Dennis Meadows

You hear it nearly every day, another scientist warning about climate change. All the news articles and stories make it sound like the only ones who are worried about climate change are environmental scientists and Greenies. Economists and business people are usually portrayed as either non believers or only worried about the cost of action.

Well I would like to introduce Dennis Meadows an economist from the US. In 1972 Dennis published a book titled 'The limits to Growth'. This book back in 1972 predicted that if population growth and resource use continued to grow in the exponential way they were at the time then the world would be facing environmental disaster by about 1992. What is interesting is that this is shortly before serious concern was starting to be raised by environmental scientists about the global climate.

In a recent interview with Spiegel Online there were two questions and responses that really just hit home how little we as a society tend to listen to the people we hire to inform us if they are informing us of something that is difficult to grasp or will require real change from people.
First;

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Meadows, you simulated the future of the Earth back in 1972 with less computing power than a Blackberry. How good was your model on the limits to growth?

Dennis Meadows: Amazingly good, unfortunately. We are in the midst of an environmental crisis, which we predicted then. The difference is that we have lost 40 years during which humanity should have acted.

And second;

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't have a recipe for saving the world?

Meadows: We don't have to save the world. The world will save itself, like it always has. Sometimes it takes a few million years until the damage is repaired and a new balance has been established. The question is much more: How do we save our civilization?

The first question really makes it perfectly clear hear Climate change is not some future event but is happening now. Sea level is rising at over 3mm per year and we have already seen a 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures since pre-industrial times.

0.7 degrees doesn't sound like much does it. I mean the difference between a 25 and a 26 degree day is not much. The problem is that a 0.7 degree change has already led to the melting of all Glasciers world wide the loss of Arctic Ice and the current sever melting of Antarctic Ice (side note: we are currently seeing the loss of BILLIONS of tons of ice from the West Antarctic Ice shelf each year). Just imagine what will hbe happening when we reach a 2 degree rise in global temperatures. Just so that you know, we as a species have locked ourselves into a 2 degree rise through our previous emissions. All that we can do now is reduce our own emissions individually and hope that we don't continue to follow the IPCC worst case scenario. This would eventually lead to a melting of Methane hydrates stored under the ocean and a catastrophic collapse of global ecosystems. The last time this happened....... well we call it the PT extinction or the great dying where nearly 95% of all life on earth was wipe out!

Elloquence and the Written Word

Well I have never claimed to be the worlds greatest writer. In fact I can lay claim to being well into the lower half of writers on a best to worst scale. I do try though and I feel (hope) that I am getting better as time goes by.

Australia's current Chief Scientist Professor Penny D Sackett began her appointment as Chief Scientist for Australia in November 2008. She is an accomplished cross-disciplinary scientist with a record of academic excellence on three continents. She also obviously spends some time crafting her words and can really punch out a nice paragraph or two. Her recent article on her website so eloquently states the dangers involved in climate change and the problems facing the world and Australia that I had to link to it.

So with out further adieu:

Why we must act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Rate of Change

So a bit of an update on the state of climate change and how things are going. By all reports that I've seen or heard we are tracking quite nicely along the worst case scenarios from the IPCC report. I would love to see actual evidence that can show that Climate Change is not happening and that all the ice on the planet is slowly disappearing for other reasons, but I haven't seen any real evidence. All the "sceptics" I've seen rely on denigration and opinion.

There is also now evidence to demonstrate a declining calcification rate for corals over the last 20 years most likely due to Ocean acidification. This is startling evidence to show the Climate change could wipe corals out. Corals may be able to adapt to Bleaching and survive hotter temperatures but I fail to see how they can adapt to Ocean acidification. It's a chemical process that means there is less and less Calcium available to make skeleton and if pH drops too much will dissolve the skeleton of corals.

Below is a report from the ABC on evidence for climate change and us following the worst case scenario from the IPCC report. Next post hopefully I'll be looking at my personal carbon budget and how to improve.

Climate changing faster than expected: scientists

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke for AM






It has been two years since the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report gave its most recent assessment on the state of the planet's changing climate.

