Australia; The greatest country on the planet. Not great simply because I was born here and am a patriot, Not great because of it's alliance with powerful nations like the U.S.A and Britain. Not even great because of it's political accomplishments. And whilst it is an absolutely stunningly beautiful country, that fact only adds to it's greatness, not encompasses its greatness. The true key reason Australia is the greatest country on the planet is the people. The humour, character, ingenuity and strong will of the Australian people defines this amazing nation. Our helpful, friendly and laid back nature lay at the very soul of our awesome land.

But for all the greatness we possess, it could be; and arguably should be; even better. For all the friendliness there lacks a significant unity which detracts from our quality of life. I would like to see that change. I would love to see an Australia where regardless of your gender, skin colour or religious beliefs you are paid the same wage as everyone else in your employing organisation performing the same job. I would like to see an Australia where minority groups stop drawing attention to the fact they're different and a minority; Where every citizen was meaningfully united under the same banner as Australians.

Where the soul of our country truly comes alive and is embodied in all of its citizens to meaningfully work together to better their communities and the nation as a whole. I do not see any valid reason why every Australian, regardless of whether they live in a city, a small town or in the regional outback should not both expect and receive the same quality and abundance of services. I see no valid reason why 2 people regardless of gender should not be able to come together in love.

As we move into an era where our climate is change dramatically, where the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological arms is ever growing & where terrorism from all sides is a persistent problem, our petty differences of gender, race, sexuality and nationality begin to seem insignificant and trivial. Ultimately any country can only be as great as it's people, it can only be what it's people make it. So here and now we, as Australians must decide how great we want our country to be and where we want to take it in the future for our children and grandchildren. Together, there is no problem the world is facing that we can not over-come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

News Article

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

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

Links;

Australian National Democratic Party (facebook fan page)

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

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 Aboriginals alive today where alive in 1788 when Australia was colonised by the British? Oh right that would be zero. Ok, so what about the generation immediately before them, 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 or worse 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; whom now can just see a lack of movement by the Aboriginal community to better themselves. People who once backed Aboriginals, can now just see Aboriginals seem 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 think some of the most amazing Australians ever have been Aboriginals who did something with themselves), 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.

It'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 free money, put all that energy into bettering the country for ALL Australians not just a select minority. If we want to stop racism, then those who feel persecuted against have to stop making themselves out to be so different! Stop going on that you're black because the colour of your skin makes no difference to me, that you're aboriginal, that you need this special treatment or blah blah blah. Just get on with it and people will follow suit. Geez, common sense much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

iTWire Article

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

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

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

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

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

and continuing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

iTWire Article

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Stephen Conroy

------

Mark Newton's letter:

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

Dear Ms Ellis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The government has not demonstrated that online censorship is effective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusion

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

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

I call upon you to:

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Mark Newton

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

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

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

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

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

Well the Labor website has said:

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, this sounds like a seriously terrible idea to me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

links;

Sri Lanka Tourism
UNHCR article
Sri Lanka Tourism Portal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

Child Support Agency

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

ABC news story on OneSteel

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

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

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

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

Links;

ABC News story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

Greens website

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

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

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

Links;

ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We need both pieces of legislation."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we head ever closer to the Digital TV switch, consumer demand for lower cost LCD televisions has born a reduction in prices and I predict it's only going to get better. This week Big-W announced a price drop of $200AUD on their Sanyo 40" LCD 1080p televisions, now retailing for $996AUD it's capable of receiving and viewing True HD Digital TV all for under a grand.

Previously to get a TV of that size, for that price you had to buy Plasma, but as we all know Plasma is a poor investment as the gas runs out within 6 years and you're just left with a rather expensive paper weight. We are finally seeing the beginnings of a reduction in LCD prices such that the average Joe Blow can enjoy the technology previously only available to the wealthy or debt inclined.

In an economy which is springing back to life again after a government induced downturn, the timing for LCD prices to drop couldn't be better. And I predict it's only going to get better as we draw closer to the deadline. Over the next 12 or so months, as Digital TV take up increases and the Movie studio's push Blu-Ray expect the price of LCD TVs to drop in general another 2-3 hundred dollars if not more.

This will put the average 40" LCD TV at around $800AUD, which is a very reasonable price and inside the budgets of the average Australian (even if they do have to lay-by it). As the pushers of these new technologies get evermore desperate to upgrade everyone, expect some good things to come.

In Queensland we have massive population growth; with each week bringing a few hundred people to our state. Our infrastructure is already failing, as I talked about in Wednesdays post. It also seems to be people from India, Africa and Asia whom are flooding in the most and there is much new coverage on this.

But what no one seems to be talking about is societies most vulnerable; those who struggle daily to keep a roof over their head and food on their table. Those whom are unemployed or working for minimum (or sometimes below minimum) wage.

It is the poorer areas of South East Queensland like Logan, Ipswich and Caboolture which are seeing the most dramatic influxes of people. This new demand for housing pushes the housing price up, bringing higher paid people who then demand better standards of living, better resources and infrastructure. When delivered, the housing prices again rise, bringing even higher paid people in whom start the cycle over again.

And so it continues over 15 - 20 years until the area grows and develops into a rich, sort after suburb. So if this is the fate of Logan, Ipswich and Caboolture, where exactly will the poor people whom classically live in these places be displaced to?

