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.

It seems to me that there are an unusually high number of major things in the world RIGHT NOW which could, if continuing on their present course, spell either the downfall of humanity and in some cases other species of earthly life as well. This post is a list of those things.

1. Potential for World War III

There are a number of events happening in the world currently which could ultimately spark World War III, these include; rising tensions inside the world wide Muslim community as extremists call upon Muslims living in western countries to destroy democracy and instil Islamic law. With Muslim groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir rallying Muslims living in the west to revolt and create a transnational Islamic state. Heck, the USA has even received a fresh threat of attacks on America which will make 9/11 pale in comparison.

At the same time, North/South Korean tensions are rising, with the USA pushing the UN to act harshly on North Korea. Similarly Israeli/Palestinian tensions are increasing as well, with Israel ruling out any chance of an independent Palestinian state by 2012. Israel has even begun aggression against nationals from it's ally states such as the USA in the recent commando raids upon Turkish humanitarian aide flotillas.

Iran is definitely a threat to global peace as the UN steps up sanctions against the country, which not only has nuclear weapons but now has commercially viable autonomous humanoid robots. And lastly China, with their entry into the capitalist world is hungry for global dominance. The have an almost inexhaustible number of soldiers, more money than you can poke a stick at and well, they seem to own most of the world now anyway.

2. Climate Change

This one really is a no brainer. Our climate is clearly changing, defined sessions are quickly becoming a thing of the past in my neck of the woods. Seas are rising, and the world seen the first climate change refugee's in 2008. Climate change means some REALLY nasty things are headed our way.

3. The BP oil spill

While the fact the BP oil spill has been spewing 911,454,000 litres of oil into the sea per day for the passed 72 days is a bad enough ecological disaster which will likely see the Gulf of Mexico take decades to recovery, if ever. New evidence shows that the BP oil spill has also dramatically increased the arsenic levels in the ocean, and those levels are continuing to rise. In other words, as arsenic levels rise sea life will die. Take out key points in the oceanic food web and you'll end up with basically no life left in the sea. Guess what happens to life on the land if life on the sea goes extinct.

4. Self aware AI in a military robot

The University of Adelaide in collaboration with robotics company Strategic Engineering have created the worlds first robot to be able to fully think for itself, as part of a US Military Super-Smart robots challenge. Funnily enough this AI's primary mission is to search, target, "neutralise" an enemy. It's weird, they create a self aware robot, then expect programming it to kill "the enemy" isn't going to backfire on us.

5. Plague Squirrel

A squirrel carrying the plague has been found at a camp in California causing the closure of the park for the next 10 days. Now two points to note here

(1) The fact the plague is back in town, the squirrel can't have picked up the plague from nowhere!

(2) How do you find out a random squirrel has the plague if a human doesn't first become infected? Seriously...

I'd say we need worry a LOT more about the potential for another pandemic of the plague then we do about the almost harmless swine flu.

6. Global insanity

Maybe it's just me, but it seems the world is becoming far more violent. Everyday the newspapers are filled with increasingly more seemingly random and pointless acts of violence. Children now days seem to think it's fun to gang up on a random person walking down the street and beat them within an inch of their life. There are 10 year olds in the UK whom KILL homeless point for kicks. Everywhere it seems, people who used to be normal are randomly becoming violent.

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)

In part for I explore the nature of Jesus in relation to the Jewish faith and how it stacks up historically. Oh and I must apologise for the lateness of this entry.

Section 4: A Jewish God

You know Jerusalem, being the holey city of “god” isn't named that way by accident. In fact at the time Jesus was born Judaism was widely practised in the general region, and weirdly enough worships the same god as other Christian religions. Fact of the matter is the early factions of Judaism are the source of all modern Christianity, including Catholicism and Islam, so in actual fact all Christians worship a Jewish god. In the first 6 decades of the first century CE, Judaism was actually comprised of roughly 24 competing factions, one of which being the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus of Nazareth in English). It is interesting to note that the Synoptic gospels and Gospel of John mention that the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) very closely matched those of a rabbi named Hillel who lived in the second half of the 1st century BCE, generations BEFORE Yeshua's (Jesus) birth! On a quick side note, they also interestingly continue by stating that Yeshua (Jesus) was charged with what we today would called “aggravated assault” against merchants in the temple, which was considered treason or insurrection by the Roman forces. Both Gospels give that as the reason why Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified and not the outlandish jealousy and insecurity by the king, stated in most modern Christian bibles.

But back to the origins of Christianity in Judaism; in 70 CE the Roman army attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. This devastating blow disrupted Jewish life and caused two new movements to emerge, that of the rabbinical Judaism which was centered in local synagogues, and the early Christian movement. Some of Yeshua's (Jesus') followers, and some who although never meeting Yeshua were inspired by his teachings, settled in Jerusalem. Others spread across what was the then known world, but all of whom, come even within the same city, taught very different messages and held vastly different views on who Jesus was and what he did. So there you go, if you're a christian, you're actually a Jew, because you worship a Jewish god. And the teachings of Jesus were both inline with those already established at the time AND distorted by his followers. Just another reason the bible is just a little bit bullshit...

