You do know Tony Abbott, right? Opus Dei fan? Anti-choice health minister who fucked us over on RU486 for years? Waxed lyrical about banning freakin' no-fault divorce a few months back?
His sorry arse shouldn't even have made it as far as it has, but seeing him manage this leaves me somewhat disquieted.
The Cat on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
And if we get really lucky, Abbott’s eventual toppling will bring down Minchin, Tuckey, Bishop and every other ugly holdover from the white picket fence brigade.
While that would be nice, it seems unlikely.
If anything should things go pear shaped for the Tories, then it's the mdoerates who're most likely to suffer, and thus ugly holdover is likely to be the ones left standing. They're the ones supported by the Liberal base, and they're the ones who're likely to retain their seats. Afterall, who're the base going to vote for? Certainly not the Labor party, never the Labor party or ...well, anyone else except Family First. Which brings its own problems with it in any case - FF is the socially conservative alternative, but not the WOO MORE MONEY FOR THE UPPER CLASSES alternative (well, not in the same fashion anyway).
Also, my money is on there NOT being a DD in the immediate future, there's some tricky maths to do regarding determining the best time to do so - namely relating to how it affects senate terms - there's going to be a time which is best for Labor, namely when it shortens the terms of the most Liberal senators.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
I'm not sure about how I feel on ETS schemes. It seems like the wishy washy way out - the "centrist" solution, given that it's an attempt to use Market Tools which the Right likes to achieve emissions reductions.
It seems like something which is more likely to put the pressure on consumers before industries, as the industries will initially respond by passing on costs while slowly finding ways to compete on price due to their ability to reduce their need for carbon credits. Such is my naive economic understanding, anyway.
I DON'T think the market is the right tool for the job in this case, I think direct action is better - government investment in green technologies, movement towards nuclear power at least in the interim, massive public transport infrastructure improvements, more initiatives regarding greening building practices. For industry, I don't know what the carbon equivalent of forcing them to place their water intake downstream from their waste water disposal is, but that.
Apothe0sis on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
Has anyone made the Bishop and Abbot, religious office names lulz joke yet?
Tony-fuckmothering-ABBOTT is leading the Libs now? Phaaaark.
That's what I get for not logging onto news.com.au for a while. Christ. Looks like I have to call home and see what the rest of my family has to say. D=
And if we get really lucky, Abbott’s eventual toppling will bring down Minchin, Tuckey, Bishop and every other ugly holdover from the white picket fence brigade.
While that would be nice, it seems unlikely.
If anything should things go pear shaped for the Tories, then it's the mdoerates who're most likely to suffer, and thus ugly holdover is likely to be the ones left standing. They're the ones supported by the Liberal base, and they're the ones who're likely to retain their seats. Afterall, who're the base going to vote for? Certainly not the Labor party, never the Labor party or ...well, anyone else except Family First. Which brings its own problems with it in any case - FF is the socially conservative alternative, but not the WOO MORE MONEY FOR THE UPPER CLASSES alternative (well, not in the same fashion anyway).
Well, except for Minchin, they all lost a lot of influence after 2007. Shit, I dunno even know what Tony Abbott was doing for that first year and a half. If they run as Howard era lite in 2010, and get trounced, then I can see their party room influence drying up pretty badly. But honestly, can anyone explain Julie Bishop? Anyone?
Also I love watching Tony Abbott try to contextualise "Climate change is crap" so that he doesn't sound like a skeptic.
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
Greens probably. Labor is pushing the internet censorship deal. The libs are never going to support R video games.
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
Not the Liberal Party, not the Family First party.
Possibly the Libertarian Party Of Australia or whatever they call them selves.
But if you want a vote that counts maybe the Greens? They are pretty socially radical.
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
Where abouts are you living? Because there are a handful of individuals bringing the crazy on these issues, and the most important thing is to get them (I'm looking at you Michael Atkinson) out of the way.