Now, 26 international scientists have collated the most recent data and observations, and they have found that climate change is accelerating beyond expectations.

Most of the 26 scientists are authors of reports published by the IPCC. They have updated the panel's latest scientific projections and their observations show an acceleration of change.

According to their research, the Arctic may be ice-free by the summer of 2030 and sea levels could reach the upper limit of 2 metres by the turn of the century.

Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales is a contributing author to the report and he says things are changing rapidly.

"Over the last few years, some of those indicators have accelerated, some are right where the IPCC forecast, but the mix of all of the indicators tells us that, if anything, the IPCC projections were slightly conservative," he said.

"[They were] absolutely on the money for some metrics, but for things like Arctic sea ice, the system there has changed much more rapidly than any scientists envisaged."

According to the scientists' observations, sea levels have risen more than five centimetres over the past 15 years - about 80 per cent higher than IPCC projections made in 2001.

And the Arctic sea ice melt over the last two years was about 40 per cent greater than the last forecast.

Ice-free Arctic summer

Professor England says the observed rate of summer ice melt is now running faster than any climate model can predict.

"The Arctic sea ice was thought to be something we saw that we would continue to see during summer time right through to the end of this century, and possibly even beyond," he said.

"At the moment we may have an Arctic that is ice-free in summer as early as about 2030 and that really is bringing forward that ice melt much closer to now than we had previously thought."

With that in mind, the scientists say global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within a decade if the worst of climate change is to be avoided.

And the researchers says global warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by the turn of the century if emissions are not curbed.

While some might question the doom and gloom observations, Will Steffen from the Australian National University has welcomed the update and he has called on scientific critics to put forward their work.

"There will be those who say, 'Well this is just more doom and gloom' and so on, but you have to ask, do those people come from the main credible scientific community?" he said.

"There are a lot of people who are scientists but are they part of the credible, reputable climate change science community?

"And second of all, if they dispute this, have they taken their evidence and published it in the peer-reviewed literature, in the prominent journals? And the answer is no, you can't find it there."

CO2 Emissions

There is allot Talk about Climate Change and problems associated with it. There is not allot of talk about solutions that everyday people can use. The other problem is that the debate has been dehumanised. What I mean by this statement is that the everyday discussion revolves around different countries emissions and global emissions. People don't associate with this. Each countries emissions need to be dealt with by the government of that country. Global emissions are dealt with at big conferences Like Kyoto or the up coming Copenhagen global climate summit. I thought 'Why not change this, bring it home how much each and every person has to do'.

The first question though is how to do this. Well it's a global scale problem so we had better start with global emissions. Boring I know and has nothing to do with you right. Wrong! It has everything to do with you, just wait and see. The world population is 6 692 030 277 (see map below for a truly frightening look at global population).

Population, total - 2008

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Source: World Bank Data - Total population

Another look at world population



The Global CO2 emissions are 4.5 metric tons per person for 2005 and the world population in 2005 was 6 462 054 420 (see above population link). This means that total global CO2 emissions are 29 079 244 890 metric Tons as of 2005. If you look at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/wdi09introch3.pdf you will see that the 29 billion ton is a pretty accurate estimate for todays CO2 emissions as well. I want to be generous here so lets just say 30 billion tons of CO2 went into the Atmosphere in 2009 purely because of humans driving cars heat/cooling and generally trying to get machines to do things for us.



What do we do with these numbers. Nothing at the moment looks much like it pertains to the average person. Well no not yet, but bare with me. Many scientists and climate modellers are recommending a minimum 25% cut from 2005 levels by 2025. Lets be a little generous here as well, we don't just want to do the bare minimum, so lets commit to a 30% reduction. That means by 2025 the global emissions should be down around 20 355 471 423 or 20 billion metric tons of CO2 annually.

So divide the global emission target by current population and you get 3.041 or 3 tons per person annually. Here is where it finally becomes personal. Are you good enough to drop your emissions to 3 tons per person per year. Australians currently use 20.5 tons per person per year. Your goal is to drop your usage to 3.

