Friends, family and fellow journeyers of life,
In the spirit of the festive season I wish you joy and peace ...
... in amongst the corny jokes and silly hats, whining kids, paper cuts, sunburn, carpet burn, grazed knees, poked eyes, pulled hair, gluttony, intoxication, hangovers, accidentally drinking the bottle of Grange, busted toys, missing batteries, things you never wanted, gifts you'll never use, presents you don't even understand, overflowing bins of garbage, sinks full of dishes, mozies and flies galore, overturned pot plants, cricket balls thru the neighbour's window, toddlers whacked with totem tennis racquets, siblings drowning each other in the pool, groin injuries, all night parties down the road, blaring music, police sirens, smashed bottles, slashed tyres, broken side mirrors, burnouts on the front lawn, broken sprinkler heads, rolling drunk uncle Joe, skinny dipping great aunt Ethel, and other relatives you wish you could sell into slavery, ...
Yes ... I do hope you all find that precious moment of joy and peace ... somewhere, quietly, alone, even for just a few seconds !
Season's Greetings!
:-)
Clima-facsism
Clima-fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with anthropomorphic climate change, in which a mass-based grouping of committed environmental militants, manipulated by and working in an uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues its anti-humanistic goals through the manipulation and suppression of debate, without ethical or legal restraints [Courtesy of Open Your Eyes News]
its basis:
Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]
its basis:
Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]
P***** Off!
POLEMICOL polysemously proposes to profusely ponder and promote the polymorphic potentiality and perpetuity of policing political polemics through perpetration of proscribed pyrolysis in pandemic proportions.
RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!
It is a day of many and mixed emotions when one's nemesis passes away. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty, Batman without Catwoman, Superman without Lex Luthor.
It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.
Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.
That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.
Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.
One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)
And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.
Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.
It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.
Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.
That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.
Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.
One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)
Dear Friends,
It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.
A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.
Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.
He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.
There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.
He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.
People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.
Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats
And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.
Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.
Not recommended for vegans!
Following on from my posts about killing day old chickens and the dolphin for food campaign I thought I would share this enlightening fictional perspective written by Terry Bisson.
The title is also the first line; it thus commences:
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Full story here
The title is also the first line; it thus commences:
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
Full story here
Closer to A Brave New World
In a recent post I asked "Is a virus secretly killing you?" and cited growing examples of how common and uncommon virii are being connected with various cancers.
Here is more research that points to the same conclusion, this time in relation to prostate cancer.
Big pharma must be joyous at the opportunity to develop more and more vaccines. Meanwhile the world's fresh food supply is becoming more restricted leading up to the implementation of codex alimentarius.
I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of soma and soylent in the marketplace.
Here is more research that points to the same conclusion, this time in relation to prostate cancer.
Big pharma must be joyous at the opportunity to develop more and more vaccines. Meanwhile the world's fresh food supply is becoming more restricted leading up to the implementation of codex alimentarius.
I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of soma and soylent in the marketplace.
Dolphin Dilemma
Simultaneously published at Online Opinion
It is both intriguing and bewildering watching the fallout and resulting hype over the documentary The Cove which portrays animal activists, led by Flipper trainer Ric O’Barry, outing the not-so “secret” practice of dolphin fishing in Japan.
At the heart of this political campaign is the emotional bond that we have been conditioned to believe exists between dolphin and human; that somehow dolphins are more human than other animals and thus deserving of something more than what we give to other animals. On the other side is a tradition spanning thousands of years across many cultures all around the world; that dolphins are a genuine food source.
According to the campaign material on various websites in support of or directly related to the movie, the purpose of the film is to alert people to the “heinous” activity and gain support in demanding that the Japanese government ban the practice. They raise only the following few points:
- 20,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed each year in Japan;
- the way in which the dolphins are killed is "brutal";
- Japanese consumers are being sold dolphin meat;
- the meat can contain high levels of mercury; and
- the meat is often labelled as whale meat.
One could be forgiven for thinking that the aim is to prevent dolphins and porpoises from being killed (full stop) and that the other issues (the horror of death; that Japanese people are barbaric for eating dolphin meat; health and safety of consumers is at risk due to toxins; and illegal trading practices include mislabelling of seafood) are merely designed to attract a sympathetic audience from as far and wide as possible.
Subsequently, I’m not going to be drawn on debating some of these points in detail as they are simply red herrings, which I will explain shortly. My intention herein is to play Devil’s advocate by taking a philosophical look at each of the other points raised by the filmmakers to determine whether the practice of dolphin fishing is indeed as bad as they suggest.
Ultimately the question open for debate is whether dolphin meat should be available for consumption. Individual moral values aside, there are only three points to logically consider when determining whether we should eat a particular food (be it beast or plant):
- Is the food fit for human consumption? It must be nutritious, palatable and have no ill side effects.
- Will consumption hasten the extinction of that species or be detrimental to the population in a particular area?
- Are the practices of bringing the food to the table the best available? Are they environmentally sound, humane, hygienic, efficient, competitive and honest?
Let’s look at these in detail for the example of dolphins and porpoises in light of the movie, The Cove. First, dolphins, whales and other cetaceans have been an integral part of the diet of numerous cultures for many thousands of years. Technically it is a nutritious and pleasant food to consume if you don't draw any conscious familiarity to Flipper. Those that are squeamish about the concept are likely to have similar issues with eating Bambi or Thumper.
Concerns about toxins, such as cadmium or mercury, are justified but are equally applicable to other seafood caught from the same waters as the dolphins. All pollution eventually reaches the oceans, so seafood has experienced increased levels of toxicity in recent decades and the developing nations of Asia are the leading culprits.
Similarly, we have examples in Australia where a cheap fish is substituted for an expensive one, such as barramundi. Labelling and toxicity are matters for the relevant agencies to address and most consumers are right to expect their food to be labelled correctly and to know that it meets health guidelines, no matter whether it was chicken or whale.
These are not issues unique to Japan or the dolphin trade and both arguments are simply red herrings. Thus, there is no gastronomic or biological reason for banning dolphin as a food item. Let’s move on.
As to the second question of extinction, my research indicates that this isn't a critical issue for dolphins like it is with, say, whales, the great cats or the orang-utans. With the exception of a few localised problems (e.g. Solomon Islands dolphin population being relatively small), global dolphin populations are quite safe. 20,000 per year may seem like a large number, but it represents about one third of a per cent (0.0033 per cent) of the world dolphin population.