Other than that, voting is a lot less important than being vocal about the fact that free speech is an important value to you. Signing petitions, writing letters, all that boring stuff. It's rarely an issue people campaign on because the general impression is that we're all pretty apathetic when it comes to censorship (which is true- we're a laaaazy country). And that's how people like Atkinson and Conroy can frame the debate as one between hard-working, principle families and a bunch of violent, kiddy fiddling basement dwellers.
Arent the greens that one party that wanted to ban all mining in australia? The most retarded thing ive ever heard.
Atkinson is the guy that is benning vidjagames right? He has his reasons, but by his very same logic, all frms of entertainment that are availble at a home need to be controlled by the government, there shouldnt be porn or books like american psycho because a kid could get his hands on them.
He does have his reasons, and they're not particularly good reasons, and he gets to say things like "I think you will find this issue has little traction with my constituents, who are more concerned with real-life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds".
Also all forms of entertainment are controlled by the government. Books and movies get banned too.
Low Key on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
The Pirate Party. We've just started to have one.
Of course, for the forseeable future they're only ever going to be viable in the senate.
And honestly, they're probably not viable for the moment for the senate either.
Atkinson also stifled a public consultation report on R18+ games, because it didn't agree with his views.
Australia's censorship policy is incredibly regressive. While voting in the Greens may help on the federal level, there still remains the issue of any change to the R18+ ban requiring the unanimous support of all 7 state governors.
That said, I dislike the Greens for a few reasons. One of the biggest is their pants-on-head retarded views on nuclear power - including opposition to even mining fucking uranium. We have an incredibly tectonically stable desert the size of the Sahara, 23% of the world's known uranium deposits (the largest in the world), yet we have no fucking nuclear power plants, won't build any dumps, and will hardly even mine the fucking shit.
I really do love Australia as a country, but fuckdamn the attitude to nuclear power here is enraging.
The greens were the best option voting on internet/video games issues only. They have a whole boatload of crazy but they still might be able to do some good if they hold balance in the senate as they may well after next election. If the internet censorship thing goes through watch the 20 somethings bail on Rudd and go straight to the Greens.
Meh, I think the importance / effects of the ALP's internet censorship thing is overstated. Assuming they ever even manage to get it off the ground (which I doubt), I suspect most of the blocked sites won't be missed by anyone. Admittedly you could argue that this is the thin end of the wedge, but I really can't see the senate letting this get too out of hand.
Zedar on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
have you seen the blacklist that has been used Zedar?
Plus, there's the whole "no oversight" detail. This government may not add anything untoward (which has already largely been proven to be false), but successive governments might.
Hrm, not sure what to think after taking a quick look at the list. A lot of them sound... disturbing, in a "probably illegal anyway" sort of way. I noticed a couple of shock sites there, which probably have no place on the list. Some of them didn't sound -too- offensive, but I'm not game to actually look in case they actually are kiddy porn sites and i get a screenful of baby rape or something :P
You missed the entry that was just some dentist dudes business website.
It's not like he had "Click here for information about tooth decay, click here for my pricing on whitening and fillings, click here to see me raping a baby, and click here for contact details."
Hrm, not sure what to think after taking a quick look at the list. A lot of them sound... disturbing, in a "probably illegal anyway" sort of way. I noticed a couple of shock sites there, which probably have no place on the list. Some of them didn't sound -too- offensive, but I'm not game to actually look in case they actually are kiddy porn sites and i get a screenful of baby rape or something :P
A bunch of those sites are just regular porn sites. They're on there for no reason.
Plus there's the Fielding and co. lining up to say that clearly we should block anything which would be refused classification in Australia. So...all pornography essentially. Thankfully the male vote will block that.
A bunch of those sites are just regular porn sites. They're on there for no reason.
Plus there's the Fielding and co. lining up to say that clearly we should block anything which would be refused classification in Australia. So...all pornography essentially. Thankfully the male vote will block that.
Hm okay, maybe it could be problematic then. If it gets out of hand presumably there would be a significant voter backlash, which would either lead to a change of government or them pre-emptively changing it. Hopefully it would never make it through the senate anyway, though Tony Abbott might be more inclined to support it than his predecessors were.
The latest is a button that will auto-submit sites for review.