Russian politician Kirsan Ilyumzhinov claimed on April 26ths edition of a popular russian Tv show that he had been abducted by aliens in 1997. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has been the serving president of Kalmykia for the past 17 years. Without any further proof, the interview has sparked concern in Russian parliament with Russian MP Andre Lebedev calling on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to conduct an inquiry into the claims with fears Kirsan Ilyumzhinov may have given away "state secrets" to his alien abductors.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov claimed in his Channel One interview that he was falling asleep when he heard someone call him from the balcony. Upon investigating he supposedly found a "spaceship" which was a "half-transparent half tube". Somehow (he didn't explain how) Kirsan claims to have then entered the "spaceship" where he was greeted by "human-like creatures in yellow spacesuits". According to the eccentric politician the aliens then gave him a tour of their spaceship. When asked about communicating with them Kirsan stated "I am often asked which language I used to talk to them. Perhaps, it was on a level of the exchange of ideas".

On a personal note, while I certainly believe in life on other planets. And could be persuaded to believe in extra-terrestrial life visiting our planet, I find Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's claims completely laughable. It is interesting that this supposed event took place whilst under his own admission he was falling asleep. I think it is far more likely that Mr Ilyumzhinov dreamed the whole event and none of it actually took place. I find it both highly amusing and concerning that Andre Lebedev is worried about aliens gaining state secrets without any actual proof beyond his own word, that aliens ever visited Mr Ilyumzhinov.

Links;

News.com.au
The Sun

I think we can all agree the environment is in an advanced state of disrepair; and likewise I'm sure most rational people can, irrelevant of cause conclude that our climate is changing. That the polar ice caps are disappearing, that permafrost is melting and global weather is acting at best a little bit odd.

WARNINGIf you're one of the minority of people whom still hasn't come to terms with these basic and observable occurrences then I'd say there isn't much point in you reading this post as you haven't caught up with everyone else yet. If you fall into this category I suggest you do a little research or even better go outside and see for yourself.

At this point for most rational thinking people, climate change has become a very real thing; the argument now seems to be centered around what is causing the problem, and how long is left before everything goes extremely pear shaped. To this argument I pose the following ideas which I hope might spur people to get passed arguing and into action.

(1) Science has been warning us about climate change since the mid-70s. That means we've had almost 40 years to argue, fuss and debate out the issue. 40 years is a long time for inaction, in fact its a longer time period than I am old! I find it sad that it's only really in the last 5 or so years, when the effects have become extremely apparent, that the mainstream and governments have actually started to take climate change seriously. I am concerned that it will take “doomsday”, when it's too late before everyone stops arguing about it and is prepared to actually take action.

(2) It seems to me that climate change has become the new religious debate, where people are more worried about the differences, rather than the commonalities. If a meteor was plummeting towards the earth, would we all sit around debating what caused the meteor to plummet toward the earth? Or would we simply trust the scientists whom specialise in the area and I don't know, at least do something, based on their advice to attempt to stop the meteor? I mean would we honestly sit around using the economy as an excuse as to why we can't act against the meteor? It seems to me that we have thousands of climatologists, geologists and other assorted specialising scientists whom are warning about climate change. Doesn't it make sense to listen to the people who go out and research these things, whose job is to know about this stuff? The same people whom warned us almost 40 years ago, that the stuff that is happening with the climate now would happen?

(3) To me, it makes absolute perfect sense to realise that look the climate is stuffed, there are some big changes happening that in all likelihood will effect the land masses (and thus all life upon those land masses, including humans) of this planet in multiple ways. And under such conditions we need to put our own insecurities and arguments to the side and look just do something to fix the problem. It seems insanely logical in such a situation to trust and look to the people for whom not only is it their job to know about this stuff, but whom have predicted, through science everything that has happened climate wise so far.

(4) Does action mean, in part, we need to do things that affect the economy in a negative way? Sure, but take the following into consideration. The economy will be negatively effected regardless of what we do. If we act against climate change with regard for this theory about solar flares, we still would need to take steps which will cost jobs and negatively impact the economy. If we act against climate change with the theory it's a natural process through which the earth is continually undergoing, guess what, still will cost jobs, still will negatively impact the economy. And if we do nothing, if we don't act, people are not only going to lose their jobs, but whole sections of countries (their homes) and even for some, their lives. How do you reckon that is going to impact the economy? We need to be sensible here, the economy is going to be negatively impacted, people are going to lose their jobs whatever we do. With that in mind doesn't it make sense it minimise the damage to both our economy and our planet?
(5) Ultimately what is the point in arguing about this? How does it benefit us in any way, shape or form? The global economy as we know it needs to collapse before we can rebuild it stronger and more environmentally friendly. Heck, even without climate change this needs to happen given currently we have a global economy running on oil, and we passed peak oil in 2005. Think about how much money could be made from a clean, and more importantly unlimited energy source? Particularly when the cost of producing the energy is a mere fraction of what energy costs to produce now. Think of how many jobs that single industry would create in maintenance, research and development, installation and infrastructure and so forth. Research and Development alone would be a massive employment sector for decades to come as we develop new and more efficient ways to extract neutral energy from our environment. Now thing of all the industries such a change would touch, and all the new industries that would spring up because of it. I guess what I'm essentially trying to say here is that in the long term tackling climate change could mean more jobs then we have in our economy now.

