Our Atrocious Record II

David Hicks, a citizen of Australia, has been languishing in prison in the U.S. for more than five years, without charge. In all that time, our government has done nothing to try and secure his return to this country. Sure, there’s been a few rumblings in the corridors of power lately, what with Howard being accused of complacency and pandering to the yanks but until today, I hadn’t seen, heard or read anything that made me think there might be a chance he’d ever get home.

Then I read this. Now, I know that I can be a tad cynical and I try to take that into consideration, but in this case I just couldn’t help the thought that all this has come fairly close on the heels of a whole bunch of election speak.

As late as the 12^th of this month, Alexander Downer was saying that Hicks will not return home until he faces trial in the U.S. Today he’s softening that stance, saying he could be home by the end of the year and possibly by Christmas. Apparently he’s brokered a deal that will see David tried and sentenced before then so that he can serve the rest of his sentence here.

Now that really sucks. The fact of the matter is that he is not guilty of any crime under Australian law. Nor is he guilty of any crime under U.S. law at the time of his arrest. No, they’ve had to write new legislation and invent new crimes to charge him with, in retrospect. Our legal system doesn’t allow for you to be charged in retrospect of a new law, so why are we letting them do it? I have to admit though, the attempted murder charge for being at a training camp is my favourite. Last I looked, you actually had to be in the act of trying to murder someone before you could be charged with that. I don’t often find myself agreeing with Bob Brown, but what he says here is quite right. Tawdry politics at it’s very best. Playing with the life of one of your own citizens just to try and score points in an election year is despicable.

Still, I’m not the only one penning the odd spray, aimed firmly at our current government. Here’s one from Malcolm Fraser, himself a former great Liberal leader for whom John Howard served as treasurer. Here’s what the Victorian government is doing. At least they recognise him as one their citizens, and rightly so. Then there were Jeff Kennett’s remarks which formed the substance of my previous missive on this subject. It would seem that Mr. Howard is copping it squarely from both sides.

But today my brother found me a gem. This one, by Robert Richter, using nothing but the Hicks affair as subject matter, has managed to slander Phill Ruddock to the hilt. He even goes so far as to challenge Ruddock to sue. Trouble is that to do so successfully, Ruddock would have to prove that he isn’t being a hypocrite when he flaunts his Amnesty International membership and has been nothing but diligent and caring of a citizen he is sworn to protect, trying all avenues he could to get that citizen home, so I can’t see it happening. I urge you to read the article though. When it comes to a good bake it earns a 5 Star rating.

So once again, in order to let them know that we really aren’t as stupid as they like to think we are and that we know what they’re up to and just how sickening it is, here are those email addresses again…:)

The Prime Minister

Alexander Downer

Phillip Ruddock

Have at them with a vengeance…

7:42 PM - 18/2/2007 - comments {19} - post comment

Alternative Complacency II

Part I is here…

I thought I’d best do a bit of a follow up and actually take a look at what’s available by way of alternatives and what’s being done to make them viable.

I’ve talked a lot about solar and hydrogen fired power generation but that’s not all there is out there. These however, are simply my preferred option, mostly because I think that they are probably the most advanced, but we’re also exploring the auspices of geothermal energy as well.

I’ve also talked about cost, the economy and how I think it’s time we spent some of our hard earned in order to make something else pay. I also talked about the coal and uranium industries and the people that they support. There is no doubt in my mind, that if we were to somehow find an alternative solution overnight, which is not likely, the demise of the coal industry alone would spell economic disaster for this country. The uranium industry isn’t subject to quite the same peril. Uranium is also required to make isotopes and many other things, which is how Lucas Heights makes it’s money, but rationalisation is a real enough issue.

So now that that’s all out of the way, let’s take a look at some simple facts:

1. Being extremely conservative, it’s a fact that enough energy shines on Australia in one sunny week to power the nation for a year or more.
2. Hydrogen + Oxygen = energy and water.
3. Both energy sources are 100% clean.

Ok, that was easy so now for some tricky bits and there’s a few, so I’ll be concentrating on solar in this one and hydrogen in part 3:

1. Currently, the very best terrestrial based photovoltaic flat cell technology is only about 32.5% efficient. That means a maximum power generation of about 175W/m² - approx.
2. The sun doesn’t shine at night so you’ll need to store some of that energy.

Let’s break that down again:

1. A single 175W solar panel will cost you about $1500 and will yield, on a sunny day, 24VDC with a max power output of 4.95A @ 35.4V, so you’ll need quite a few.

We don’t really need to go much further than that, but we will. At peak efficiency, you’ll need a number of these things to run a 1000 watt electric stove. I only have a smallish one and it takes 1800W. Then there’s the fridge and all the lights, not mention the tele, the washing machine and the dryer. The average home uses about 30kW a day. If you want to work out how much you use, it’s on your bill in kilowatt hours (kW/h). Just average it out over your billing period.

