August 8, 2007
New DNA evidence confirms that the three accused cannot be linked to the crime scene. A new appeal against the conviction of Damien Echols is gaining momentum but funds are needed to get things moving more quickly. If you’ve been concerned about this case and can spare a few dollars, now is the time to donate. Any one care to match or raise my $40 USD? http://www.wm3.org/
July 27, 2007
Today at the shopping center, ahead of me I spot a gorgeous little boy, no more than 3 years old, walking and holding the hand of a white woman. The boy had brown skin, lovely dark curly hair, and from quick glance, clearly looked indigenous. As I walked past the woman and boy I hear some teenage boys on the other side of me laughing and saying out of ear shot of the woman, and in reference to the boy “did you pick him up at the petrol station?”
It made me so mad, and sad. Even an innocent three year old boy is fair game for racist jibes apparently. I wish I was quick witted enough to have had something devastating to say to that ignorant kid. All I could offer was a hopelessly inadequate glare.
July 14, 2007
Is it just me, or is the case against Haneef a complete farce? He gave one of the bombers the sim card from his mobile phone before he left the UK, because he had 3 minutes left on the card and figured someone else could use it. This kind gesture has resulted in Dr. Haneef being charged with recklessly supporting terrorism. The federal police must have been pretty damn desperate to charge him with something. Unless there is more evidence to come to light, he is only guilty by association. It’s fucking stupid. This poor man has been put through an unnecessary ordeal that has ruined his reputation… how is he supposed to continue working in Australia as a doctor after this?
Haneef charged with terrorism offence
Be careful who you open a door for or are kind to… you could be charged with recklessly supporting terrorism! Best to just be a selfish bastard if you don’t want any trouble.
June 27, 2007
Australia’s 2006 Census was released today. My question is: why are we celebrating the increase in birth rate when we are in a situation where essential resources such as water are dwindling at an alarming rate? Isn’t it clear that we don’t have the resources to sustain continuous population increases? One of the main arguments for a birth rate increase is that we need more people in order to care for our aging population - but I for one think we need to revitalise a discussion that occurred over 10 years ago in the 1990s on ‘Sustainable Population’, and consider other strategies for taking care of the elderly.
A birth rate increase is likely to lead to a population increase, and this means an increase in resource consumption. Responsible public policy is geared towards reducing our resource consumption in order to preserve those resources and reduce our negative impact on the environment. This is no longer the lofty demand of environmental groups, it’s government policy. Isn’t population increase counter to these aims?
The more we increase our population, the more demands are placed on resources. As resources are depleted, the less sustainable the population becomes. Surely, one of the avenues for preserving water and reducing our impact on the environment is to reduce population, or at least retain current levels. Why is the concept of ’sustainable population’ absent from public discourse on these issues?
This discussion is uncomfortable for some because things such as limits on immigration and China’s ‘One Child Policy’ come to mind when issues of controlling population are raised. However these measures do not need to be part of the equation. Birth rates of many Western nations are in decline because women are choosing not to have children, and thus limits on immigration are not necessary.
Those more cynical (such as myself) might suggest that an increase in population is desirable to authorities because it means an increase in the consumer base, and the only entities that benefit from that are corporations and their profit margins. Peter Costello’s mantra “one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, I’ve always understood to mean ‘one for mum, one for dad, and one for the corporations‘. How about not having one, for the environment. That’s what I intend to do.
June 14, 2007
Depression causes you to download at child porn? Give me a break. This was the claim made by a barrister for the former NSW chief prosecutor in court today at his sentence appeal hearing.
I can accept that depression might lead one to an internet addiction (or vice versa), but to claim that being depressed made his client compulsively download 400 images and 30 videos of child pornography, and then to compare this to the compulsion to gamble, is rather far fetched. There is a known link between gambling and depression, but when one looses their moral compass and breaks the law to feed their gambling habit, that’s the addiction taking hold, not the depression.
Depression can lead to a lack of concern for ones self and others, but in my view to claim that depression is the reason this man downloaded so much child porn, is just plain offensive. Did the depression cause him to become sexually aroused by the child porn as well? Or perhaps the depression was caused by his desire to download child porn in the first place.
Depression may impair your judgment to some degree, but it does not erode your ability to know the difference between right and wrong. This case, to me, is another example of an increasing trend to use the very serious illness of depression as a scapegoat and mask for other serious issues. I’m not suggesting that this man was not depressed and did not have an internet addition. I am suggesting that it is possible that the depression and internet addition played role, but these two factors alone cannot explain why he downloaded child pornography. In passing off behaviour such as this as the result of depression, the underlying reasons of why the former NSW chief prosecutor really downloaded child porn will not be addressed.
Recent Comments