I would really like to hear a logical, well thought-out argument for inaction on climate change, so I'm throwing out the challenge, someone please, convince me why we should sit around with our thumbs up our butts from another decade while the planet crumbles around us. But if you're unable to meet the challenge, then you have no choice but to concede inaction is stupidity, arguing about this is stupidity and NOT listening to those whom have been warning about these events occurring for near on 40 years is stupidity.

Links;

ABC.com News

Part 3: Multiple Versions

As I covered back in Part 1, there exists multiple versions of the bible, and multiple interpretations of “gods word”. Even if you believe in God, you have to concede that it's impossible they're all right. For example if I say “If you're feeling sad, go jump in a lake” there a many many different interpretations that can be had on what I meant. Some people might think I meant to literally jump in the lake, then get out again, whilst others would think I mean they should commit suicide, whilst against others might thing I meant it as a turn of phrase meaning they should go away if they're feeling sad, and still there are other interpretations which I won't list here. The point is, I didn't mean all of these interpretations, I meant only 1 of them.

It seems to me that if “God” were the true “creator” then there wouldn't be all these different interpretations, I mean surely a being whom is apparently able to creature man kind with a simple point of it's finger is able to be clear enough in communication to get out the true meaning of what they have to say. I find the mere fact the bible is an interpretation cause for why it's a little bit bullshit, because lets say the text is really the world of god, the moment a human comes and “interprets” that text, and thus changes words around (potentially changing whole meanings of sentences) it ceases to be the word of god and becomes just another human written bunch of non-sense.

So the mere fact there are multiple versions, each interpreting the supposed word of god in their own way. But it's worse then just that, they each include only the scriptures and teachings they agree with interpreting only THOSE scriptures and teachings into the bible and leaving out the bits they don't agree. Again, if it's the word of god, then it's all the word of god and should all be included. It doesn't matter if bits repeat or if some things greatly differ from the general teachings, isn't that for each person who “experiences the word of god” to decide? It seems to me, anyone who is really seeking the true path to “god” and what “god” is on about, should learn ancient Latin, Greek Hebrew and Aramaic so they can themselves properly read the actual scriptures. It seems to me that if there is any truth to the bible it should be distributed including ALL of the scriptures, written in their entire original form, including original language, completely free from human interpretation. Anything less than that is just a little bit bullshit...

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

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

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

Recycling, it's sold as one of the potential saviors of our planet. The idea of taking old things, reducing them to base resources and creating new products; sounds like a plausible solution in theory right? Wrong! Recycling doesn't make economic sense, nor does it make total environmental sense. But let me explain myself a little better.

Economically speaking manufacturers normally would pay for their raw materials. A drink bottle manufacturer for example would normally either pay per ton of plastic pellets or (if they process their own plastics) the going price per barrel of oil. Now throw recycling into the mix; suddenly the bottle manufacturer has a way of recovering their product without cost, then reworking it to produce a new bottle. Due it doesn't stop the need for raw materials, but that's down to lack of recycling volume, not concept. Essentially recycling means we, the consume provide to the manufacturer their raw materials, for FREE, which they then sell back to us. Can you name one other example of where a company is able to get product legally for free?

This I feel is the single biggest reason for lack of total adoption of the recycling schemes. If however the manufacturers were willing to pay for their product, that is to say they buy off of us the raw materials, this not only makes more economic sense, but would mean a greater take up of recycling. Think about it, if you knew your drink bottle, newspaper, catelogs, tin cans or other recyclables had a dollar value, you'd be more likely to recycle now wouldn't you? You'd also be less likely to litter. This simple change to the scheme would make a massive difference and would see landfill shrink dramatically.

Environmentally however, sure recycling cuts the amount of new raw materials needed, but it doesn't cut out the need for new raw materials all together. Even with 98% - 100% adoption of the recycling scheme we still need to use new raw materials in order to manufacturer recycable products; at best it slows the problem down it however solves nothings. Beyond that, recycling doesn't change the pollutants industral manufacturers produce; if anything it increases it. So on an environmental front, it only slows the consumption of new raw materials and does nothing to fix the problems caused by the manufacture process itself.

Recycling, a scheme that makes big claims, but makes no economic sense and little environmental sense.

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.

Toward the end of 2009 and at the very beginning of 2010 I blogged about a growing trend of internet based advertising companies to invade out privacy in increasingly disturbing ways. I spoke about how Microsoft has teamed up with Facebook and Twitter to deliver automatic up-dates to the social web about what games, music and movies you were playing/watching, all of which information, used for profit by advertising companies like Facebook. It was at that time I predicted the next step in the line would be television, reporting back on the shows we watch, when and for how long, which would give invaluable information about our personalities, the make up and running of our households, our schedules, how much free time we have and so forth.

