The U.N. signals that things will be different now with a new leader

When a system is bloated and ineffective, change comes incrementally and painfully. Sometimes a complete change is needed to effect real change.

Why wouldn't we trust our leaders

More disturbing than those who see only the back of the person in front, is those who see the door and still enter.

Why use force to steal my freedom?

If my activities cause no harm to anyone else then why is it anyone else's business?

My owning guns does absolutely nothing to harm anyone else. As soon as my *actions* harm someone else then I deserve retaliation. I deserve to have force enacted upon me because I have made the choice to use force.

I own my life, I make my own choices and I take full responsibility for how I choose to live.

When people such as yourself expect the government to use force to make me behave how you want, then you are stealing my freedom and stealing your own freedom. If you give power to the government to take my property and liberty at the point of a gun then you are personally responsible for the stealing of my freedom.

When you give the government power to enforce *your* view you are ignoring the fact that successive governments will still have that power. These successive governments may have a different view to yours but by then it's too late, you've already given your freedom away.

If I do not harm anyone then it is morally wrong for me to have my freedoms stolen.

This is the crux of my argument against what you want to impose on me. After the next paragraph I'll give some examples. If you're not in the mood for large blocks of text then feel free to ignore them.

=====================================

Examples:

Smoking Bans

A large number of people are against smoking for health reasons and because they simply don't like the smell of tobacco. Instead of steering clear of businesses that allow smoking or letting the owner know that they are not giving them their money, they get the government to pass laws. The effect of these laws is that a private business owner on his/her property does not have the freedom to choose how to run their business. Smokers, who are choosing to use a legal drug, are also denied the freedom to frequent businesses of their choice.

If a business owner chooses not to obey these laws then he/she will be fined. If they don't pay the fine then they will ultimately be taken by force and incarcerated. People who support smoking bans are supporting this use of force.

The government now has the power to ban activities on private property in the interests of health. The critical question is now that they have this power, what else will they use it for? Alcohol? High sugar foods? high fat foods? This may sound a bit extreme but consider that the US had Prohibition, that high sugar foods are getting removed from schools and that New York city is trying to put through legislation to ban serving of certain high fat foods.

Anti-terror laws, secret arrests and national ID cards.

One of the most insidious tools of government at this point in time is the fear of terrorism. This is being horribly milked to destroy many of the freedoms that we have. People who support these draconian laws support: the government deciding *who* is a terrorist; ASIO being able to secretly arrest people without charge for seven days and penalising anyone who mentions that this has happened; tracking of our movements; invading our privacy.

Where do you realistically think this erosion of freedoms is going to stop? The UK currently has 14.3 million (yes, million) CCTV cameras monitoring their streets. Within 5 years they will be tracking (via number plate recognition) the movements of *all* vehicles in major urban centres. They are introducing an ID card that will be compulsory by 2008 with the current plan being that *everyone* will be fingerprinted.

Justification of income.

Currently in Victoria, if you are caught with an amount of cash $20,000 or greater and can't explain it to the satisfaction of the authorities then it can be confiscated until you do. Banks are also required to report transcations of $10,000+ to the government. The questions to ask are: where will this stop?; how low will the levels go?; who else will end up being responsible for reporting this sort of information?

The problem is that all these laws *sound* so good. People buy the pollywaffle that they will be safer and life will be better. The question that never seems to be asked is "What is the cost of believing these lies?"

What lies are we being repeatedly told?

One of the mainstays of successful propaganda is the repetition of lies until they are held to be the truth. Even when there is doubt about the message it can still be treated as truth because a critical mass of people cannot be bothered to listen critically.

Those of us who are prepared to listen carefully hold a massive advantage. In order to tell a lie repeatedly it has to be revealed. Once a lie is revealed then it can be assessed for what it is.

There another advantage in that an organisation that has lied in the past can be assessed skeptically. When this organisation starts to spin or repeat a message then the ears can go up and open out. The message may turn out to be the truth but when the lie is caught we become forewarned and forearmed.

When will the do-gooders get their snivelling noses out of my life?

There are many arguments for why people should be able to dictate how I live my life in "the interests of society" and "for the greater good". Google them up and make up your own mind.

My mind is already made up and falls squarely on the side of letting me decide how I can live my life. If I don't harm anyone then I am entitled to live my life in whatever style I want. I can take responsibility for my life and my decisions. I don't need do-gooders using the power of government to force me to live my life according to their ideals.

A classic example recently was an argument with a non-smoking family member who supports the Australian smoking bans. I argued that she should be supporting the choice of business owners to allow smoking in their establishments. I also argued that she should support my choice to smoke in these establishments. My argument was based on supporting her freedom by supporting those of others.