Since redtube.com is on the list, I can guarentee that all porn will be blocked, and not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
RC is not illegal, but if the Australian Christian Lobby, of which Rudd and Conroy both have given multiple private meetings to, get thier way, anything not christian and wholesome will be blocked.
Im an aethist, but I dont go forcing my belief on others, but apparently I need to be saved, even if I dont want to be.
Don't you think you're being a bit over the top there? I think if Kevin Rudd tried to block all pornography he wouldn't last a week, even the Labor party has more sense than that. Remember, the youth vote played a large part in getting Labor elected, would they want to lose all that by blocking porn?
Zedar on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
It's fairly clearly been created by people with absolutely no understanding of the internet or fighting crime, or well, anything really.
Plus, given it's a secret blacklist it's difficult to create any sort of significant voter backlash. If something stupid like this has to happen (which it shouldn't) it needs to be transparent and administered by someone who doesn't confuse computers with typewriters.
Apothe0sis on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Don't you think you're being a bit over the top there? I think if Kevin Rudd tried to block all pornography he wouldn't last a week, even the Labor party has more sense than that. Remember, the youth vote played a large part in getting Labor elected, would they want to lose all that by blocking porn?
The youth vote also cares about the internet and technology, they've already started along those lines. Political policies, especially with regard to the internet and technology are invariably stupid, and not pragmatically or rationally constructed.
The filter enrages me, they get their foot in the door with appealing to people with talk of child pornography, but then when they have some leverage with that they went and expanded it to anything they deemed "unwanted". They actually went and followed through with a fucking slippery slope situation. And they haven't even got it past the damned trial stage. You would have thought if they were going to pull some nefarious big brother thing they'd at least wait until they had it passed and active.
Also there's the whole issue with it allegedly slowing net speeds by up to 20%. As if aussie internet wasn't shit enough already. But the thing I find really insidious is the whole making it an opt out thing. Sure, you can opt out of this filter. They just have your information on a list now. It feels so fucking dirty.
Of course the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time for it's intended purpose. How is a list of websites that they create manually going to stop or even slow down child pornography. And more importantly, if they have the information for a website that has child pornography or something actually deserving of a national filter on it, wouldn't it be easy as fuck to get it shut down? You think about this thing rationally for one minute and it no longer makes any sense whatsoever.
Plus they already distributed free net filter software to concerned parents through a government website. Why not bring back that scheme and expand/advertise it? It seems like a much simpler, cheaper and better solution. Rather than wasting my taxpayer dollars on a pointless, expensive scheme that accomplishes nothing except adversely effecting the already substandard australian internet.
God I hate Stephen Conroy.
-SPI- on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
Well, different reports say it will slow speeds from anywhere from 15 to 78 percent.
So im fairly behind on aussy politics, not to mention i only got my citizenship a few years ago and have no idea how the system works here. Who do i vote for to not have censorship when it comes to the internet, books i read, and videogames i play? Who do i vote for that wont ban things for my own good?
I believe the greens are opposed to Uranium mining, not mining in general.
Its less mining itself and more of a hate-on for how incredibly crap mining companies are at cleaning up after themselves. Not many people ever get to see exactly how crap they are because mines are safely in the middle of nowhere for the most part, but they really do suck tremendously.
Hrm, not sure what to think after taking a quick look at the list. A lot of them sound... disturbing, in a "probably illegal anyway" sort of way. I noticed a couple of shock sites there, which probably have no place on the list. Some of them didn't sound -too- offensive, but I'm not game to actually look in case they actually are kiddy porn sites and i get a screenful of baby rape or something :P
The list itself isn't even the main problem, its the fact that its illegal to ask what's on the list/if you're on the list and functionally impossible to get removed from it if you're added in error. It leaves the way open for any sites that some random-ass bureaucrat takes a misliking to to get added, with no need for justification or even notification. Massive, massive FOI fail.
Well that would be brilliant. Spend millions setting up a cockamamie internet filter and then several billion dollars rolling out a new broadband network so you can get back up to the (shitty) internet speed you had before.
I believe the greens are opposed to Uranium mining, not mining in general.