Guess what, I was right. Introducing the worlds first Android based television (Google TV) by Swedish firm "People of Lava". The television dubbed the "Scandinavia" is available in 42" 47" and 50" models, with both Ethernet and USB ports for connecting the TV to the internet and ships with a wireless keyboard and mouse. It plays TV like a normal TV, but it also has support for the millions of paid & free Android apps available, including an exclusive set of paid & free apps available only via the "People of Lava" web store. It ships standard with apps for YouTube, Google Maps, Email, the google browser (Chrome) and FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!

Now you can automatically stream directly into your Facebook or Twitter feed what you're doing on your TV, be it internet based, or TV watching. I told you it would happen, and it has. Just another action in your daily life that the big names in ads can take a peak at, giving a better more well rounded view of who you individually are. Some of you might remember I made several other predictions about the steps after Television in this invasion of privacy, perhaps now would be a good time to look back at those posts, don't you think?

Links;

People of Lava website
Scandinavia Google TV

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.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has issued an alert for Australians to be on the look out for the following scams during the easter period.

(1) As there is often a lot of charitable work done during the easter period, scammers dress up and pretend to be accepting donations on behalf of charity groups or schools. The scammer(s) my work singularly or in groups and may approach you in the street, at your door or by telephone. Please be aware of this scam before you give to charity.

If you wish to give to charity it may be a good idea to call the charity directly and pledge your donation that way.

(2) Holiday & Accommodation scams happen most often during periods like easter. If you receive an unsolicited phone call or email offering you a discount holiday or accommodation this could be a scam. Do not give payment upfront to such persons and demand a contact phone number and address for the agent offering the holiday special. Hang up, search online to make sure they really are legit and if so call them back to confirm the holiday offer.

(3) If you get emails wish subject lines like "Your friend has sent you an easter card" this is probably a virus/trojan. If you open the email your computer will become infected. It's best to ask your friends to tell you before hand if they're going to send you an electronic greeting card over easter. If you get a card which no one has told you about, DO NOT OPEN IT, simply delete it. And of course as always make sure you computer has up-to-date anti-virus definitions and firewall protection.

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.

I'd like to discuss a variation of perception with you; Interpretation. The way we interpret the world around us dictates how we interact with it, and the experience we will have. But I'm sure you already knew that. What you may not have known however is that individual interpretation applies to everything we personally come in contact with. Lets take for example reading text. The way you interpret what I write in this blog may differ quite dramatically from how I intended it to be interpreted. But to apply a good example we'll use a simple sentence.

Lets take the sentence "The quick brown dog jumped over the log". Every non conjunctive word (ie. "the" in this case) in that sentence is open fully to interpretation. Your idea if constitutes "quick", "jumped" and "over" will most likely differ from mine. As will your interpretation of what sort of dog it would be and the size, type and description of the log. In this way there are an endless number of combinations in which to interpret that sentence. Lets for this example focus on the word jump from that sentence. A jump to one person might mean that the dog only just clears the log, to another person it could mean the dog almost just walks over the log, to another person the dog could comfortably clear the log and yet again to someone else it could mean the dog was quite high in the air indeed. The variations of this one word alone are quick numerous, having not listed them all here; but only a select few.

In this same way we interpret everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste, entirely in an individual way, with endless combinations on how to interpret the event. Our memories of prior experiences play heavily on our interpretation of things, but are not in any way the only ruling factor. Our personality, current mood, the terms of the social situation we are in at the time, the context of the event, the environment we're in all play heavily amongst other factors on our interpretation. For this reason, not only does our interpretation of an event end up individual to us, but also to the moment in which it is interpreted. For it is likely, with a variation in some of the contributing factors, such as current mood, our interpretation of the same event will change.

Now lets apply this to real life situations where interpretation may have considerable effect. The legal/justice system comes first to mind for me. Take the written laws and the process of enforcing those laws through the judicial system. Each individual judge, being a living being; is subject to this same individual interpretation as everyone else. The way a judge interprets a certain law can not only vary from others in the court room, but indeed from how the law was originally intended to be interpreted. In the same way, the judges interpretation of a law is subjective to the same factors such as mood as everyone else. On top of that, the exact same influences affect what the judge views as a fair punishment. With all that in mind is it any real wonder why we have such huge variation in who is punished for what and in sentencing?

It is because of this individual interpretation that juries we formed. But the jury itself can become subject to influence of interpretation. If a half of the jury members, being vocal agree on an interpretation of an event, their vocal nature of this fact can influence the interpretation of other members of the jury. So if for example you have 3 or 4 members of a jury who feel that the defendant is guilty because of A, B & C and theses jury members are very vocal of their feelings and dominant in the group the rest of the jury members will change their interpretation to fit. Remember humans are herd animals, we instinctively slot into dominant or submissive roles when placed in a group situation. Does any of that sound like justice to you?

Another example is rental housing; through inspections. What the real estate person feels is appropriate will depend on their mood, their personality, how they feel about the tenant, etc. What passes one time, could not pass the next even though the same person from the real estate does the inspection. In fact third party interpretation can positively or negatively influence every aspect of life. Whether or not you get that job, whether or not you keep that job, all comes down to interpretation. Arguments you have with friends, family and spouses come down to interpretation. Even whether you have religious faith is a matter of interpretation.