This gives everyone the same problem that many are having with food, so much information available and no real meaning until you get to relate these numbers to your life, what your doing and how it will affect you. Well on this Page is a guide to energy usage throughout the home and there is a Carbon emission calculator. This is a good start in linking these numbers to your daily life. Also a energy monitor that tells you how much power your using at any one time will help you keep a track of your power usage and connect you more to what your emissions are.

Over the next few posts I'll be exploring my own Greenhouse emissions and looking at what I can do to reduce them, So hopefully you'll be back to get some pointers on how to make your own reductions.

Private Schools

During Year 11 at High School Mum considered sending me to this school I'm glad that didn't happen as it's an all boys school. It's very interesting that this type of thing seems to happen more often in Private schools.

Maybe it's the increased power that teachers seem to have over the students. It also must come from the students feeling powerless. In the school I went to if a teacher told you to have group sex with the other boys in the class we would have told him to go F@#K himself, and walk out.

What ever caused it I'm just glad that the Principle came across as a misogynistic pig and mum didn't like him so I didn't have to go to that school. Of course my problem with the school at the time stemmed more from where my friends were rather than any ideology. I hadn't really gotten into the social effects of Private schools and the governments idiotic subsidies that they seem to want to pursue.

Students forced to have group sex, court told

St Stanislaus College in Bathurst, where Brian Spillane worked as a chaplain. (ABC News)

Students at a school in central New South Wales were allegedly forced to engage in group sex and were hypnotised to have intercourse with teachers, a court has heard.

The allegations were made during a bail application for a former chaplain at St Stanislaus College in Bathurst.

Brian Spillane, 66, is one of several men charged after allegations of assaults dating back to the 1960s.

Earlier this year he was granted bail on 117 charges of indecently assaulting former students.

He has since been charged with another 29 offences.

In asking for bail to be revoked, the prosecutor said the brief of evidence "paints a picture of rampant paedophilia".

Pollies and their Answers

The below article is from Leigh sales one of the presenters from Lateline

it's a pity when politicians do this as it makes them look shifty and untrustworthy

Well-readhead: Just answer the question

When viewers offer feedback about interviews on Lateline, easily the most common complaint is about politicians not answering questions. Nothing irritates people more.

So that I don’t embarrass any particular Member of Parliament – since many are offenders – here’s a little manufactured dialogue to illustrate what I mean.

Me: Minister, what did you have for breakfast?

Minister: For lunch, I had a salad sandwich and then for dinner …

Me: I’m afraid that’s not the question, the question is what you had for breakfast.

Minister: Leigh, if you’d let me finish, for lunch I had a salad sandwich and then for dinner, I had a steak.

Me: Minister, I want to know what you had for breakfast.

Minister: Leigh with all due respect, the issue is not breakfast, the issue is lunch and for lunch, I had a salad sandwich.

Me: The reason I’m persisting is because I think my viewers would like to know what you had for breakfast. You’ve not answered the question.

Minister: Leigh, I have answered your question, but if you need me to make it clear for you one more time, for lunch I had a salad sandwich.

Why do some politicians do that? Obviously some media trainer somewhere has taught them to ignore questions they don’t like and shift the discussion to more comfortable ground. But the tactic has surely jumped the shark. It’s now so endemic that viewers see straight through it. They make two assumptions when a politician ignores a question: it’s too difficult or there’s something to hide.

Not all politicians duck difficult questions. In fact, some of them are pretty good at rebuttal using logic, intellect and conviction rather than relying on spin. The more self-assured ones sometimes even concede a point or two. One of the more memorable Lateline interviews of recent years was when Tony Abbott fronted up after a particularly bad day during the last election campaign. He made no attempt to put a positive gloss on it, instead frankly admitting to my colleague Tony Jones that ‘shit happens’. But that’s pretty rare. If you listen to most political interviews on Lateline, you will note questions are often repeated in an attempt to cut through pollie-waffle.

I wish more politicians understood the benefits of being frank or trying to answer questions head on instead of skirting them. One, it can be persuasive. Two, viewers award points for guts. Anyone can win over an audience on a good day or under sympathetic questioning. But it’s much harder to convince an audience who may not be on side or to make your case in the face of challenges.