Its less mining itself and more of a hate-on for how incredibly crap mining companies are at cleaning up after themselves. Not many people ever get to see exactly how crap they are because mines are safely in the middle of nowhere for the most part, but they really do suck tremendously.
Going by their official site, no, not really.
The Australian Greens want to end uranium mining and export in Australia. Uranium mining is the first link in the dirty and dangerous nuclear chain, providing the fuel for nuclear reactors, fission nuclear weapons and depleted uranium weapons. Its end product is radioactive waste. Over half of the world’s uranium is in Australia and Canada, and most of Australia's richest uranium deposits are located on land which is owned, claimed or occupied by Aboriginal people. Once uranium leaves Australian shores, the Federal Government cannot actually control its use in nuclear arms manufacture or testing despite claims that safeguards agreements will achieve this.
Posts
>_<
Tony Abbott likes to wear his catholicism on his sleeve.
His sorry arse shouldn't even have made it as far as it has, but seeing him manage this leaves me somewhat disquieted.
While that would be nice, it seems unlikely.
If anything should things go pear shaped for the Tories, then it's the mdoerates who're most likely to suffer, and thus ugly holdover is likely to be the ones left standing. They're the ones supported by the Liberal base, and they're the ones who're likely to retain their seats. Afterall, who're the base going to vote for? Certainly not the Labor party, never the Labor party or ...well, anyone else except Family First. Which brings its own problems with it in any case - FF is the socially conservative alternative, but not the WOO MORE MONEY FOR THE UPPER CLASSES alternative (well, not in the same fashion anyway).
Also, my money is on there NOT being a DD in the immediate future, there's some tricky maths to do regarding determining the best time to do so - namely relating to how it affects senate terms - there's going to be a time which is best for Labor, namely when it shortens the terms of the most Liberal senators.
Tony Abbott.
Jesus.
It seems like something which is more likely to put the pressure on consumers before industries, as the industries will initially respond by passing on costs while slowly finding ways to compete on price due to their ability to reduce their need for carbon credits. Such is my naive economic understanding, anyway.
I DON'T think the market is the right tool for the job in this case, I think direct action is better - government investment in green technologies, movement towards nuclear power at least in the interim, massive public transport infrastructure improvements, more initiatives regarding greening building practices. For industry, I don't know what the carbon equivalent of forcing them to place their water intake downstream from their waste water disposal is, but that.
Tony-fuckmothering-ABBOTT is leading the Libs now? Phaaaark.
That's what I get for not logging onto news.com.au for a while. Christ. Looks like I have to call home and see what the rest of my family has to say. D=
STEAM | XBL | PSN
Well, except for Minchin, they all lost a lot of influence after 2007. Shit, I dunno even know what Tony Abbott was doing for that first year and a half. If they run as Howard era lite in 2010, and get trounced, then I can see their party room influence drying up pretty badly. But honestly, can anyone explain Julie Bishop? Anyone?
Also I love watching Tony Abbott try to contextualise "Climate change is crap" so that he doesn't sound like a skeptic.
Pitty Peter Costello retired?
Greens probably. Labor is pushing the internet censorship deal. The libs are never going to support R video games.
Not the Liberal Party, not the Family First party.
Possibly the Libertarian Party Of Australia or whatever they call them selves.
But if you want a vote that counts maybe the Greens? They are pretty socially radical.
Where abouts are you living? Because there are a handful of individuals bringing the crazy on these issues, and the most important thing is to get them (I'm looking at you Michael Atkinson) out of the way.
Other than that, voting is a lot less important than being vocal about the fact that free speech is an important value to you. Signing petitions, writing letters, all that boring stuff. It's rarely an issue people campaign on because the general impression is that we're all pretty apathetic when it comes to censorship (which is true- we're a laaaazy country). And that's how people like Atkinson and Conroy can frame the debate as one between hard-working, principle families and a bunch of violent, kiddy fiddling basement dwellers.
Atkinson is the guy that is benning vidjagames right? He has his reasons, but by his very same logic, all frms of entertainment that are availble at a home need to be controlled by the government, there shouldnt be porn or books like american psycho because a kid could get his hands on them.