In this way our reality is as individual as our interpretation of it. For this reason it could be argued there is a distinct absence of absolutes. That while facts exist, such as the sky most commonly looks blue through-out the day; there is a lack of absolute. That is to say the shade of blue for example is a matter of interpretation.

The Australian Federal Police's (AFP) "High Tech Crime" division has only just now realised the risks of identity theft social networking sites pose. The slow speed with which they have realised these risks is a scary thought on it's own. These are the members of the AFP who are meant to understand computers, the internet and how crimes are committed with them. And yet it has taken how many years since the inception of Social networking for these apparent masters of technology to realise what to me has always been a rather obvious risk.

High Tech Crime Operation acting national manager Karl Kent said

"Children are providing personal details on these sites such as their full name, date of birth, their place of residence and even the school they attend. Online fraudsters can use this information to open credit card accounts and commit financial crimes in the child's name."

His warning of course doesn't apply only to children, adults are at just as much risk if these same details are displayed. Federal Police advised users to change the default privacy settings on their social network of choice to more secure settings. But lets think about this for a moment, what is the most popular social networking site on the internet? Answer: Facebook with it's 400+ Million users world wide. But as I have discussed previously in this blog Facebook MANDATE without option or choice by the user that your name, date of birth, likes/dislikes (in the form of fan pages), "Home Town", country of residence and profile picture are all a matter of public domain.

That is to say Facebook allows google and other search engines to collect that data from EVERY ONES profile without exception. Once google has hold of it that information is then accessible by ANYONE on the internet, even those who don't hold a Facebook account let alone be on your friends list. Doubt me? Read Facebooks privacy policy yourself, it's all in there. So 400+ MILLION people across the world have their details; the very same details an identity thieves need; publicly accessible anywhere on the internet, by anyone without any option to stop that from occurring.

If that wasn't scary enough, thanks to the demanding language Facebook use in their sign up form and the general nature of how social networking works, most Facebook users have input their real, true details instead of fudging them a little. In fact to fudge your details on Facebook is actually a major breech of the Facebook terms of service and will result in immediate termination of your account. Weird huh? It's almost like Facebook WANT you to have your identity stolen.

Links;

iTWire Article

Queensland police a completely useless, getting involved in civil matters, for which they hold no powers, while real crimes are being committed. A level of sexism exists in that they will respond to a female, but if a male is in the same situation they won't respond at all.

My personal example of this is as follows; A few years back my eldest son was living with me, happily when his mother snatched him from my house when I made the mistake in hindsight of leaving her alone with him. I immediately called emergency 000 but was told it isn't an emergency and that I should call my local police department. So I did just that and was told it's a civil matter, and as such they can't do anything. That they wouldn't be sending out a car, that they wouldn't be doing anything about it. They further advised me that I could not lawfully take one step in her yard. I of course ended up taking the matter to court but that's a whole different story all together.

Flash forward to tonight when Sarah and I ended (over what isn't important) and of course I wanted to take Dee with me. What happened in between is of no importance to the story other then to say no criminal action took place. I sat in the bedroom with dee trying to put him to sleep, quietly. At 8pm police arrived at my door to attempt to deal with the civil dispute. I very quickly put the two responding officers in their place and they left as they had no business getting involved. Sarah and I were still in the same house, dee was not in harms way nor neglected in any way.

Clearly this shows that if you're a man and your ex takes your child, the police don't care, but if your a woman and it happens the police respond and make up a bunch of lies. Thankfully I understand the law very well and called them on their lies, put them in their place and they left as they should have. But how many fathers don't know the law, how many fathers get stitched up by the police? That is an utter disgrace!

Now ask yourself this, while they were here arguing with me over the fact they had no right to be here, how many ACTUAL criminal offices took place? Ask yourself, while they were hassling me with my civil matter, how many children in ACTUAL danger went unheard? How many people were assaulted in that space of time on a FRIDAY NIGHT? Heck in the space of that time I heard no less then FIVE (5) people SPEED passed my house.

The Queensland police need to get their freak'in act together. The law clearly states they have no power or right to intervene in a civil dispute. None! They only have the right to become involved when someone commits a criminal act, or threatens to do so; which of course includes an act of violence. Where so such criminal offenses have taken place, or are likely to take place they have NO POWER nor the right under the law to become involved in the situation. They need to go out their and fight crime and stay out of civil matters. Civil courts are for civil matters, not police.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it just me or has anyone else in the area I live in noticed the sudden over whelming smell of curry? Seriously it's everywhere, I went for a run just before and the air was sickenly thick with the smell of curry. What happened to the smell of backyard barbecues? Of burnt meat, open flame and seafood? That's my Australia, not a land of curry.

Have the amount of immigrant Indians really reached such a number already that the place stinks like India does? This is Australia, we have our own culture here, I don't agree with the number of Indian immigrants coming into the country but if they're going to come in they could at least have enough respect to take on our culture. If they wanted to live in a country with the culture they grew up with, smelling the way the country they grew up in did and everything like their native land, DON'T IMMIGRANT!