Viewers sometimes say to me ‘I don’t know how you keep your cool’ or ‘I could tell you were getting frustrated’. Sure, I get frustrated when politicians don’t answer questions. But based on the feedback I get from viewers, I’m not the only one. Non-answers irritate hundreds of thousands of people watching at home too. And they all vote.

Here are this fortnight’s ten interesting things to read, watch or listen to:

1. Perhaps the most famous example ever of a television interviewee not answering a question is the British Home Secretary, Michael Howard, under questioning from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman. Paxman asked the same question twelve times without eliciting an answer. The key part is about four minutes in.

2. Lest anyone think my made-up dialogue about breakfast/lunch is exaggerated in its repetition, I refer you to exhibit A: The Chaser’s tally of Peter Garrett’s use of the word ‘jocular’ in the fallout over a conversation he had with journalist Steve Price during the last election campaign.

3. John Howard recently gave a speech at Melbourne University’s Centre for Advanced Journalism about whether journalists and politicians are adversaries or bedfellows. A week later a panel of journalists (Paul Kelly, Alan Kohler, George Megalogenis and me) gave their take.

4. If you own a cat, no doubt this happens to you too every morning.

5. Earlier this year, Stephen Fry gave the inaugural Spectator Lecture in Britain. His topic was ‘America’s Place in the World’. Whether you agree with all his observations, it is a textbook example of how to write a great speech full of original insights. I warn you it’s long. But worth it.

6. National Geographic printed a great story and brilliant photo about a couple whose holiday snap was hijacked by a squirrel. The critter went viral, with a website where you could ‘squirrelize’ any photo.

7. If you’re the sort of person who takes pleasure in a great looking library or bookstore, this is the website for you. It’s a shame that the text is crass (they’ve called it ‘hot library smut’). It’s not funny and it takes away from what’s otherwise a great idea. (thanks @dlewis89 on twitter)

8. The New Yorker published an article earlier this year on lesbian separatists in the 1970s. It was one of the most bizarre and entertaining things I’ve read this year. I laughed out loud, although I’m still not sure if it was meant to be funny or not.

9. Psychologist Robert Feldman has written a book about the amount of lying all of us do and why. The Guardian printed a fascinating extract

10. I found this quiz in The Philosophers' Magazine rather interesting. It assesses whether your religious views are rationally consistent.

You can follow Leigh Sales on twitter via @leighsales or watch her on Lateline on ABC1.

The H index

It sounds a little more interesting than it is, The H-index. To scientists though it's a measure of what you've done in your career. Imagine that an entire career boiled done to one number. If you would like to know what the H-index is and find out a brief history of citation indices and the business of categorising and ranking science have a read of the Piece by Wired science and learn about Jorge Hirsch and his invention of the H-index.

http://www.wired.com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/17-06/mf_impactfactor

Tasers

I Actually agree that police should carry tasers. I like the Idea. I'd prefer to be Tasered than shot and possibly killed. There is a problem though and it's the people using the tasers they tend to just use them when ever and for what ever reason. It seems to happen quite frequently in the US. Travis County police recently used a taser to subdue a dangerous person who was pulled over for speeding. This person proved to be unco-operative and the policeman felt the need to taser the person to protect himself. Below is the raw footage from the police camera of the incident.

Oh just one other thing the person who had bee pulled over was a 72 year old great grandmother.

So how to stop incidents like this. Well maybe to carry a Taser you need to have experienced the pain it causes. Every policeman that wants to carry a taser will have to be shocked by one once then they can use them. If the officer is then ever found to be using their taser in a totally inappropriate way such as in the video above they will subjected to a full work day of being tasered once every 10 minutes with a break for lunch of course.

I'm sure that the fear of that happening would make people think twice before using their taser on grannies

New Template

Well as you all can see. I've decided to go for a new template. This one feels a bit cleaner and fresher. At the moment it's a little sterile but when I figure out how to add a picture behind the Title Again I think it will finish of the look nicely.