Already developers in co-operation with the Ipswich City Council and Queensland Government have plans to turn Ipswich and it's surrounding Ripley Valley area into a Mega City, projected to rival Sydney in size. New estates are popping up every day as more land, which once was farms become zoned for development. High rise apartments have started to appear in Ipswich CBD, which will one day be grander than Brisbane.

But for now, Ipswich still contains a large percentage of people who can barely rub two dollars together. And it is the fate of these people would should concern ourselves with. Growth and development are great, brilliant for the economy, but we must not forget the people factor in this, else end up with a homeless problem resulting. Or a position where people have to travel several hours in each direction, each day in order to get to work, as they are pushed further into rural towns.

And this to destroys the very culture of these towns. Will it one day be the case that the great Australian outback won't exist anymore? That out of shear over population and piss poor immigration laws, the outback town will go the way of the dodo, replaced by cities and suburbs? And if this is the case, where will food production come from as more farms are brought up to make way for housing? Will we become a country dependent on imports for food supply?

Queenslanders for several years have apparently bathed in the humble glory that was the petrol excise. The Queensland government would pay 8c per litre of petrol you brought in aide of keeping petrol prices down. But now the Bligh government have drowned the state in debt the excise has been hopelessly abandoned.

As of July 1 petrol was meant to be 8c per litre more expensive right? But 17 days after the excise has been dropped that isn't what we're seeing. Indeed it's very much prices as usual as if nothing changed at all. Petrol is still hovering between $1.16/L and $1.29/L on June 29 Petrol was $1.30/L so it's actually managed to drop since the excise was removed.

This leads to one hopefully obvious question. If petrol stations are delivering petrol to us for the same price per litre at the pump now, as when the petrol excise was around, did we ever actually benefit from the governments generosity? Or did the petrol stations pocket the money as an extra money stream on top of their already outrageous prices? As Queenslanders I think we have a right to know what happened to the some 500 Million taxpayer Dollars which went into the petrol excise scheme. I for one am not up for petrol stations double dipping into my pocket, taking from me at full price then taking from tax money. How about you?

People are flocking to Queensland in the hundreds, with an estimated 124 people showing up in Ipswich ( of all places ) every week! For an area of that size, with a single public hospital covering it, 6448 new people moving there a year is far too many. That's 6448 new people on top of standard population growth by way of births and will see infrastructure and standards crumble even further.

As it standards there are no major developments planned on hospitals in South East Queensland, and certainly not in Ipswich. While there are planned upgrades to public transport they are limited to Queensland rail (by way of duplicating lines) and to Brisbane City Council Buses. All other areas of South East Queensland which, mind you are the fastest growing, are left with no upgrades.

Here we have a situation where people are flooding into Queensland all of a sudden, and the state and local governments are dumb founded as to what to do next. We have issues with water because of it and are getting close to a point where we will soon find electricity rationing essential as well. The housing market as well is over run, making it next to impossible to find a rental property, although I'm sure the real estates are loving the artificially boosted housing prices.

Queenslanders are used to a certain standard and quality of life and while I appreciate how tempting that way of life might be, people need to understand that only a certain amount can enjoy it. Beyond that amount the boat starts to sink so to speak, ruining it for everyone. Of course the matter is made dramatically worse by the clueless Bligh government which was voted into staying for another 3 years recently.

I must say that I am concerned about the living environment which we will be forced to reside in within the next 5 to 10 years. An I am concerned with the amount of fresh immigrants who are flocking into Queensland. Someone certainly needs to turn the tap off on people who are immigrating to Australia coming to live in Queensland. At least for the time being whilst the government sorts itself out and fixes the infrastructure. I'm sure there are parts of Australia far more in need of population boosts and if not, perhaps it's time to consider slowing the stem of immigration into the country period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

Iceland foods Ltd.

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

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

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

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

Links;

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

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

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

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

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

Links;

P!nk speaks for PETA

Federal Finance minister Lindsey Tanner stated on insiders this morning that Australia has been in a "decade of complacency" that "the good times are over, and the bad times are now". That it is a "time for hard decisions" and for "high productivity". He went on to say that "productivity" would be the word that drives Australia for the next few years.

But Lindsey, productivity is a word that drives any economy or business regardless of what economic times we're in. In fact it is when there is a lack of productivity that economies and businesses collapse. It is true however that most of Australia and in fact the rest of the world is no where near as efficient or productive as they could or should be.

But Mr Tanner makes these comments on the back of a 0.4% growth in the economy over the first quarter of this year. That is to say, while the government where announcing for the second time that Australia was in a recession, our economy was actually growing, even as slightly as it has. This 0.4% by no means equates to us having no problems in the economy, but Australia is definitely NOT in a recession. The Annual growth of GDP is 0. And while that means annual GDP has no growth, it also means we aren't losing anything either.

I agree that this should be a time for high productivity, but I take that further. I think high productivity should be constant, and if it remains so then the economy should be able to absorb little influxes like this.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. The down turn in our economy has been artificially made worse by the Rudd/Labor government and their careless flaunting of words like recession. How are you meant to have consumer confidence, and thus inspire growth when everyone thinks we're in "the worst economy times in 75 years". I'm sorry Swannie, but we aren't. The recession of the 1990's was well worse then this down turn and it doesn't even rate amongst other recessions in the last 75 years.

I can't help but wonder what that 0.4% growth would have been if the government hadn't been screaming bloody murder and undermining consumer confidence. At the end of the day, if you lose your job as a result of this downturn, you have one (1) person to blame. Kevin Rudd, because he reduced our economy to levels where your job had to go. Remember that at the next election won't you.