“According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” (National Geographic, August 2009)
In comparison, it is estimated that there are fewer than 5,000 blue whales, no more than 8,000 right whales, less than 50,000 fin whales and about only 60,000 humpback whales in existence (International Whaling Commission). But even these represent high populations when you look at the plight of the tigers with less than 7,500 worldwide with three of the eight sub-species already declared extinct (The Global Tiger Forum).
On the flipside chickens are almost exclusively farmed to meet human food needs and rarely exist in the wild. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “The world population of domestic chickens increased by 160%, from 13.5 billion in 1998 to 35 billion in 2006” (Assist America). The vast majority of these birds are killed for food every year and our growing demand ironically ensures the survival of that species, as they almost certainly could not survive in the wild. Modern cattle, swine and sheep also enjoy high populations almost exclusively to serve human needs.
It’s important to highlight some points about farming. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to "farm" dolphins, captive breeding (modern farming) isn't always good for the animal, the species or the consumer. It requires more intensive land use and is often reliant on antibiotics, pesticides and nutritional supplements. Additionally, pollutants are a common issue across most Asian seafood so if a dolphin farm was developed (like a tuna farm) it would probably exist in the same polluted waters.
To argue, as I have heard some do, that dolphins are somehow different to other animals because they are not farmed is once again another red herring. If we were to farm dolphins in the same way that we farm tuna or salmon would that make the practice more acceptable? Perhaps not for those who are deep in the heart of the moral campaign. That makes it merely a straw man argument.
So now we come to the issue of herding and culling. Is it an unavoidable fact or an inhumane brutality? Again, let’s look at it from an objective perspective. Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. Killing involves shock, pain and bloodshed as anyone would expect. Unfortunately it is not efficient to put every animal “to sleep” with a chemical before slaughtering it. What we all would hope is that we engage best practice in our methodology. If we discover a better way to kill a cow that doesn’t drastically increase the costs, we should employ it.
The question therefore, is not about whether the practice of herding dolphins into coves for slaughter is barbaric, brutal or inhumane. Instead it is about whether a suitable alternative exists. I have found none, but I’m open to being educated on the subject and will gladly campaign for the worldwide introduction of such methods if they exist.
DO NOT WATCH IF SQUEAMISH! - Dolphin slaughter in Japan
Currently it can take a few minutes for a dolphin to die after it is cut open and bleeds to death - the same method is used to slaughter pigs, albeit after they receive an electric shock and they are hung upside down to hasten the bloodletting. I have a feeling that electricity and water would not be a good recipe for dolphin fishing, but perhaps the hanging of the carcass would make the event swifter and ease any suffering.
There is a distinct similarity between herding cetaceans and trawling for fish, however the trawl is less efficient due to the large amount of by-catch taken. Additionally, fish can take much longer to “suffocate” out of the water, resulting in higher levels of stress than other produce.
The only other difference is the cuteness and human-like qualities we observe in the prey. Anyone who has owned pet fish, mice, birds, cats or dogs and studied their behaviour might see that dolphins are hardly unique and that it is we humans instead who have the cute animal-like qualities. Cuteness is hardly a rational argument for deciding what to eat.
In conclusion, if we have a food that is palatable, fit for consumption, honestly labelled and reaches our plate in a manner equal to that of other produce, as long as that food is from a sustainable population and not at risk of future extinction then there is no argument against it continuing to be available. Whether you choose to buy or consume it is entirely up to you.
Certainly, no adult should be forced to eat kangaroo if they don’t want to, but please don’t argue that I shouldn’t eat it because it’s cute, has feelings, isn’t humanely killed or simply because it happens to be on our coat of arms. Similarly, the arguments don’t stack up with dolphin!
At the current levels of dolphin fishing, matched against wild populations there is nothing to suggest we should stop the practice of dolphin fishing. It is simply not in the same league as whaling. However, there is clear evidence that we could improve the method of culling and that we should proceed with haste in that direction.
To those readers who might like to jump in and claim that I have skirted around or ignored the moral issues, please feel free to do so now. Your morals are your own and they should direct your life, not anyone else’s and least of all mine.
All I'm asking is that people understand why they are reacting in horror upon watching The Cove - ultimately because it’s a cute dolphin and not an ugly pig.
Ask yourself “if a dolphin farm existed (like a tuna farm), that was free from pollutants and they were slaughtered as humanely as possible - would you allow dolphin meat to be sold?” If not, why not? Can you find a single reason that isn’t purely emotional and tied to your programmed conditioning of what a cute dolphin represents?
For the record, I eat meat - I know how it gets to my plate and I'm OK with it. Most people don't want to know because knowledge means accepting responsibility.
How to kill a day old chicken
There is a fair bit of hype going around the Internet at the moment about this video showing day old male chickens being "ground alive".
WARNING: do not watch the video if you are squeamish about how your food is produced!
According to this article on the RSPCA website:
"The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=3451) states that all culled or surplus newly hatched chicks that are destined for disposal must be treated as humanely as those that will be retained or sold. They must be destroyed promptly by a recommended humane method such as carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration."If the RSPCA believe that being ground alive is a quick and humane death, then that is good enough for me.
Who's for a roast chook?
On Monday (7 September 2009) I will be publishing a detailed article (on OnlineOpinion as well as here) with regard to dolphin fishing, which is practiced around the world in many countries but has been highlighted in the new film The Cove.
I take a look at the arguments raised by the film makers and test their veracity. You may be surprised at what I discover and the unusual conclusion that results.
A Brave New World
A simple, thought provoking quote from Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World:
And one from George Orwell's 1984:
You can stick to your daily routine and believe that everything is under control, or you can read, think and decide otherwise!
"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too - all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides - made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions... Suggestions from the State."
And one from George Orwell's 1984:
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
You can stick to your daily routine and believe that everything is under control, or you can read, think and decide otherwise!
Is a virus secretly killing you?
We should all heed this report which seems to confirm a long-held suspician that at least one strain of the enterovirus (the common cold) may be the cause of type 1 diabetes.
Combine this with the knowledge that 4 strains of the human papilloma virus (hpv) are the major cause of cervical cancer (now presumably prevented by the Gardasil vaccine), and that several other strains of the same virus causes cancer in various other parts of the body, including the anus and bowel.