Other changes.....well I've also signed up to Twitter just to see what it's like. Interesting so far. You can just write out one thought, no long explanations, evidence, citations or Backgrounds. Just a single thought website or action. It's sort of like the What are you doing box in Facebook but I've set it up to be much more convenient. I added the twitter bar addon to firefox and now I just type something in the address bar on firefox and press send and hey ho I've made a twitter post. I have also linked it to here as, for the moment anyway, I'm updating twitter much more than here.

If any of you people decide to join twitter let me know and I'll follow your feed. Who knows it might be fun.

Funniest Comic Ever

I have read and loved XKCD for a while now but for some reason this comic really reaches out to me.

Happy Birthday Mum

And may all your cups of Tea but excellent.

Critical Mass

Things in Australia aren't great with respect to commuting by push-bike. There is mostly very poor design of cycle lanes/paths and they rarely go where you need them to go, or they just stop and your somehow expected to teleport to the next section of bike lane. This is what motivate the Critical Mass rallies at the end of each month.

It's a gathering of cyclists that hope to demonstrate that there are allot of bike riders out there. Also that bike are classified as vehicles and are meant to be on the road, so motorists should respect the presence of cyclists.

That being said though It could be much worse It could be like NY city where cycling in a Critical Mass protest can get you charged by the police ........ Literrally!




Don't get me wrong there are also allot of cyclists doing the wrong thing and using the road poorly. I would say the percentages would be about the same as those for Motorists that don't obey the rules. Really doesn't it then come down to needing better education of cyclists and an attitude change for motorists.

Ask and ye shall Receive

So I got an answer to the question posted yesterday (Thanks Bernie)

Put simply:

In general, "affect" is the verb, and "effect" is the noun - with some qualifications!
e.g.
"affect" - the verb: How will the hot humid weather affect these young plants?
"effect" - the noun: The hot humid weather has a very severe effect on these young plants.

BUT

"effect" can be used as a verb when it means "to bring about".
e.g. The new manager intends to effect some big changes in the office.

I don't think I'm far off using the two words correctly. It may still take some practice and allot of referring back to this post to actually sort out the difference in my head though.

Quickie

So I set up this site to accept posts via email. Should be good and hopefully I will be able to post more.

On a side note, I need the services of a language person (obviously). Affect and effect which to use when. Do you affect an outcome? Or do you effect the outcome? I used different words in the two questions because they sounded right but I'm not sure why these things are so. It is a little confusing and the two are probably used interchangeably by allot of people.

Maybe someone will know and let me know in a comment!!!!!

Cheers

--
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken.

Cargo Bikes

Well I've found some inspiration on "da Interwebs" today. I've been thinking about bikes, what I use them for and what type of bike I should get. It's pretty obvious that the vast magority of my cycling is commuting and transport. Despite the fun I derive from racing and weekend sojourns to the trails around town I really should at least look at tailoring my ride to commuting.

My current bike has done probably about 40 000 km over the last 8-9 years. Its a Specialized FSR (I wouldn't spell it with a z but it is a brand name). It has been an awesome bike. I commute almost daily to work and carry stuff in my crumpler bag (This can get limiting sometimes). It is comfy to ride and fast enough that I can keep up with road bikes if they are not being to serious. I can take dirt tracks and gutters without slowing. I have even entered a number of races in it, never serious, mainly for the challenge. In short I've found it an excellent commuter and a great way to get around cities. However recent advances in bike design and technology and the slow but inevitable decline in the condition of my bike has led me to ponder: What next?

The bike I covert is a Salsa 'Big Mamma'. More efficient suspension design, disc brakes and bigger wheels would make this and even faster commuter and most of all a much faster race bike. Much like my current bike though I face the problem of how to carry all the stuff you need through the day. For example on Mondays and wednesdays I need to Take work clothes, paddling clothes, paddle, food for lunch and after paddling. All of this gets a bit much to fit into my poor little crumpler bag and also can get rather heavy on your shoulder.

What about commuting though wasn't I going to look at commuting options  and bikes that could carry something. OK. A search for Cargo Bikes brought up this neat little article on commuting by bike and the problem with most bikes in Australia being designed for or after racing bikes. It pointed the way to the Surly Big Dummy. This bike instantly spoke to me. It said "load me up and lets go somewhere". This is definitely a commuting bike as well as a touring bike as well as.......sorry getting carried away there. It is  an interesting bike though.