If you're going to immigrate to another country then seriously have some god damn respect. You don't need to try and make my country the same as your country. No only is that disrespectful, but it's illogical. You move to a new country because you like the culture, lifestyle, etc of the new country and thus you assimilate into the new country. If you're not willing to assimilate into Australia then LEAVE and take your stinky curries with you.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

iTWire Article 1
iTWire Article 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Queensland state government has now lifted a ban on Homosexual couples and single people accessing surrogates. Apparently it's the state governments policy that everyone should have a baby, regardless of nature. Perhaps they should just send out roving vans handing out free babies or something? What part about a SINGLE person, that is someone who has no relationship, being able to have a baby does Anna Bligh think is logical? Do we not have enough out of control kids living with single mothers as it is, that Anna Bligh feels she needs to give them access to more, without needing a man or even having to go through pregnancy? That is TOTALLY INSANE!

Contray to what Anna Bligh seems to think it isn't backward to not want to give single people the ability to have babies; that's something called common sense. I know it seems to be something that is very thin on the ground now days and a concept that is certainly new to Anna, but common sense is this magically thing where you actually use your brain to figure out that your actions are going to have negative consequences before you do them, and then decide not to.

How is the state government going to justify the removal of this ban to all the children who result? Children born into a world with only 1 parent, ever! Doesn't matter which gender the parent nor the child is, it's a proven bad idea. If the government actually knew even the slightest about child psychology they'd know just how bad an idea this truly is. They'd know that children model behaviour from both gender parents, as well as learn how to function, interact with the opposite gender and even gather part of their self identity from BOTH parents. That is to say a MOM and a DAD are both EXTREMELY important. You only need to look at the last 30 years worth of psychological data, psychologist reports, medical intervention, suicides, crimes and other statistical data which stem from children of broken homes to see my point made. But perhaps and far more likely, they do know that, but simply don't care.

This is clearly a bid to grab some minority votes by a government which have burnt more bridges than you can poke a stick out. Anna Bligh is undeniably the WORST premier Queensland has EVER had. This is just another in a long line of REALLY bad decisions that the Bligh government have made, crushing our once great state into the ground. And what a waste of time and tax payer dollars the 3 days of debates over this issue where, when the Bligh government always had the majority of the house so it was always going to be passed. What was the point? To make us think like it was debated and this was the best idea that came out of it? Or to give an illusion that Australia still operates democratically? All I can hope is that the Bligh government will be voted out at the next election and the resulting new government will have enough sense to repeal the new law so that no more children will be hurt in this sick political game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

Jonathan Safron-foer's keynote @ Sixth & 1

If you ever wanted to see justice come to missionaries, this story it is. The 5 Male and 5 female Christians from Ohio, USA who entered Haiti and stole 33 children have been denied bail. The group of 5 couples attempted to take the Haitian children across the border into the Dominican Republic with the idea of setting up an orphanage. The ill equipped group failed their duty of care with all 33 children suffering dehydration and hunger when they were stopped by border authorities. Some of the children also were injured and required urgent medical attention.

But perhaps even more scary is the fact the Christians seeming had forgotten (or perhaps they simply didn't care) to actually check the children they took really where orphans, with most of them actually still having living parents. A Haiti court has denied the group bail, ordering them to be remanded in custody; charged with kidnapping minors and criminal association.

In situations like this you just have to smile at the fact justice has actually prevailed. But you can't help but feel bad about all the millions who didn't have justice go their way. One would think by now Christian missionaries would be outlawed, I mean consider this; In the USA it was Christian Missionaries who stole native Indian children and denied them their culture. In Canada Christian missionaries did the same to the Inuit people and here in Australia they stole aboriginal children and trained them as servants. Now look at all the pain, suffering and money this has cost those countries? Yet we allow Christian missionaries to go forth from those very same countries and cause ever more havoc around the world.

At what point do our governments see the harm this is doing, at what point do they see that by allowing this practise to continue it costs governments more in tax payer funded charity. At some point surely our governments will see sense and benefit from ruling it illegal to go over seas as a missionary. Personally I think anyone who does such should be stripped of their citizenship and their actions dealt with in international court as crimes against humanity. Just remember, the worst acts in history were ALL perpetrated with the "best of intentions".

At any rate, I want to see more of these poor, third world countries standing up to missionaries, charging and imprisoning them for crimes like those of the 10 Christians in Haiti. If all third world nations did this, then perhaps just that would be a big enough deterrent to stop missionaries entering those countries in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

The Australian Film and Television industry have lost a class action against West Australian ISP iiNet. The brief charged iiNet with authorising it's users to breach copyright laws by allowing them to use bit torrent software.

With common sense on his side Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that iiNet was not responsible for the breach of copyright. Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft who launched the action are of cause very upset with the decision with their spokesman Neil Gane stating
"It's very difficult for the movie industries to compete with a free alternative which is perpetrated by theft"

You're right Mr Gane it is difficult to continue to make billion dollar returns on movies you make when people can download them for free. But with movies like Avatar making 1 billion dollars at the box office in the first 3 days of it's US release I hardly think the industry is in any real danger. What the industry needs to understand is that regardless of what laws the bring in, someone will always be offering free copies of the latest movies. And people will continue to download them, and that isn't always a bad thing. Most of the time these downloaded copies are of poor quality, and certainly never anything approaching High Def.