HPV is also a common virus with more than 100 strains and carried by up to 50% of the population. As such it was never thought to pose much risk to human life, merely presenting itself in the form of warts in the affected part of the body.
Both discoveries should raise an obvious question to any logical thinker; Are common virii the blame for all our life-threatening ailments? If so, what does that mean for the future of human health, longevity and the future success of pharmaceutical vaccines?
Combine this with the knowledge that 4 strains of the human papilloma virus (hpv) are the major cause of cervical cancer (now presumably prevented by the Gardasil vaccine), and that several other strains of the same virus causes cancer in various other parts of the body, including the anus and bowel.
HPV is also a common virus with more than 100 strains and carried by up to 50% of the population. As such it was never thought to pose much risk to human life, merely presenting itself in the form of warts in the affected part of the body.
Both discoveries should raise an obvious question to any logical thinker; Are common virii the blame for all our life-threatening ailments? If so, what does that mean for the future of human health, longevity and the future success of pharmaceutical vaccines?
Bruno & homophobia - let's get real people!
There has been a lot of hype about Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest movie squirm-fest that is sure to leave you horrified or laughing hysterically. I was hysterically horrified, but then I found Borat to be provocatively amusing too.
Much of the media focus has been on predictable complaints about it being homophobic. Really? Yes - seriously. Some people are so far up their own activist arses that they enjoy a little tonsil hockey at the same time!
People like Colin Wilson at Socialist Worker are on the warpath by stamping their feet at any heterosexual that dares to highlight the taboo world of internalised homophobia. They claim that any fun made of anal sex must be an attack on gays around the world. Well, the last time I checked, gay men did not have the sole rights to anal sex, in fact I'm fairly certain that Eve asked Adam for it once or twice!
These infantile man-bag burners wave the banner of gay activism as if they were rampaging misandrists of a former era tarnishing the proud feminist movement.
Gay rights were born from the feminist campaigns of earlier decades, but just as we see today in the fundamentalist gay movement, there were a number feminazis that took things to the extreme and believed that every symbol of maleness was evil - even the word man, whose original meaning was all of humanity, regardless of sex or age.
Come on people - get your head out of your arse and grab a sense of humour before you die from suffocation due to an overdose of self-felching! Get a grip and focus on the real issues that plague human rights. This film is a satirical comedy that actually normalises gay sex through its confronting nakedness on all things gay.
I welcome it, I embrace it and I'll take the mind fuck completely!
Well done Sacha!
The silliest debate I've seen all year
I was shocked to read on Online Opinion, an article titled Anti-Populationists - the New Imperialists by Malcolm King.
It was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, pseudo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.
I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.
Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".
I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.
Malcolm claims some superiority without actually providing any evidence to support his argument or disprove the "anti-populationist" view. He appears to have a disliking for Sandra Kanck (and as both he and I are ex-Democrats I can totally understand that feeling *smirk*) but this feeling, rather than logic, seems to be driving his argument.
I particularly like this attack:
Given that Malcolm also referenced carbon emissions, I presume that he is a believer in man made climate change, so I put the same argument back at him as my proof that climate change is NOT an issue to be concerned about:
Whoops, Malcolm!
The reality is that the rise or fall in population of any species is known to have dramatic and measurable effects upon any local environment. We've seen it with fish, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and thousands of others in modern history. Ecosystems while being generally robust and hardy are also delicately trying to maintain balance.
Humans are one of the few, if not the only, global species pervading and having a major effect on the local and global environments. To think otherwise is pure insanity.
It was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, pseudo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.
I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.
Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".
I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.
Malcolm claims some superiority without actually providing any evidence to support his argument or disprove the "anti-populationist" view. He appears to have a disliking for Sandra Kanck (and as both he and I are ex-Democrats I can totally understand that feeling *smirk*) but this feeling, rather than logic, seems to be driving his argument.
I particularly like this attack:
The anti-pops use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:
a. population is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of population.
Given that Malcolm also referenced carbon emissions, I presume that he is a believer in man made climate change, so I put the same argument back at him as my proof that climate change is NOT an issue to be concerned about:
The climate-changeists use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:
a. CO2 is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of CO2.
Whoops, Malcolm!
The reality is that the rise or fall in population of any species is known to have dramatic and measurable effects upon any local environment. We've seen it with fish, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and thousands of others in modern history. Ecosystems while being generally robust and hardy are also delicately trying to maintain balance.
Humans are one of the few, if not the only, global species pervading and having a major effect on the local and global environments. To think otherwise is pure insanity.
Spiralling inwards, together
I've been intrigued by my observations as I attempt to objectively watch myself and my friends over the last few months traversing this strange existence we call life. The turmoil of love and love lost, of work and career, hefty responsibilities and high expectations.
The insurmountable pressure we place upon ourselves in order to fit into the mould that society has shaped for us is often a crazy and illogical cacophony of irrelevance and distraction.
Until today, it simply felt that we were all caught in a dark and dangerous whirlpool; a vortex that was swirling around and drawing us closer to the centre of inevitability to be engulfed and taken to oblivion ... and so we fight and struggle to move away from its awesome power.
But my realisation today is that we are fearful of a force that we do not properly understand. Instead of a foe it is, perhaps, simply trying to bring us together.
By allowing ourselves to be taken on this ride we share our vulnerability with each other and highlight that our basic desire to maintain control is unnecessary. It is not only a less strenuous pathway, it is actually enjoyable and worthwhile in developing the strong bonds of lifelong friendships.
Another valuable lesson that living in the moment and allowing oneself to simply 'be' is a very liberating and exciting state of existence.
The insurmountable pressure we place upon ourselves in order to fit into the mould that society has shaped for us is often a crazy and illogical cacophony of irrelevance and distraction.
Until today, it simply felt that we were all caught in a dark and dangerous whirlpool; a vortex that was swirling around and drawing us closer to the centre of inevitability to be engulfed and taken to oblivion ... and so we fight and struggle to move away from its awesome power.
But my realisation today is that we are fearful of a force that we do not properly understand. Instead of a foe it is, perhaps, simply trying to bring us together.
By allowing ourselves to be taken on this ride we share our vulnerability with each other and highlight that our basic desire to maintain control is unnecessary. It is not only a less strenuous pathway, it is actually enjoyable and worthwhile in developing the strong bonds of lifelong friendships.
