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:

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.

Best Swine Flu Advice

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.

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.

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:

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:

polemicol no - a mere staff member as she was leaving the building. watch out for the memo that will be sent to all staff, after I get finished ;-) 10:39 AM Apr 8th

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).

polemicol lots to do - banking, bills, holiday planning, ruffling the feathers of security and building management at the ATO - all in a day's work! 10:52 AM Apr 8th
polemicol @bel no - just a citizen protecting our civil liberties, ensuring that ATO staff know its perfectly legal to photograph government buildings 10:57 AM Apr 8th in reply to Bel
polemicol @bel no chance that photos are illegal - this is Australia, not the USA (yet!) ;-) about 19 hours ago in reply to Bel

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 I had a micro win for civil liberties today - ATO will advise staff that it's legal to photograph from outside the building ;-) about 1 hour ago
polemicol @perthtones but they still reserve the right to challenge anyone taking photographs and subsequently report them to authorities. *sigh* 33 minutes ago in reply to perthtones

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?

Ordinary World

Came in from a rainy Thursday
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

Those 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.

What has happened to it all?
Crazy, some'd say
Where is the life that I recognize?
Gone away

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.

But I won't cry for yesterday
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

Yearning 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.

Passion or coincidence
Once prompted you to say
"Pride will tear us both apart"

Well now pride's gone out the window
Cross the rooftops, run away
Left me in the vacuum of my heart

Many 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.

What is happening to me?
Crazy, some'd say
Where is my friend when I need you most?
Gone away

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.

But I won't cry for yesterday
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

We 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.

Papers in the roadside
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 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.

And I don't cry for yesterday
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

So I will survive; I do survive; we are all survivors of the ordinary world.

Every one is my world
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

And because we survive in the ordinary world, we are together and we are not alone after all.
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:

“...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:

• 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?
  

The latter was beautifully summed up in a previous post in 2006 which quoted Liberal Democrats (UK political party) leader, Charles Kennedy as saying:

"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.

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)

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!

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!

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:

The twittersphere just went freaky ... Sylar (character from Heroes) is the buzz on twittscoop *sigh*

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!!

Shortly after something different caught my attention ... BENTLEY.

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.

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:

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:

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 gone

I 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.