If people want to see a movie in good quality, their only real choice is to purchase it. So the Movie and Television industry need to look at these downloads as a way for people to preview a movie by watching it in low quality, then if they like the movie they'll of course be much more likely to go out and buy it. That said however, the price of cinema tickets and DVDs certainly doesn't help the piracy issue. Honestly why pay $20 each to go see a movie at the cinema when you can download the movie for free?

Heck, even if you couldn't download it for free, there would still be an almost equally sized amount of people not going to see movies at the cinema simply because they don't want to pay the exorbitant prices. At the end of the day, movies were invented as the working mans pass time, they were meant to be affordable. But instead modern studios have increased prices to unbelievable levels and they're still going up. Here's a hint for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, drop the prices and you'll immediately see more people buying your products legitimately.

Thankfully todays judgement by Justice Cowdroy is likely to be adopted in the US, EU and UK as we all share and model copyright law from each other. This means ISPs a likely to remain without blame for the piracy issue.

Links;

ABC News Article

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?

It was "revealed" in todays Sunday mail (and I assume at least all other APP publications) that murdered multimillionaire businessman Herman Rockefeller met his killers through an internet sex site. The article continued he had "at least five (5) secret pre-paid mobile phones" and had "at least one mystery girlfriend".

The article also noted that Mr Rockefeller is a married man with 2 children before it continued to drag his name through the proverbial mud. I find it utterly appalling, that a journalist would stoop so low as to write such an article. A man has been killed, and I honestly don't see how his past transgressions are any of our business. Indeed, by making such public statements about the man when he has only recently been murdered must be causing untolled heart-ache and distress to his family.

And the worst part of the whole thing morally is that Herman Rockefeller isn't here to defend himself. At any rate I fail to see how the interworkings of anyones personal life, including their transgressions, where they don't directly effect public life, should become public knowledge. I'm sick of hearing about this or that persons sexual transgressions, it's none of my business nor is it any of yours. It only adds mountain to an already painful situation. It also cheapens the publication, reducing it to little more than a trashy tabloid magazine. I feel journalists should be legislated in such a way as to prevent them reporting on such things.

If it doesn't effect more people than a persons private family, then it honestly shouldn't be reported on.

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 thought I'd start doing a weekly wrap-up by way of vodcast. We've had a bit of a problem getting the video on YouTube as it runs for 13 minutes and YouTube apparently don't want to know you if your video goes over 10 minutes. So contray to what the video says, currently you can't want this episode on YouTube. I will keep you posted as to developments on whether we decide to trim future vodcasts to fit youtube, or just give them the flick.

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

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

Imagine for a moment if you will, a world where your every action, your every personal whim is public domain. Imagine for a moment, the erosion of privacy in such a way as to allow corporations to know more about you than you know about yourself so they can advertise products directly to you. Image becoming even more of a consumer slave than you already are.

Imagine no longer, for this is the future that awaits. Advertising companies like Google and Facebook thrive on this information, without it they would be pennyless. So it comes as no surprise they are ever changing their privacy policies to allow just that little bit more of your information to be collected and collated.

Lets take Facebook as an example. Their recent privacy policy change makes way for new services to be introduced such as the new partnership with Microsoft. By linking you Xbox 360 to facebook you allow them to gather an incredible amount of data about your life. Not only what games, movies and music you play, watch and listen to. But also what times of day and in what manner you interact with them. What source they come from (great for weeding out pirate or download copies of movies, games and music), how long you interact with them.

They learn about your habits, just that little bit more. On it's own perhaps it's not so bad. But put that together with all the other information they have on you, your photos', your countless comments and status updates, your messages... it's all there for them to collate in order to produce a reliable picture of who you are. Take it in that context and it's just one more piece of the puzzle.

But lets escape the internet world for a moment and move to bricks and morter retail. What loyalty cards have been doing for years, soon RFID will do automatically. That is to say, track your purchases. We are fast moving into a world where each and every product you buy will be marked with an RFID chip. This means when you go to the store there will be no waiting in a queue, you simple exit the store with the things you want to buy.

A RFID frequency scanner will pick up all the items you have and charge them directly to your bank account or credit card. Sure that sounds super quick and easy. But it also means they'll know what days you shop, at what time, and what items you buy on what days. Your patterns will be analysed and targeted advertising can be delivered to you.

This of course is simple the tip of the ice-burg. There is plenty more to come, the implementation of free flowing tolls and smart card public transport ticketing are examples. Privacy folks is a thing of the past; we've given it up every time we sign up to a service like facebook. The big question is, will our children, or our grandchildren even have a proper concept of what privacy even is?

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

Recently facebook have decided to make their second change to their privacy statement in 4 months. Each successive change seems to be loosening the statement to remove privacy rights and allow them to share more of your personal information with a greater number of people. What is worse is that unless you’re a fan of the “facebook site governance” page than you won’t know about the changes, which you automatically agree to, by being a part of the site.