Another valuable lesson that living in the moment and allowing oneself to simply 'be' is a very liberating and exciting state of existence.
In Memoriam, One Year On
In Memory of
Rowan Barrett
1973 - 2008
etched forever in my mind, the joy we shared
on one night's chanceful encounter
the quintessential mate of everyone you met
and they were proud to call you friend
but none was more honoured than this stranger,
to have simply met and shook your hand
and engage in cheerful conversation
among the festive crowd we were connected
dancing and laughing like children
in heart filled celebration
living a precious moment for our friend
without any qualms or social boundary
my life was more enriched
by the reach of your friendship and humanity
one night, but a moment in my life
that i would gladly exchange if it would bring you back
taken too soon, your time too short
no greater man whose passing can cement a memory
know that you are greatly missed
by those whom you deeply loved
and those, like me, you unknowingly touched
An Obituary
Received the following in an email. The source is attributed as being an obituary published in the London Times, although the BBC attributes it to Lori Borgman. There are also a few different versions across the Internet including this more parochial one.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, 'Common Sense', who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement .
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights; I Want It Now; Someone Else Is To Blame; I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.
If you still remember him, pass this on.
If not, join the majority and do nothing.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, 'Common Sense', who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement .
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights; I Want It Now; Someone Else Is To Blame; I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.
If you still remember him, pass this on.
If not, join the majority and do nothing.
A Micro Win for Civil Liberties
Anyone following my Twitter profile would know I was dealing with an issue at the Australian Tax Office in Northbridge. Here's how it was relayed on Twitter:
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
polemicol OH: ATO staff warning tourists "you can't take a photograph - its a government building" #ohperth #lie 10:20 AM Apr 8th
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan
The Commonwealth Government has announced what is undeniably a bold and visionary project to replace our nation’s aging telecommunications system with a digitally robust optic fibre network. It is a scheme that is being touted as Australia’s largest ever infrastructure project, requiring major investment by both government and private enterprise to the tune of around $43 billion.
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Ordinary World
Came in from a rainy ThursdayThose words I have heard a hundred times or more without actually listening to them. They come from "Ordinary World" a 1993 song written by Duran Duran about moving on from the grief of losing their colleague and friend, Simon Le Bon. I know it more fondly as the Aurora version, sung by the beautiful Naimee Coleman, an anthem to many a dance party I've attended over the years.
on the avenue
Thought I heard you talking softly
I turned on the lights, the TV
and the radio
Still I can't escape the ghost of you
What has happened to it all?Equally however, it is an anthem for moving on in life and overcoming the obstacles that seem to want to hold us in the past.
Crazy, some'd say
Where is the life that I recognize?
Gone away
But I won't cry for yesterday
There's an ordinary world
Somehow I have to find
And as I try to make my wayYearning for the past is where I currently reside and I know that I need to move on from yesterday to get back to the ordinary world.
To the ordinary world
I will learn to survive
Passion or coincidence
Once prompted you to say
"Pride will tear us both apart"
Well now pride's gone out the windowMany of my relationships have changed, work, love, family, friends, life - a beautiful portrait on canvas that now seems extraordinarily, almost hauntingly, empty and distant. Yet it calls for me to start new, to paint over it; to wreak havoc with it's beauty. A chance to create something new.
Cross the rooftops, run away
Left me in the vacuum of my heart
What is happening to me?Death, divorce, a lover's parting or even a fallout with a friend leaves us empty and hollow. Selfishly we ask, 'What about me? Where are you when I need you the most?' And so, my friend is gone.
Crazy, some'd say
Where is my friend when I need you most?
Gone away
But I won't cry for yesterdayWe want our lives to be extraordinary. But sometimes there are moments when we feel extraordinarily alone, extraordinarily empty, or extraordinarily lifeless. At these times we just want to find our way back to the ordinary world.
There's an ordinary world
Somehow I have to find
And as I try to make my way
To the ordinary world
I will learn to survive
Papers in the roadsideAnd how I might feel in this time of grief eclipses anything that is happening around me. But my sorrow and hurt is insignificant against the catastrophic suffering that others might face; those who have no concept of the beautiful ordinary world that I am a part of, and from which I have silently drifted.
Tell of suffering and greed
Here today, forgot tomorrow
Ooh, here besides the news
Of holy war and holy need
Ours is just a little sorrowed talk
And I don't cry for yesterdaySo I will survive; I do survive; we are all survivors of the ordinary world.
There's an ordinary world
Somehow I have to find
And as I try to make my way
To the ordinary world
I will learn to survive
Every one is my worldAnd because we survive in the ordinary world, we are together and we are not alone after all.
I will learn to survive
Any one is my world
I will learn to survive
Any one is my world
Every one is my world
Every one is a part of my beautiful ordinary world.
The Credit Crunch Explained
Another layman's explanation of the financial crisis has been forwarded to me by my good friend, Adam.
Please refer any further questions, anger, verbal abuse, vigilante justice, death threats and physical torment directly to your bank's senior management, as well as those rogue financial planners, parasitic mortgage brokers and investment con artists :-)
The Credit Crunch Explained
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers, most of whom are unemployed alcoholics, to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
Word gets around and as a result increasing numbers of unemployed alcoholics flood into Heidi's bar.
Taking advantage of her customers' freedom from immediate payment constraints, Heidi increases her prices for wine and beer, the most popular drinks. Her sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items because (insert here the name of your financial advisor) recommended them as a good investment.
One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager of the bank, (subsequently of course fired due to his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. But of course they cannot pay back the debts.
Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.
DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %.
The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having granted her generous payment due dates, and having invested in the securities, are faced with a new situation. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor.
The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the governing political parties.
The funds required for this purpose are obtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.
Cyber safety research may miss the mark
The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
I am always right. Almost always
I came across a post titled I am always right. Almost always and I loved reading it because it brought home some dark truths that I grapple with consistently.
Unanswered questions like:
I have always maintained that I will never compromise my principles - my integrity is my self. Without it I am lost in a sea of expressionless and unconscious beings in a "follow me" world.
That does not mean I am fixed and rigid in my opinions and perspectives, though it may appear that way. I know that I must be open to new information and willing to adapt to the truth when it is discovered, for my principles are based solely on my knowledge and experience to date, which may well be flawed or lacking the right perspective.