"What was the inspiration" you ask. Well I continued my search for Cargo Bikes and it brought me to this page. http://www.rideyourbike.com/cargo.html a brilliat display of carrying stuff with bikes. I decided my favourite though is this guy towing a boat with his pushie.

I wonder how much I could carry with the Big Dummy??

Settlers of Catan

I have introduced many people in my family to Settlers from Catan. An excellent board game emanating from Germany.  Well It looks like it has finally started t o make it big in the US (See Link below)

Monopoly Killer: Perfect German Board Game Redefines Genre

For those not familiar with the game I definitely recommend checking it out. The Link below will give you all the info you'll ever need on "Settlers"

Catan.de - All news on Catan.de

Cheers

G20 Protests

You may not like the G20 meetings and you may not like capitalism. That's fine your entitled to your opinion. What gets me mad is not that people protest at the G20, as stated your entitled to your opinion and the right to express that opinion. I get mad because there are hipocritical idiots protesting.
Below is a Photo from the Article in Der Speigel magazine about the G20 protests. At first you may see nothing wrong with it. There is however a glaring problem.


Consumers suck. Once again entitled to your opinion. However live up to your ideal. Don't hold up a sign saying consumers suck while wearing mass produced Jacket, Shirt, Jeans, Shoes and probably socks. This idiot really should have a big sign saying "I'm with stupid" and an arrow pointing down!
If this is the quality of protesters that attend these events then it's no wonder that they have totally failed to get there message across.

Internet Filtering

On 21 March 2006, the Federal Labor Opposition announced in a media release that a Labor Government would require all Internet Service Providers (”ISPs”) to implement a mandatory Internet filtering/blocking system. This means that you cannot opt out. This list has already been started and has been leaked to the Media organisation Wikileaks. The current list already includes sites that would not be deemed illegal like online gambling some porn sites and a dog boarding kennel. A reasonably well written article appeared in Wired News. This fiasco being perpetrated upon the Australian public by the current labour government is making us look rather totalitarian. "History shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behaviour," WikiLeaks said in a statement. "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring WikiLeaks.". Excellent company our country is keeping in that little list. Thailand start mandatory filtering of internet feeds and the initial list mainly included Child pornography. However since it was introduced hundreds of sites that criticised the King of Thailand have been added to the list. This from Wikileaks "In December last year we released the secret Internet censorship list for Thailand. Of the sites censored in 2008, 1,203 sites were classified as "lese majeste" -- criticising the Royal family. Like Australia, the Thai censorship system was originally pushed to be a mechanism to prevent the child pornography.Research shows that while such blacklists are dangerous to "above ground" activities such as political discourse, they have little effect on the production of child pornography, and by diverting resources and attention from traditional policing actions, may even be counter-productive". With Australia's list being secret and unveiwable how long would it be before some aspiring politician placed websites that criticised him on it.

In 'Labor’s Plan for Cyber-safety' from 2007 They sate the dangers that face Australian Children are:

• having their identities appropriated by others;
• having photos or videos of themselves published online without their permission;
• suffering from computer and/or internet addiction;
• being traced by strangers from details they have entered online;
• being the subject of cyber-bullying;
• picking up a virus or trojan or being the victim of a phishing attack; or
• inadvertently downloading illegal content when file-sharing.

Only this last point (highlighted) has even a slight relation to IPS internet filtering and the report from ACMA report of the trial internet filtering concluded that none of the Current tested filtering method could identify illegal content in non-web based traffic. All file sharing happens on what are called P2P networks which are not web based. This means that file sharing would be in no way affected by the ISP filtering as P2P networks are not html content. This means that this filter is an inappropriate response to a non-existent problem.