I can't have freedom without giving that same freedom to others.

I maintained that she was using the government to support her point of view and force me to comply with her morals and choices. When I asked "do you support the government telling people what they can do on their own property and own business" she considered it. Her answer revealed the truth - "No, I don't think they should have that power except for something that is unhealthy like smoking".

"...except..." - there's the grubby moral lever that these do-gooders use to force their agenda. As soon as I hear "except" or "but" then I know I'm arguing with someone who wants to foist their ideals on me by force.

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that when you give away these powers you seldom get them back?
Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that these powers can be used against them when the government they want is replaced by the government they don't want?
If I make a choice and no-one else is hurt then what business is it of those who disagree with my choice?

To paraphrase Matthew 7:1-5 - "Fix up your own life and until then, piss off and leave me alone".

Free Speech rot setting seed

This story from the ABC (here in Oz) gives me no comfort about the sanctity of Free Speech in my country - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1730338.htm

The story is about Sandra Kanck, a South Australian Minister, who gave details on suicide methods in Parliament. As stated in the article:

"A motion to delete a speech by South Australian Democrats MP Sandra Kanck from the electronic version of Hansard was carried by one vote in the state's Legislative Council yesterday."

Now we have censorship of Free Speech at the highest level supported by the law makers. Reading the article it implies that the non-electronic version will not be edited. The version most accessible to the average person (via the net) will now reflect what the politicians want the truth to look like.

As slow as the sun, as fast as a sunrise...Seed the weeds and dance in the rot.

Bugger 'em

I’ve had it with pussyfooting around on the issue of guns. I like to shoot competitions, I like to hunt and I like guns. If someone doesn’t agree with me then they can go jump. I support 100% the concept of doing whatever we like, as long as it doesn’t harm another person. Guess what? My sport does not harm anyone else.

We’ve all heard the tired old blather that leaks from the humourless mouths of the gun control movement. The basic point that is often missed is that these people want to spend my money to make me do what they want. They want to control how I live my life. It doesn’t matter what words you wrap around “control”, it’s still offensive.

Let’s call a gun a gun. They are a weapon, a tool, a machine of desire, a piece of art, a testament to human mechanical ingenuity. Like a barrel that has seen too many rounds, I find that my patience is worn out with close-minded people who only want to point out the negatives of my free choice.

If I want to use a tool to propel a projectile at a target and measure my eye-hand coordination against someone else then I deserve that freedom. Humankind has been involved in this activity since we competed to see who the best rock thrower was. If I choose to use a tool to eliminate feral animals or hunt animals for food then I deserve that freedom. Our ancestors didn’t stalk wild lentils and quiver in fear at the sabre-toothed tofu, they killed animals to survive.

If you don’t like guns then don’t use them. Leave me alone to live my life. Take your advice and bugger off!

Gun Control Freaks!

I replied to a post in aus.politics.guns (either http://tinyurl.com/oko8g or http://news-reader.org/article.php?group=aus.politics.guns&post_nr=70337 ) and wanted it recorded in my blog as I find the Gun Control Freaks so frustrating!

btw, LEOs are Law Enforcement Officers

(post by Gun Control Freak) - **Nope. These guns are not needed by anyone other than LEOs.

(my reply)
Trevor, there's the problem in a nutshell. You trust the government to do the right thing (via their appointed LEOs) and believe that other members of the community can't be trusted to be responsible with *whatever* they choose to own.

The irony is that LEOs and government *are* the community. Do you think that they somehow transform into different people when they take these roles on? Of course they don't, they are the same people. If you trust an LEO then you must trust other members of your community.

All the licensing, monitoring and restrictions is simply a waste of taxpayer's money and unwarranted bureaucratic busy-bodying. This may be your glory-cause that allows you to put your hand over your heart and say with sincerity and a little tear "at least I've saved one life". It's also *my* tax money, *my* freedom and *my* future that control freaks such as yourself are playing with.

Gun Control, Anti-Terror Laws, Secret Arrest and National ID cards...is this really what you want for our children?

Ardeet

IED - The new BS bellwether

IED - Improvised Explosive Device.

For me this is the new bellwether of fear and BS.

Listen and look at how it's used in Government releases and Media reports. It's the new butter for the fear-churn. WMD is tainted, IED is fresh and exciting!

IED - "I can't believe it's not WMD".

It seems as though IED is now becoming a useful acronym to wrap with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

What can we do?

• Take note of where IED is used and how it is used.
  
• Point out BS occurences of IED to other people
  

US Airports are completely secure

On the American ABC there was a video called "Airports flunk bomb test".