One exercise that I regularly undertake, and highly recommend to everyone, is to take your beliefs, one at a time, and ask yourself simply "why do I believe this?".
Often you will find the root of your beliefs in some distant childhood memory that, when given an adult perspective, seems ludicrous, illogical or irrelevant. At that point it is time to reassess that belief in light of the present information and understanding.
Only at that moment of extraordinary capitulation can we say we have grown wiser. I look for those moments daily and embrace them with joy.
Unanswered questions like:
- When does my opposition to fundamentalism become, in itself, a form of fundamentalism?
- Can someone's freedom of expression impinge on my freedom from oppression?
- Can I maintain my integrity by compromising my position in a negotiation or debate?
"In politics you should position yourself behind what you believe in and articulate it. Then see if that's what the voters want, and if it's not what they want, well, that's democracy."I think we can adapt to this to a broader philosophy on life.
I have always maintained that I will never compromise my principles - my integrity is my self. Without it I am lost in a sea of expressionless and unconscious beings in a "follow me" world.
That does not mean I am fixed and rigid in my opinions and perspectives, though it may appear that way. I know that I must be open to new information and willing to adapt to the truth when it is discovered, for my principles are based solely on my knowledge and experience to date, which may well be flawed or lacking the right perspective.
One exercise that I regularly undertake, and highly recommend to everyone, is to take your beliefs, one at a time, and ask yourself simply "why do I believe this?".
Often you will find the root of your beliefs in some distant childhood memory that, when given an adult perspective, seems ludicrous, illogical or irrelevant. At that point it is time to reassess that belief in light of the present information and understanding.
Only at that moment of extraordinary capitulation can we say we have grown wiser. I look for those moments daily and embrace them with joy.
Absolving responsibility - updated
The previous post has been updated with further debate ensuing.
I will keep updating the original rather than make any new posts, as this will maintain the debate in one place for ease of reference.
I find it funny that while I was debating the ridiculousness of censoring the Internet to ensure that someone can use it as their personal babysitter, Sara rallied her child protection claptrap to label me as a supporter of paedophiles.
It is reminiscent of the current campaign by supporters of Senator Conroy's "internet filter" - apparently anyone who does not support government imposed censorship must therefore support sex predators.
"you are with me, or against me" is a tired mantra that was overly used during the 'war on terror'. It didn't stick then and it doesn't stick now.
NOTE: Final update completed - I'll let the public be the judge of which party got the wrong end of the stick in this debate.
I will keep updating the original rather than make any new posts, as this will maintain the debate in one place for ease of reference.
I find it funny that while I was debating the ridiculousness of censoring the Internet to ensure that someone can use it as their personal babysitter, Sara rallied her child protection claptrap to label me as a supporter of paedophiles.
It is reminiscent of the current campaign by supporters of Senator Conroy's "internet filter" - apparently anyone who does not support government imposed censorship must therefore support sex predators.
"you are with me, or against me" is a tired mantra that was overly used during the 'war on terror'. It didn't stick then and it doesn't stick now.
NOTE: Final update completed - I'll let the public be the judge of which party got the wrong end of the stick in this debate.
Absolving responsibility
The following is a copy of a discussion that I was involved with on Facebook. It started with my comment in response to someone joining a cause titled Keep Sex Offenders Off the Internet
I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".
Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February
(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)
Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February
Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February
As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.
Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February
LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.
Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)
I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.
I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.
.... (cont)
Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February
I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.
However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.
The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February
To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:
"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."
The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.
If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.
Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.
In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.
Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed
I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".
Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February
(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)
Sara --------- at 10:50 on 16 February
The physcology required to commit sexual offences against children, is not something which can be asumed rectified after the serving of sentence, the autonomy offered by the internet and the potential for inappropriate and deliberate targeting of children for perverse pleasure is something the community should do more to prevent. Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child.
Any access to internet by convicted child offenders ought to be limited by security software to general sites and their pornographic activities limited to sites which are monitored by appropriate authorities for any material which might be considered to be of concern.
Sara --------- at 11:00 on 16 February
In regards to Prison visit rooms, the dept of corrections and the countrys legislative policy regarding the same are considered to be in keeping with the priority of child protection. My understanding is that those prisoners who are considered of concern in terms of children are not able to have visitors attend the prison on those visits which are accepting of kids. There are specific child accepting visits and non child accepting visits available at all dept of Corrections facilities. In addition to this specific method of Child protection, I and I know I speak for many other of the beautiful girls who visit partners reguarly, have the sort of personal protection available to me in this forum that would intimidate any potential problem to my child. For anyone who isnt sure what I just said, my partner is sufficently fit, healthy, and capable to be a deterant to any person that might be a problem to me or any member of his kin.
Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February
Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February
As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.
Sara --------- at 08:29 on 17 February
Colin - Good morning.
In regards to Murderers and the watching of violent crime, the length of sentence in these cases is far higher than it is for sexual and predatory but passive (phsycological) crime. Often the offenders of violent crime, do not infact see the light of day again. And here I speak of the crime of Murder (denoting premedatation) not felony murder, unlawful killing, manslaughter, the lesser crimes where a definate intention to kill can not be substanciated.
Simplifying the argument like you have is the equivelant of sensationalism, not uncommon in a media savvy, over educated middle class ruled society. Bearing in mind that you yourself have brought the subject up within a public forum you need to be prepared for the inevitability that many people with a wider reaching knowledged of the subject matter may just have something to say. The problem here is that it may be necessary for you to expand your understanding versus make unchallenged propegatory statement.
Sara --------- at 08:38 on 17 February
In your second paragraph you made the statement that Justice must prevail. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Justice is not the process by which the offending serve terms of punishment toward reinstated freedom. Justice is the term applied to a procedure which best serves the society/community interests after the commiting of an offence against the interest of that same group.
Your arguments are somewhat transparent and if I was going to cast a critical literary eye apon them I would say, unplanned and largely unresearched. You seem to shift intermitantly between arguments as the subject matter in places is directly contridictory. This can happen when a definate position is not held and a secondary motive for your statement or work is its primary reasoning.
Clearly you have a definate interest in the advocacy of child sex offenders that is an interesting position.