Yes it is not a problem. This from Electronic Frontiers Australia - A filtered internet feed, if it could be fully implemented, would help only to mitigate so-called “content risks” - the risk of a child being exposed to content inappropriate for their age or maturity level. However, even the Government’s own literature suggests that content risks are the least serious of concerns to parents or children themselves. The 2008 ACMA report Developments in Internet Filtering Technologies and Other Measures for Promoting Online Safety identifies the further categories of “communication risks” and “e-security” risks. The former include issues such as scams, inappropriate advances from strangers, and online harassment, while the latter includes things such as viruses, spam, and the theft of personal information.

Few to no details of the plan have been given except that it would be a IPS based filtering meaning that you do not get to choose weather you have access to the entire internet. Pages and websites would be filtered out before they get anywhere near your computer. The following is from the Wikileaks website "While Wikileaks is used to exposing secret government censorship in developing countries, we now find Australia acting like a democratic backwater. Apparently without irony, ACMA threatens fines of upto $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist". So your not allowed to view the list, your not allowed to know whats on the list, but if you inadvertantly link to something you don't know is on the list you will be fined $11000 a day. That would make for an interesting courtroom arguement!!

I have a couple of questions for the government over this stupid little idea of theirs.

Who decides what sites go on the list?
Is there a system of notification and appeal?
Why can the Australian public not see and comment on the list?
Do parliamentarians have any say in what sites go on the list?
If I run a site and get a link to a banned site placed on my website through spam will my site be added to the list?
If it is added to the list how would I get it off the list?
Who will maintain the list and what measures will be put in place that ensure legitimate sites with legal content are not blocked?
What compensation can be sought for loss of revenue if a site is inappropriately blocked?
If only the government of the day can decide what goes on the list what is to stop the Liberals, once they get back into government, from putting ALP and union sites on the list?

I have to say this Idea could be a complete tradgety for Australia. It has the possibly to be a major cancer in Australian Democracy.

Election

I had quite a sad revelation yesterday. I was looking at the candidates and deciding who I should vote for as my first choice. I couldn't pick one!!

We have five candidates in my electorate surely one of these people should be a person that I could vote for. Well who is there to vote for I said to myself. I know I'll run through them and see where I would put them on the Ballot paper.
The Greens - can be a good choice but they have had Jenny Stirling as there candidate for ages and she has some strange and unrealistic ideas/policies. They might not be a great choice so maybe not #1.

Labour - has been in government for the last 11 years and really don't seem to have any vision or new ideas. Also they are pushing through a Canal development that very few people in Townsville want, so put them in the middle somewhere either 3 or 4 I thought.

LNP - Are led by Laurence Springborg. I don't really need to say more if you've seem him on TV. These guys are probably going on the bottom of the list.

Family First Party - This state run by the Assembly of God. No Thanks!!! Definitely bottom of the pile.

An Independent - Some one with new Ideas, a fresh way of doing things unencumbered by party politics, This could be good. Then I saw his campaign letter sent out to many people in this electorate. An literate idiot representing my area in the state parliament, at least he would be better than the Family First Party.

At this point the sad realisation hit me. I will be voting from the bottom. I will be voting from the candidate I like the least in number 5 to the one that is the least worst (yes I know this is very poor English I'm trying it out to see if I should vote for the independant candidate) in position 1. What a sad day it is when there is no-one that you can vote for, only people to vote against.

Slackness Inc.

Well it's been a rediculously long time since I updated this site, and I have many things that should be going up here. Hopefully over the next little while I will get to this site a bit more and up date it a bit.
Also I think there will be some rants put up on this blog soon as well.

God I hate the Family First Party

The below story comes from the ABC website. The family first party doesn't seem to live up to it's name. I don't see anything in this decision by Senator Stephen Fielding that puts families first. One of the parties stated aims is"FAMILY FIRST believes Australia has a binge drinking problem which is killing Australians, particularly young Australians. Alcohol is a part of life and social drinking is fine, but we must change our culture which celebrates alcohol and accepts
drunkenness and drink-driving;". This was taken directly from their website. The previous stated position and Senator Fieldings vote yesterday don't seem to dovetail nicely do they. That's right I forgot The name of the Party should be Assembly of God Families First, or as they want to be know now Australian Christian Churches. Religious organisations for the past couple of Millennia have reserved the right to be completely contradictory so why should the Assembly of God party be any different.