The video link is: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1736851

The story is concerned primarily with chemicals being taken through security that would allow construction of an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) on the other side of the detectors. The story finishes with responses by DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

According to ABC - "Homeland Security has admitted it is especially worried about explosive devices slipping through...[it] recently cut back on the list of banned items so that screeners could concentrate on looking for bomb-making material".

Once again the fear of dreaded nail clipper has proved to be a waste of time and resources.


What was the response from DHS, considering that they are worried about explosive devices slipping through?

According to ABC - "Homeland Security labelled these these tests as far fetched saying - ' While random items commonly found under a kitchen sink could conceivably be concocted into an IED, there are so many things that could go wrong with this hypothetical scenario that we find it highly implausible.' "

Great, the response is not to worry about it because you're just being worried by spin and fear. It's fortunate for the world that we only get truth from the DHS. Truth such as the following:

According to ABC - "And they added - 'Our layers of Security are very strong and the American public should be confident in the system' "

Phew, I was almost beginning to think that an international organisation of dedicated fighters with millions of dollars at their disposal, time on their side, fanatical devotion to their cause and more reasons every year to attack might actually be able to crack the DHS Security. Now I can sit back in peaceful oblivion here in Australia knowing that our own Homeland Security has yet another great lead to follow.

What can we do?

• Tell other people how ludicrous the security measures are.
  
• When you're at an airport, question the security people when you get a chance. Make them spend time articulating their policies and ask how it actually protects.
  

e-Currencies

I'm thrilled to the back teeth to see e-Currencies strengthen. It's a concept that I've only recently become aware of, and am already starting to get excited about.

In my understanding, in it's purest sense an e-Currency is a currency purportedly without nation or government that allows a non-currency exchange based transaction between entities.

Good old wikipedia has some references and links here:

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=21285508&postID=114172759898792320

As an example of e-Currency, here's some information on a popular one - e-gold.

e-Gold (www.e-gold.com)

e-Gold is explained pretty well in this article (which also takes quotes from e-gold):

http://www.blonnet.com/ew/2002/11/06/stories/2002110600310100.htm

They explain the following:

"e-gold, quite simply, is an electronic currency issued by a company. ... , its currency is backed fully and at all times by gold bullion in allocated storage."

"Thus, e-gold is ideally suited for international transactions. Although e-gold is accounted by weight, the e-gold payment system allows spends to be expressed in terms of the eight major national currencies currently so accepted. For example, it's possible to spend 10 troy oz worth of e-gold or 5.3 grams worth of e-gold or US $100.00 worth of e-gold or CHF 685.88 worth of e-gold. This basically means that a Canadian, say, can pay a German or a Japanese can pay an Australian the correct weight of gold (e-gold) for a good or service as easily as if the price had been quoted in his own national currency."

"The bullion is held in the form of certified good delivery bars"

"...the company modestly identifies itself as a Nevis corporation. ... A Nevis corporation is one that is incorporated in the Island of Nevis ... It is currently a member of the Federation of St Kitts & Nevis, a sovereign, independent nation and a member of both the British Commonwealth and the United Nations. "

I expect that will be the regular assortment of scams by preying individuals and government misinformation (in fact if you read the whole article above which mentions the Reserve Bank of India you'll see some common nervousness).

To me this ushers in a new era where we can control our financial transactions, independent of government interference and busybodying. This personal power and responsibility can only be a good thing.

What can we do?

• Talk to people about this service and way of doing business
• Experiment with it ourselves. Use a tiny bit of money to find out your own reality.
  
• Think for ourselves

V-Chip Insanity

An article in PC Mag reveals a new and improved way to ensure censorship:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1930598,00.asp

Hallelujiah the new V-Chip (v.gis) has arrived! Finally we can get rid of another responsibility. Tuck that cotton wool in mummy-government, I'm getting more comfortable.

This is the new version of the V-Chip that allows a broadcast to be filtered based on it's rating. This new chip is programmable and can be changed to incorporate future rating changes. This begs the questions: who will control future rating changes; how many will be implemented; what say will we have? Those of you who think will know the answers to these three questions:

1) The government

2) As many is necessary to ensure that someone else's will is forced upon us (eg an anti-government rating?)

3) As much say as we have now. ;(

From the article:
"The FCC rules require that if you are selling a digital television receiver product you must include this [open V-chip] capability,"

"must". MUST? - who on earth do these people think they are? What right do they have to tell us what we "must" watch. Unfortunately the response by a lazy majority of people will be "baaaah".

While it is a cliche now, it is also the undeniable and practical truth - "If you don't want to watch it, turn it off!"

When will we start paying taxes for government officials to come round and wipe our bums? (the answer obviously is after a government sub-committee on Adult Hygeine has spent 3 years doing a feasability study with our money followed by trial runs in a small town receiving a grant to shut up about the skewed statistics that will be released to support what the do-gooders want done in the first place).

