.

And yet still after this whole incident Mr Rudd continues to demonstrate how out of touch he is with reality; with his response to Mr Turnbulls questions about said security arrangements, saying they are adequate. The government has none the less ordered a review; which will no doubt affect no change what so ever anyway. It is clear that with the current governments immigration policies in place, that there will be more attacks being planned.

We have enjoyed a nation with a relaxed, insecure nature. But as we let into the country extremists, and persons whom hate Australia and all that she stands for, we are forced to tighten our belts and become the overly paranoid society that other western nations have become after such immigration policies. Can you feel our culture and freedom slipping away?

Links;

ABC News

The Australian Federal Police, in co-operation with ASIO and a number of other policing agencies conducted 19 raids across Melbourne suburbs this morning. Four men of Somali and Lebanese decent have been arrested as a result of the raids, charged with conspiring to commit an act in preparation for or planning a terrorist act.

Police say the men whom are allegedly affiliated with Islamic militant group al-Shabaab had planned to attack Australian military bases and kill as many soldiers as they can before they themselves were killed. This marks the first ever planned suicide attack on Australian soil, in the history of Australia. Police are not ruling out further arrests as the case unfolds.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland commented there had been seven months of surveillance leading up to the raids. He continued by stating

"Details of the planning indicated the alleged offenders were prepared to inflict a sustained attack on military personnel until they themselves were killed,"

and that

"The investigation has also identified travel of Australian citizens to Somalia to participate in hostilities in that country."

Fearing reprisals on the general Islamic community the Police have commented that, any such reprisals would only further fuel the "recruiters". But this goes back to the fundamentals of who we are letting into this country. We have ridiculous laws which imprison "boat people" without charge or release date, under the false pretense we have to watch who is coming into the country. Then something like this happens, and four men who legally gained entry into Australia and in fact became citizens start causing trouble.

These are some of the very problems I'm talking about when I say that people should assimilate and leave their old culture in the country they're moving from. We are seeing problems brought onto Australian soil which should not be here and it is all down to our now lax immigration policy. It is as simple as if we weren't trying to flood the country with immigrants in some idiotic hope of warding off the aging population and keeping the economy afloat, then we wouldn't have acts like this even being planned.

What is it going to take in order to change the immigration policy of the Rudd government? Will Australians need to be killed by terrorists on Australian soil? Will that do it? Or would that too have no affect on the governments immigration policy? We have a situation where the flood gates have been opened, and if Australia's culture is to survive we need to work at closing those gates, and quickly.

Links;

ABC News
Channel 10 News
Press Conference

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?

The Australian Government where our multicultural society as a badge of honor. I on the other hand see it as a disgrace. Every country on the planet has, over time developed their own sense of identity; a culture which is unique to the country. Wars, including the current one in Iraq and Afghanistan are being and have been fought in order to "keep our way of life" which is simply another way of saying our culture.

To allow someone to immigrant into our country from another country and then continue to practice the culture of their old country in ours is a travesty which spits in the eye of every solider whom every fought for "our way of life". And at the end of the day why does anyone want to continue a culture from a country they have left behind?

If your culture was so fantastic then you wouldn't have a need to leave your country in the first place. You chose to leave your country because you dislike it, and you chose to move to another country which you do like. So if you like our country so much, then assimilate. I love my country, sure the government is a bit off and some of the laws are crazy, but overall I love my country. If I ever decided to leave Australia however, it would be for a country where their culture was either just like Australia, or where assimilating would be pleasant.

While obvious cases of people not assimilating are people like those weird Africans who circumcise their women, it isn't just limited to the extreme. Refusing to speak English when living in Australia for example is NOT ON! I don't care why you don't want to speak English, if you're not going to rack off back to where you came from. It's the slight as well, things like mannerisms.

Western cultures are under threat of going extinct before white men do, because we simply allow cultures to mix and form some weird disjointed mess. Our freedoms and way of life are indeed under threat, but it isn't from some far off middle east land, it's from our own immigration department and those they let into the country. I like to think of countries like clubs. If for example you where a member of the wine tasting club, but then decided to leave the club and move over to the heavy metal appreciation club, you wouldn't sit around drinking wine now would you? If you tried, you'd more than likely be kicked out, or forced to leave out of shame and embarrassment.

Same goes for cultures and countries. We have our way of doing things, if you aren't open to doing things the same way as we do them, and forgetting how you did them in the past DON'T MOVE COUNTRIES! It really comes down to something that simple that is causing massive problems in all western countries. The answer could be assimilation programs, or perhaps being more selective on who comes in. But one thing is sure, something must be done and quick..

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?

Ute-gate. The very name lets you know that it isn't something to be taken seriously. Investigating a supposed email between the Prime Ministers office and someone in treasury was never going to turn up anything fruitful. If it was, the Prime Minister certainly would never have ordered in the federal police to investigate it. And that's the point, the federal police aren't doing a full investigation into whether there is any favoritism going on or misappropriation of funds or anything of the sort. They only investigated 1 email, which subsequently and quite expectedly was proved to be a fake.

This however does not clear Kevin Rudd of ANY wrong doing what so ever. It merely proves that no one has found any definitive proof of his wrong doing yet which has been brought to public attention. The whole thing will now undoubtedly fad into a distant memory of something that didn't event to anything. But, I think there is much more going on then we're being told. We're told that 2 other car dealers who didn't have association with Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan received the same financial endorsement as Kevin Rudds friend. What we aren't told is if those 2 other dealers have association with any other politician or member of the government.

We're also not told why, out of all the businesses which are suffering hardship right now, those 3 car dealerships where given special treatment while other car dealerships in a similar situation are not. There is a stink in the air and it will linger long after this whole affair has left our collective conscious memory. There are many instances where the Kevin Rudd government has issued money in ways which are at the very least questionable. And I think that's the point. Add to that all the tax payer money on all his ridiculous schemes that he is rushing out and you can see why Kevin Rudd honestly should be resigning at this point.

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

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