Alcopops defeat a win for distillers

By Jennifer Doggett

Posted 1 hour 0 minutes ago
Updated 51 minutes ago

Senator Fielding's decision to vote against the alcopops tax bill is a win for the spirits industry. (AAP)

It's "families first" for Senator Stephen Fielding but only if your family happens to be named Bacardi, Hennessey, Smirnoff or similar. Those of us whose families don't own multi-national distilling companies can only lose from the Senator's decision to block the Government's alcopops tax bill.

The bill sought to increase the tax on alcoholic soft-drinks or 'alcopops' by 70 per cent from $39 to $66 per litre. This would have raised $1.6 billion over four years, some of which would have gone to alcohol harm reduction campaigns, due to the deal reached between the Government and the Greens with Senator Nick Xenophon.

Senator Fielding's decision (along with that of the Opposition) to vote against the bill is a win for the spirits industry, which had been campaigning vigorously against the tax. For ordinary Australian families it simply means that alcoholic soft drinks will become cheaper, and therefore more accessible, to their teenage children and that that less funding will be available for campaigns to address the harms associated with youth alcohol consumption.

There is good evidence to support a targeted approach to reducing alcopop consumption by young people. Alcohol researchers estimate that around 70-80 per cent of alcohol consumed at risk levels by 14-17 year olds is in the form of alcopops. In 2000 14 per cent of girls aged 15-17 reported that an alcopop was the last alcoholic drink they consumed. By 2004, this figure had grown to a staggering 62 per cent. Alcopops are not simply substituting one alcoholic beverage for another, they are in effect creating a new market for teenage alcohol consumption.

Senator Fielding, along with Liberal Party and Nationals senators, argued that there was no evidence that the tax had reduced binge drinking among young people. However, the Government never claimed that this measure alone would stop young people from misusing alcohol. The tax increase was only ever presented as part of a broader approach to reducing unsafe alcohol use, in the context of the National Binge Drinking Strategy, which includes funding for community and sporting organisations and health promotion campaigns.

Risky behaviours, such as unsafe alcohol use, can never be addressed through one single measure. In other areas of public health, for example tobacco control, this is accepted. The dramatic reduction in smoking in the Australian community over the past 30 years is a result of the multi-faceted approach taken to reducing tobacco-related harms, including taxation increases, advertising bans, point-of-sale restrictions and bans on smoking in public places. While overall these strategies have been successful in reducing tobacco consumption in Australia it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate out the individual effect of each single measure on smoking rates.

Luckily, Senator Fielding was not around at the time that the ban on cigarette advertising on television was introduced. Had he required evidence that the ban would result in an immediate drop in smoking rates before he supported the legislation, we would still be seeing the Marlboro Man riding his horse into the sunset on our televisions today.

Senator Fielding also asked the Government to ban alcohol company sponsorship of sporting events in return for his support, a position not supported by any major health groups. While most health advocates would be in favour of a ban on alcohol sports sponsorship in the longer term, no-one had argued in the Senate inquiry into the bill that this was essential to the success of the Government's taxation measure.

As the history of public health in Australia demonstrates, sponsorship of sporting events is not a barrier to the success of other harm reduction measures. A ban on tobacco company sponsorship of sporting events was one of the last measures introduced to combat tobacco-related harms in Australia. In fact, the last tobacco sponsorship of a sporting event occurred less than three years ago. Most of the decline in tobacco use over the past 30 years has occurred alongside some sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies.

Senator Fielding, along with his Liberal Party and Nationals colleagues, should learn a lesson from history and seize every opportunity to reduce youth alcohol misuse. While other measures are clearly required to address this complex issue, a tax increase on alcopops makes perfect sense when the group most vulnerable to harms associated with these products are also the most price sensitive. Unfortunately, by voting against this important bill they have simply managed to swell the coffers of the distillers while doing nothing to reduce the growing health and social problems associated with the consumption of alcopops by young Australians.

Happy Birthday Glen

I haven't sent your present yet so here is a picture of Bear as a prepresent