Sara --------- at 08:48 on 17 February
As stated in the first response to your initial posting, it is my personal beleif, that the offender of child sex offenses does commit an act against a physically and mentally inferior person and indeed a minor which as group the community has declared unable to adequately protect itself. They are targeted because they are physically too insignificant to protect themselves. These acts are usually by virtue calculated, prolonged and therefore quite definately premediated and unprovoked.
I feel the entrapment of children for perverse pleasure is a crime far exceeding any normal physcological pattern. Whilst I and im sure you may have thrown a slap or abusive word in a heated moment, an undeniable similar thread to violent crime. Personally I myself do not entertain any ideology which incorporates the victimisation of children.
Sara --------- at 08:52 on 17 February
Colin - have a nice day.
All the best for your Child Sex Offender Advocacy, im sure that particular minority feels the less isolated for your friendship and support.
Meanwhile - my position - stay away from my child coz like I said, violent crime is something I think all persons with enough motivation are capable.
Cheers
Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February
LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.
Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)
I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.
I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.
.... (cont)
Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February
I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.
However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.
The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February
To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:
"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."
The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.
If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.
Sara --------- at 11:43 on 17 February
How my children became the real issue of a debate/discussion on "Sex offender access to the internet" is something only you could explain I am sure. It would appear to be a change of topic and it would not be difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind such an attempt.
In regards to the almost stage performance accusation of their being a American television watching illiterate, sorry again - wrong.
Actually I am a student of law and assure you felony murder is still a sentencing title in this country. It is employed in all states of Australia as a product of case law/precedent argument. It is used to argue where they may not have been a direct premeditated intent to kill, but where it was a known likelihood of a personal decission to commit offence.
You refer to the wider populace as not being capable to deal with complex issues. If you deny them the opportunity by simplifying complex issues, then certainly they can not.
Sara --------- at 11:51 on 17 February
If you however inform any reader throughout your presentation of the facts then a contentious issue is most certainly within their understanding and capability to reason.
My response was not meant to aggrevate you Colin but rather to suggest that in a world which increasingly utilizes the internet for everyday activities, including school education, we as a community have reached a stage where the protection of those unable to necessarily protect themselves should be given consideration, specifically in regards to those persons previously convicted of sexual offense.
Studies of Criminal Behaviour and in particular Child sex offender, have a startling rate of re-offense. The fact that we the empowered society and its institutions are aware by analysis that the likelihood of re offence is considerable (and considerably higher than the other offences you have chosen to highlight) do you not think some supervision of their internet activity is appropriate?
Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.
In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.
Sara --------- at 12:01 on 17 February
I agree with you Colin that consideration should be given to the fact that the serving of sentence should afford the opportunity to rehabilitate, it is one of the foundations of Common Law. Unfortunately not all crimes can be considered like and when we come to the advances of society like the internet the law needs to be amended to do that which it is employed to, protect. If the liberties of a previously convicted persons of crimes considered predatory need to be restricted to best serve the wider interests of the community, then whilst I can sympathise with a minority I can not put their interests before the "group - humankind"
So I guess we agree to disagree, I feel that restriction in the case of Sexual offense is appropriate and that those persons to which it would apply should not be given access to public speaking forums where they might be able to have inappropriate relations with a child in any school class room accross the country. Where the internet is now a part.
Sara --------- at 12:06 on 17 February
Colin please accept my apologies for anything I may have included which you found personally offensive. I realize your arguments are in reality aligned with some of my own. The serving of sentence should afford those who are the minority an opportunity to re enter society.
But where this poses a threat which is more likely than it is just possible, then, I think further consideration/restriction/policy is needed.
Im sorry you thought my comments were condescending - your a bit pompus yourself.......:-)
Sara --------- at 12:14 on 17 February
Colin, Colin, Colin, I bought children into the topic as a direct user of the Internet and therefore a potential target of those persons being discussed. You utilized to begin a debate about parents using the internet as a babysitter. (Which I consider rude in the extreme.) You are suggesting by virtue of your argument that childrens use of the internet (which is educational no matter what it is being used for) should be restricted and limited to accomodate sex offenders. Mate that is what you said. And you think my use of the word advocate is inaccurate.
As I stated in the previous, it was not my intention to aggrevate you into an argument. As discussion could not be said to be possible as you keep refencing issues outside the topic, I think the exchange has run its course. I wont be make further comment and feel that all stated prior speaks for itself.
Good day to you sir!
Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed
Nearly 1 billion starving worldwide
I've blogged, facebooked and tweeted about the impending global food crisis. Now here's further testimony.
Atheo News: Nearly 1 billion starving worldwide
Still don't think you will be affected?
Think again!
Atheo News: Nearly 1 billion starving worldwide
Still don't think you will be affected?
Think again!
God Smites Victoria
Back in 2004 I established the Theocracy Alert early warning system. Over the last 4 years it has fallen by the way due to a lack of verifiable threats to our freedom from religion.
However, with the recent comments by Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries (close association with Hillsong Church) I'm thinking of reinstating the Alert. This is just disgraceful!
However, with the recent comments by Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries (close association with Hillsong Church) I'm thinking of reinstating the Alert. This is just disgraceful!
Abortion Laws to Blame for Bushfires?
"He said these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb."
Google shamed by Twitter speed
Rarely is there a fight fought where one of the opponents did not know the fight was being fought. It happened in the last 24hrs ... TWICE!
While keeping track of those I follow on Twitter I also keep an eye on the feed from Twitscoop through my Tweetdeck. I didn't think it strange that the majority of my received tweets focused on the Victorian bushfires, after all, that was at the forefront of my mind also.
However, there's a whole world outside of Australia, so glancing at the buzz via Twitscoop lets me know what the world is tweeting about. It is a virtual collective conscience - an insight into the world's thoughts in real time.
And there it appeared as bold and large as a trend can appear ... CCTV
Of course, my mind naturally thought of "closed circuit television". Any discussion relating to Big Brother of Orwellian fame will naturally spark my interest. So I clicked and reviewed the tweets - it was a fire. Another fire! A fire in Beijing was consuming the tower that housed Central China Television and the Marriot Hotel.
Tweets told the story as people gleaned reports and forwarded links to video and pictures. A news story was unfolding before my eyes through the immediate power of Twitter. But I went to Google to seek more and it disappointed me - a couple of random news references with no detail. Twitter knew, Google failed.