What can we do?

• Talk to people about this issue
• Contact manufacturers and ask for them to make it easily disabled.
  
• Write to your local and federal politicians and ask for it to be optional.
  
• Write into local and national newspapers and express your disgust.
  
• Call in to radio and tv stations
  
• Think for ourselves

The Messiah Complex

I wonder if each of us has a desire or a subconscious need within ourselves to be a Messiah? What I think of as "The Messiah Complex" seems to manifest itself as a desire to help people.

When this help is rejected it sets up an almost negative reaction and is treated as a bit of a slap in the face, even though we may realise that we were trying to help without being asked.

Correspondingly, when our help is accepted there can be satisfaction and sometimes even a feeling of joy within.

The desire to help may be the same start that has sparked figures throughout history to exceed and excel and become accepted as a Messiah.

Lying Politicians

Here's a link to another story about a politician lying (in this case US pollie Cheney):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1567014.htm

US Vice-President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal has reported...

...Libby, Mr Cheney's former chief of staff, faces perjury and other charges in the leak of the identity of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, a move that effectively ended her career at the CIA.

There is no way that I can say that I have not lied, I have. Knowing that I am flawed means I must temper my disgust with politicians lying. What I find hard to accept is that their lies kill people and take my freedom. It is also an "accepted" part of the political "game" and the sheeple do nothing about it.

How often do you have conversations with people about politicions lying and getting a snort and a shrug?

What can we do?

• Talk to people about this issue
• Write to your local and federal politicians
• Write into local and national newspapers
• Call in to radio and tv stations
  
• Think for ourselves

Delicious Coat of Arms recipe

The roo and emu turned out to be a delicious way to celebrate Australia Day.
I seared the roo fillet in some ghee in a pan and then rubbed in a premixed selection of Australian and Thai spices. I deglazed the pan with a Barossa shiraz and strained it as a sauce.

For the emu I put it in a casserole dish and rubbed it with some honey, wattle seed, lemon myrtle and bush pepperberries. The juice after the baking was then also strained and used as a sauce.

I served it with a selection of cubed and roasted pumpkin, potato, sweet potato and carrot. I also warmed some slices of mango with finely cut shallots.

What did I learn?

• The coat of arms is a tastly dish
• Cook the roo and the emu only to medium rare (medium makes them tougher)
• Use a very small amount of pepperberries (1/10th of regular pepper)
  

Australian Coat of Arms - Delicious!

Australia Day - Eat the Coat of Arms

I live in a country that has the most delicious Coat of Arms in the world - a Kangaroo and an Emu.
Both of these animals are delicious meat, low in fat and low in cholesterol. They also do less damage to the environment than cattle or sheep.
On Australia Day I like to enjoy a portion of Kangaroo and Emu and feel lucky that I live where I do.
The more of us that eat Kangaroo and Emu, the greater the demand and the bigger the industry.
Restaurants could hold Australia Day competitons.
We could have a national competition to create the definitive Coat of Arms dish.

Ultimately I believe that we can help Australia by eating the Coat of Arms.

By the way, the Kangaroo and Emu were picked because neither of them can walk backwards.

Life is good

National ID card for Australia

The National ID card is another victory for terrorists. Be they radical muslims, christians, jews or athiests the people who wish to terrorise our way of life must be laughing at our self-inflicted restrictions.

I don't know if I'm more disgusted with the lies from our fellow citizens in Government or with the sheep-like aquiesence of the rest of society.

Just how many rights are people prepared to lose in this mythical search for safety?

The Australian Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, assured us last year that a National ID card was not going to be an option :

(http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Govt-rules-out-national-ID-card-scheme/2005/07/12/1120934230285.html)
"Attorney-General Philip Ruddock told a national security conference in Canberra on Tuesday the government was trawling through databases, including Medicare and the Australian Tax Office, to cross reference Australian identities.
He said properly identifying Australians was the first step towards creating a national identity card but promised the government had no plans to do so."

It now transpires that the National ID card been placed firmly on the agenda in the form of an inquiry (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1548013.htm). We have let the Government lie to us once again. In addition to a number we are also allowing these "rights parasites" to entertain the following disgusting possibilities for the card:

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17877336%255E2702,00.html)
"Human Services is consulting closely with the Attorney-General's Department on the services card's numbering system and on what biometric details - such as fingerprints or photographs - should be on it."

What can we do?

• Talk to people about this issue
• Write to your local and federal politicians
• Think for ourselves
  

Ardeet's Soapbox - The Beginning

Welcome to my soapbox.

What concerns me will be addressed.
What doesn't concern me will be ignored.

Feel free to interact and feel free to ignore.

Regards,
Ardeet