For a company that continually claim to be fully transparent, it’s a bit of a contradiction to hide these changes from the bulk of users, requiring users to fan a page they most likely have no idea exists. To make matters worse, while they claim to be letting their users whom actually are fans of the page give their input to the changes, it seems very much to be falling on deaf ears. Of the 1720 people who had commented by 2pm AEST on the 30th of October, all of them had issues with the new privacy statement. Yet none of their concerns have to date been met with any response from facebook and the changes are still going ahead.

The major points in the Facebook privacy statement to be wary of include the following quotes from the statement itself as displayed on facebook 30 October 2009.

"Access Device and Browser Information. When you access Facebook from a computer, mobile phone or other device, we may collect information from that device about your browser type, location, and IP address, as well as the pages you visit."

Which gives them the right to build a database of devices, browsers, locations and IPs you use to access your information. This information paints a accurate picture of not only how, when and were you access facebook and the greater internet at large, but also places you go often, who your ISP is and an assortment of other information about you.

"We may receive information about whether or not you’ve seen or interacted with certain ads on other sites in order to measure the effectiveness of those ads....If in any of these cases we receive data that we do not already have, we will “anonymize” it within 180 days, meaning we will stop associating the information with any particular user"

This essentially gives facebook the right to place cookies on the device you used to access facebook and track which pages you use, how you interact with those pages and capture the data you input into those pages. It also grants them the right to find out directly from partner companies information they have gathered about you. All of said information gathered is then linked to YOU personally for the first 6 months before it, quite illogically is then made "anonymous". That is to say, your surfing habits, websites you visit, purchases you make, your credit card information, passwords and other personal information you input in other websites is collected by facebook, stored and linked to you. THAT is scary stuff.

"Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available, and therefore do not have privacy settings."

To bad if you only wanted your friends to be able to see your profile picture. Want to fan some pages? Be prepared for everyone you know to know about it. I'm sorry, but there are some things about my friends I just don't want to know.

"Information set to “everyone” is publicly available information, may be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), is subject to indexing by third party search engines, may be associated with you outside of Facebook (such as when you visit other sites on the internet), and may be imported and exported by us and others without privacy limitations. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.”"

This means everything in the previous quote is accessible ANYWHERE on the internet, by ANYONE, will be searchable in google plus most other search engines and may be used by anyone who stumbles across this information for whatever purposes they see fit. It also means any information whose privacy settings you haven't actively changed from "everyone" is just as searchable in the same places. That includes phone numbers, email addresses, IM addresses, other personal information which you have entered into facebook, photos, videos and more.

"when you visit Facebook-enhanced applications and websites you are making your Facebook information available to someone other than Facebook. To help those applications and sites operate, they receive publicly available information automatically when you visit them, and additional information when you formally authorize or connect your Facebook account with them."

If it's set to "everyone" and is therefore "publicly available" then facebook don't need your permission to give this information to applications. They only require your authorization for information which is not "publicly available".

"Even after you remove information from your profile or delete your account, copies of that information may remain viewable elsewhere to the extent it has been shared with others, it was otherwise distributed pursuant to your privacy settings, or it was copied or stored by other users."

AND

"You understand that information might be re-shared or copied by other users."

Together add up to facebook giving people a green light to steal photo's, videos, information and other content from other users, without permission. The green light for them to store it and do with it what they see fit. Facebook will take no responsibility for such actions and will NOT publish any user for such actions. They are furthermore stating that just because you delete your account doesn't mean that the information you have given won't be searchable on google or other search engines. Essentially your information can never be deleted once it's on facebook.

"Although we allow you to set privacy options that limit access to your information, please be aware that no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. We cannot control the actions of other users with whom you share your information. We cannot guarantee that only authorized persons will view your information. We cannot ensure that information you share on Facebook will not become publicly available. We are not responsible for third party circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures on Facebook. You can reduce these risks by using common sense security practices such as choosing a strong password, using different passwords for different services, and using up to date antivirus software."

So basically if something goes wrong, it isn't there fault. Awesome.

Facebook boast 2 million pieces of content shared daily on their website, 20 billion pieces of content shared on facebook since its inception. Each one of those pieces of content is bound by the statements in the privacy statement. Each one of those pieces of content is now out in the great expanse of the internet for anyone, anywhere to do with as they see fit. Think about it, everything you share on facebook is collected, stored, shared and accessible. Every status message you put up, everyone photo, every website you visit, ad you click and don't click, everything.

How many of you have set your status to "is watching blah blah movie" or "is listening to blah blah song" or "is going here". Facebook get to store that information. Think of how well they know you, how accurate a picture they can make of who you are. Now think of this, their privacy statement lets them share that information with "partner companies". This is no longer a case of advertisers going well 51% of the population like this sort of advertising. It's a case of Joe Blogs likes x, y and z and it's best to advertise it in this way, on this day because this is when he will be doing whatever. Jane Doe on the other hand likes a, b and z and it's best to advertise to her in this way, in the afternoon because thats when she is the least busy.

The scariest thing is that there is no way for you to delete this information. No way to get it back. It's out there, forever, for everyone to see. Best we can do is either stop putting anything else personal on facebook or simply delete your facebook account. Sure you won't get your information back or delete it, but you'll at least stop anything else from becoming "publicly available" and isn't THAT at least some sort of solace?

Links;

Facebook Privacy Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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