Fast-forward to today and I was doing much the same, this time jokingly tweeting about the inane trends appearing on Twitscoop, primarily due to it being evening in the USA and prime time television was the priority:
Odd. I investigated - click thru, read tweets. "slow car chase in LA" was the theme, "Chris Brown" another, "2009 O.J." read yet another. I was intrigued.
Many tweeps had provided a myriad of information and links, including live footage streaming on TV news websites. Yet, nothing on Google (Epic Fail).
Here I was watching a White Bentley parked in the middle of a 3 lane road outside a car dealership, its boot popped, mirrors turned inwards. At least 10 police vehicles were placed 50m behind, several cops could be seen crouched behind cars. Media helicopters flew overhead and camera crews were on the ground nearby.
One crew had a clear view to the driver who was speaking on his mobile phone and holding a handgun. And at one stage he held the gun to his head as if to ... well the station took about 30 seconds to decide to change camera angles.
I'll let you find out what happened.
Suffice to say that the Twittersphere was ahead of the game, it was relaying news faster than Google and no doubt due to the people power involved in Twitter surpassing the software at Google. This is the future of the global news and information stream and I'm not the only one to notice.
Twitter's greatest value is not in connecting with friends (leave that to facebook) but in connecting with the collective consciousness of the people we don't know.
While keeping track of those I follow on Twitter I also keep an eye on the feed from Twitscoop through my Tweetdeck. I didn't think it strange that the majority of my received tweets focused on the Victorian bushfires, after all, that was at the forefront of my mind also.
However, there's a whole world outside of Australia, so glancing at the buzz via Twitscoop lets me know what the world is tweeting about. It is a virtual collective conscience - an insight into the world's thoughts in real time.
And there it appeared as bold and large as a trend can appear ... CCTV
Of course, my mind naturally thought of "closed circuit television". Any discussion relating to Big Brother of Orwellian fame will naturally spark my interest. So I clicked and reviewed the tweets - it was a fire. Another fire! A fire in Beijing was consuming the tower that housed Central China Television and the Marriot Hotel.
Tweets told the story as people gleaned reports and forwarded links to video and pictures. A news story was unfolding before my eyes through the immediate power of Twitter. But I went to Google to seek more and it disappointed me - a couple of random news references with no detail. Twitter knew, Google failed.
Fast-forward to today and I was doing much the same, this time jokingly tweeting about the inane trends appearing on Twitscoop, primarily due to it being evening in the USA and prime time television was the priority:
The twittersphere just went freaky ... Sylar (character from Heroes) is the buzz on twittscoop *sigh*Shortly after something different caught my attention ... BENTLEY.
sad reality: judging by Twitscoop results, USA Tweeters tweet mostly about TV programs as they are watching them. it says way too much.
First it was Sylar on Heroes, then CSI Miami, and now it's the return of Deanna to The Bachelor! For Fuck's sake USA - get a life!!
Odd. I investigated - click thru, read tweets. "slow car chase in LA" was the theme, "Chris Brown" another, "2009 O.J." read yet another. I was intrigued.
Many tweeps had provided a myriad of information and links, including live footage streaming on TV news websites. Yet, nothing on Google (Epic Fail).
Here I was watching a White Bentley parked in the middle of a 3 lane road outside a car dealership, its boot popped, mirrors turned inwards. At least 10 police vehicles were placed 50m behind, several cops could be seen crouched behind cars. Media helicopters flew overhead and camera crews were on the ground nearby.
One crew had a clear view to the driver who was speaking on his mobile phone and holding a handgun. And at one stage he held the gun to his head as if to ... well the station took about 30 seconds to decide to change camera angles.
I'll let you find out what happened.
Suffice to say that the Twittersphere was ahead of the game, it was relaying news faster than Google and no doubt due to the people power involved in Twitter surpassing the software at Google. This is the future of the global news and information stream and I'm not the only one to notice.
Twitter's greatest value is not in connecting with friends (leave that to facebook) but in connecting with the collective consciousness of the people we don't know.
Censorship or Backdown?
[update 2: The Age have reinstated the article ... no explanations]
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
by Josh Gordon for The Age
September 7, 2008
AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.
US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".
The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.
The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".
"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."
With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.
"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.
Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.
"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.
"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."
Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.
The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
Firebugs are Terrorists
Thanks to @Jinjirrie for the heads up (a Retweet from @mparent77772) on this tabloid-inspired report in The Age last September:
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
[update - The Age has archived this article see follow up post ]
I'm not so much interested in whether this was a plausible threat or not - it really doesn't matter. What I did find interesting was this:
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
[update - The Age has archived this article see follow up post ]
I'm not so much interested in whether this was a plausible threat or not - it really doesn't matter. What I did find interesting was this:
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.Go on Mr McClelland ... someone has done it - now, what did you say you were going to do? And will it still apply if they are Caucasian and Christian?
An Explanation of Design
As promised, my second posting will offer an explanation of the design I have adopted for the header of this blog.
The first element is the photograph, which I took with my handy Nokia E65 mobile phone at Garden Island, Western Australia. Nothing too professional, but it works. I photoshop'd it only by stretching it to the required dimensions and then layering the text. The original photo is here:
.jpg)
This photo is one of three favourites that I captured that evening. I may write about the reasons for that in a later posting, but it is all about the importance of friendship.
On the top right of the header, my initials (cdm) are printed in Celtic script with my name underneath. I have traced much of my genealogy and the Gaelic/Celtic/Norse connections are strong. This is particularly evidenced by my roots back in the Shetland Islands situated between Scotland and the Arctic.
One of the native languages of Shetland, and it's sister the Orkneys, is Norn, a language almost lost to time. The phrase at the base of the header is written in Norn and translates to be:
A little piece of serendipity, I dare say.
The first element is the photograph, which I took with my handy Nokia E65 mobile phone at Garden Island, Western Australia. Nothing too professional, but it works. I photoshop'd it only by stretching it to the required dimensions and then layering the text. The original photo is here:
.jpg)
This photo is one of three favourites that I captured that evening. I may write about the reasons for that in a later posting, but it is all about the importance of friendship.On the top right of the header, my initials (cdm) are printed in Celtic script with my name underneath. I have traced much of my genealogy and the Gaelic/Celtic/Norse connections are strong. This is particularly evidenced by my roots back in the Shetland Islands situated between Scotland and the Arctic.