Also all forms of entertainment are controlled by the government. Books and movies get banned too.
The Pirate Party. We've just started to have one.
Of course, for the forseeable future they're only ever going to be viable in the senate.
And honestly, they're probably not viable for the moment for the senate either.
Australia's censorship policy is incredibly regressive. While voting in the Greens may help on the federal level, there still remains the issue of any change to the R18+ ban requiring the unanimous support of all 7 state governors.
That said, I dislike the Greens for a few reasons. One of the biggest is their pants-on-head retarded views on nuclear power - including opposition to even mining fucking uranium. We have an incredibly tectonically stable desert the size of the Sahara, 23% of the world's known uranium deposits (the largest in the world), yet we have no fucking nuclear power plants, won't build any dumps, and will hardly even mine the fucking shit.
I really do love Australia as a country, but fuckdamn the attitude to nuclear power here is enraging.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
It doesn't exactly instill confidence.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
It's not like he had "Click here for information about tooth decay, click here for my pricing on whitening and fillings, click here to see me raping a baby, and click here for contact details."
Just some dentist dude.
A bunch of those sites are just regular porn sites. They're on there for no reason.
Plus there's the Fielding and co. lining up to say that clearly we should block anything which would be refused classification in Australia. So...all pornography essentially. Thankfully the male vote will block that.
Hm okay, maybe it could be problematic then. If it gets out of hand presumably there would be a significant voter backlash, which would either lead to a change of government or them pre-emptively changing it. Hopefully it would never make it through the senate anyway, though Tony Abbott might be more inclined to support it than his predecessors were.
Since redtube.com is on the list, I can guarentee that all porn will be blocked, and not a damn thing anyone can do about it.
RC is not illegal, but if the Australian Christian Lobby, of which Rudd and Conroy both have given multiple private meetings to, get thier way, anything not christian and wholesome will be blocked.
Im an aethist, but I dont go forcing my belief on others, but apparently I need to be saved, even if I dont want to be.
Plus, given it's a secret blacklist it's difficult to create any sort of significant voter backlash. If something stupid like this has to happen (which it shouldn't) it needs to be transparent and administered by someone who doesn't confuse computers with typewriters.
The youth vote also cares about the internet and technology, they've already started along those lines. Political policies, especially with regard to the internet and technology are invariably stupid, and not pragmatically or rationally constructed.
Also there's the whole issue with it allegedly slowing net speeds by up to 20%. As if aussie internet wasn't shit enough already. But the thing I find really insidious is the whole making it an opt out thing. Sure, you can opt out of this filter. They just have your information on a list now. It feels so fucking dirty.
Of course the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time for it's intended purpose. How is a list of websites that they create manually going to stop or even slow down child pornography. And more importantly, if they have the information for a website that has child pornography or something actually deserving of a national filter on it, wouldn't it be easy as fuck to get it shut down? You think about this thing rationally for one minute and it no longer makes any sense whatsoever.
Plus they already distributed free net filter software to concerned parents through a government website. Why not bring back that scheme and expand/advertise it? It seems like a much simpler, cheaper and better solution. Rather than wasting my taxpayer dollars on a pointless, expensive scheme that accomplishes nothing except adversely effecting the already substandard australian internet.
God I hate Stephen Conroy.
20 seems... optimistic.
No-one, pretty much. Well, maybe the greens.
Its less mining itself and more of a hate-on for how incredibly crap mining companies are at cleaning up after themselves. Not many people ever get to see exactly how crap they are because mines are safely in the middle of nowhere for the most part, but they really do suck tremendously.
The list itself isn't even the main problem, its the fact that its illegal to ask what's on the list/if you're on the list and functionally impossible to get removed from it if you're added in error. It leaves the way open for any sites that some random-ass bureaucrat takes a misliking to to get added, with no need for justification or even notification. Massive, massive FOI fail.
At least it's retardedly easy to get around!
Going by their official site, no, not really.
http://greensmps.org.au/uraniummining
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.