One of the native languages of Shetland, and it's sister the Orkneys, is Norn, a language almost lost to time. The phrase at the base of the header is written in Norn and translates to be:
Dark is in [the] chimney, light still in [the] heather, the time is [right that] the guest is goneI loved the phrase when I saw it, as it speaks highly of the importance of hospitality and home in balance with the natural course of time. It was perfectly matched for the feelings I had when taking the photograph and the happenings of that time.
A little piece of serendipity, I dare say.
First Post
So, I'm running on a whim at the moment. I've decided to consolidate my Internet exposure and web tools into as few strategic hubs as possible.
This new blog is going to be the portal to a significant portion of my online life, linking my blogs and micro-blogging activity together. It will be the face of my virtual being, so expect to find all the pleasantries here.
If you want the tough stuff; political, philosophical, creative writing, debate and conspiracies then the links on this page will take you on your way. Have fun.
Oh, and if you are wondering about the detail of the blog header ... stay tuned, I'll explain it in my next posting.
This new blog is going to be the portal to a significant portion of my online life, linking my blogs and micro-blogging activity together. It will be the face of my virtual being, so expect to find all the pleasantries here.
If you want the tough stuff; political, philosophical, creative writing, debate and conspiracies then the links on this page will take you on your way. Have fun.
Oh, and if you are wondering about the detail of the blog header ... stay tuned, I'll explain it in my next posting.
Economic Stimulus Package
(aka: an expensive theory to try to arouse a bunch a of knobs)
Just received via email from a friend:
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is
a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A
format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a
High definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
You have to laugh to stay sane ;-)
Just received via email from a friend:
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is
a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A
format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a
High definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
You have to laugh to stay sane ;-)
Fry on the Internet
I love it when someone can say something so profound and in the simplest possible manner, that even dumb-arses like George W. Bush could potentially understand it. Case in point, this gem spoken at Apple’s Regent Street store in London yesterday:
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
“The internet is like a city - it has red light districts, all kinds of weird people, who want to con and steal from you, but my god, they’re exciting places to live and to be a citizen of it is a great privilege. Yet people are trying to control the internet like they would never dare with a city.”
Stephen Fry, Actor/Presenter/TechEvangelist
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
The great food crisis - are you prepared?
No doubt you've heard various reports about the usefulness, toxicity and plausible conspiracies behind flouride, aspartame, genetically modified organisms (GMO) and many such things. Some of you may even be aware of the impending food crisis that is about to hit us. We have already seen it with the crisis in grains around the world, large scale price hikes in food costs, and mass populations of bees dying from unknown causes - a major concern for food production.
You may have already formed an opinion about these things and wish to stop reading here. Fine - I can understand. But don't! Your life may depend on it.
What I have seen, read and heard recently has me concerned. More than concerned - it has me mortified and angry. You should be too, because it will directly affect you and your family, yet there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.
That's right - there's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening.
I'm not here to plead for your action, to write letters to your government representatives, or to gather all your friends for a protest march. Believe me when I tell you, that nothing you do will prevent the coming food crisis - it is inevitable and you MUST prepare for it, or suffer its consequences.
The only advice I can offer is to buy some arable land big enough to grow your own fruit trees, vegetables and basic crops, perhaps even to run some livestock or a dam for fish if you enjoy meat - a couple of hectares should do it. Make sure you own the land outright, no peppercorn leases or mortgages, so that no-one can easily take it from you when the financial system crashes completely.
Build a modest house that isn't reliant on electricity, where you can live a sustainable life away from the rest of modern civilisation. If you can do this you may be one of the few billion people to survive. Sounds like it's a return to an arduous life of subsistence - it is. But the alternative is going to be tougher.
The future reality will see us rationed on highly regulated GMO and manufactured foods that are deliberately deficient of essential vitamins and minerals (and all supplements become illegal) to ensure a passive and compliant population.
Do your own research on real topics that are present in reputable news sources and from government agencies - it will verify what you read on all those conspiracy websites about food and population control. Search terms such as:
Agenda 21
codex alimentarius
And for the real life conspiracy behind it all watch the video below. The whole thing will be an eye opener for many, but the key points about food and population control begin at the 37 minute mark. If you don't have 2 hrs to devote for the whole thing, start there.
I will point out, that I disagree with some of the views presented in this movie, particularly relating to pantheism and gun control. Take some extrem views with the grain of salt they deserve, but certainly look at the facts presented.
You may have already formed an opinion about these things and wish to stop reading here. Fine - I can understand. But don't! Your life may depend on it.
What I have seen, read and heard recently has me concerned. More than concerned - it has me mortified and angry. You should be too, because it will directly affect you and your family, yet there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.
That's right - there's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening.
I'm not here to plead for your action, to write letters to your government representatives, or to gather all your friends for a protest march. Believe me when I tell you, that nothing you do will prevent the coming food crisis - it is inevitable and you MUST prepare for it, or suffer its consequences.
The only advice I can offer is to buy some arable land big enough to grow your own fruit trees, vegetables and basic crops, perhaps even to run some livestock or a dam for fish if you enjoy meat - a couple of hectares should do it. Make sure you own the land outright, no peppercorn leases or mortgages, so that no-one can easily take it from you when the financial system crashes completely.
Build a modest house that isn't reliant on electricity, where you can live a sustainable life away from the rest of modern civilisation. If you can do this you may be one of the few billion people to survive. Sounds like it's a return to an arduous life of subsistence - it is. But the alternative is going to be tougher.
The future reality will see us rationed on highly regulated GMO and manufactured foods that are deliberately deficient of essential vitamins and minerals (and all supplements become illegal) to ensure a passive and compliant population.
Do your own research on real topics that are present in reputable news sources and from government agencies - it will verify what you read on all those conspiracy websites about food and population control. Search terms such as:
Agenda 21
codex alimentarius
And for the real life conspiracy behind it all watch the video below. The whole thing will be an eye opener for many, but the key points about food and population control begin at the 37 minute mark. If you don't have 2 hrs to devote for the whole thing, start there.
I will point out, that I disagree with some of the views presented in this movie, particularly relating to pantheism and gun control. Take some extrem views with the grain of salt they deserve, but certainly look at the facts presented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)