2.  Batteries for storage.

Currently, there isn’t really any battery out there that will run your house for a night, including the electric stove and other appliances, unless you have an industrial sized UPS installed. The average tele for instance, that only goes into standby mode uses a constant 20 – 30W before it's switched on. Admitedly, my UPS at work will run my three phased computer room for about half an hour. That sort of energy should just about get me through an entire night at home, but then the batteries will need to be recharged. Then there's the little problem of commercial sized UPS systems costing anywhere up to hundreds of thousands and there's the issue of batteries needing to be replaced and disposed of or recycled every 2 years. The batteries are not only seriously expensive but are full of seriously toxic chemicals.

So what all that means is that at present, a self sufficient solar powered house simply isn’t an option unless you’ve got a cool million or so to outlay for the infrastructure you’ll require, and at least as much again invested to pay for the new batteries and the disposal of the old. That said though, it was only two or three years ago that you needed a cool two or three million, so I guess things are looking up.

That doesn’t mean that solar technology cannot make a valuable and significant contribution though. Multijunction flat cell technology that collects only the light that falls on it isn’t to efficient, but if you build a parabolic collector and focus it on a 0.25m² piece of the same material, you can generate about 30kW which is enough to power a number of homes. Now that’s impressive, but it still suffers from a serious lack of performance when the sun goes down.

That said however, there is currently a major project taking place in Victoria that uses exactly this technology, but on a much larger scale. Both the federal and Victorian governments have contributed quite heavily to it which is a good sign in my opinion. As you can see there, the plan calls for a 154mW (megawatt) power station that will contribute to the national grid. That my friends, is a significant contribution and will be the most significant solar contribution in the world once it’s completed. The boon here is that it helps reduce our dependence on fossil fuel technology.

The CSIRO’s National Solar Energy Centre also provides a fantastic facility that is used to demonstrate various solar technologies. The major showpiece however, is a little different to the one above. Rather than collect and concentrate light onto a photovoltaic cell, it collects and concentrate the sun’s energy, but it uses the heat to make stream and turn turbines.

The installation at that link is a demonstration only and can power only about 100 homes. Seems to me that it’s not quite as efficient as the one above, but this technology has a dual use in that it can also be used to desalinate sea water, but that’s a separate issue. The main issue here is that once again, when the sun goes down, it’s ability to keep powering those homes is seriously diminished. That doesn’t change the fact that a larger plant like this could also make a significant contribution in helping to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and could also help address our water issues. Trouble is that Dr. David Mills has taken his company and this technology offshore and is only leaving a small project behind, mores’ the pity. My guess is that Solar Heat and Power Pty. Ltd. didn’t get the funding because Solar Systems™ got it instead. This is a technology that has serious merit though and is being seriously considered in Europe (Germany mostly) and America(well, only in California, but you get the idea).

So what’s the answer to darkness? Well in my opinion it’s hydrogen but we’ll cover that in part 3.

Well, I hope that helps show some of the pros and cons of solar energy. But as you can see from the links scattered throughout, the technology required is still in it’s infancy at about 30 years or so. What we need is an interim measure that’s clean enough to buy us the time we need. The only serious CO₂ reducers we have are CO₂ sequestration (or “Clean Coal”) or nuclear and of those two, only nuclear is really ready to be used now. I do hope we can make sequestration viable though, because nuclear seems to me to be a little more permanent than interim, if you know what I mean…

9:35 PM - 13/2/2007 - comments {28} - post comment

Alternative Complacency

I have many aspirations for this world of ours. Some would say that mostly what I have is pipe dreams and I guess that in some repects they’d probably be right. It’s not because we’re not capable though, but because we’re to busy making money. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind making money, but I think the time has come when some of it needs to be spent.

I’ve been involved in discussions over at Tinacee’s and Snowy’s concerning alternate energy sources for the production of electricity. I’ve also spoken here about the growing problem we in Australia have with a shortage of water. In both of these discussions we collectively, have discussed some of the ideas that are currently being developed and their usefulness in meeting both our energy requirements and our growing thirst.

One of the questions that keeps coming up however, is “what are we going to do now?” This is because the one thing we all agree on is that now seems to be when we need to be doing something about it. Although we seem to be taking some begrudgingly tentative steps toward remedying our water issues with the use of recycled water, alternative ways to produce energy seem to be caught in a quagmire of speculation, heated debate and government and industry complacency.

The thing that irks me is that we have the technology to deal with both of these things, together and/or separately. Trouble is that these technologies are still very much in their infancy. But it seems to me that as soon as someone comes up with a viable idea that needs a little work, the funding dries up and they take it offshore to somewhere that will fund the research. Why aren’t we, and by “we” I mean our governments, doing something to keep the development of these ideas, technologies and the benefits they bring here?

The thing about now is that we have already proven the technology for solar collection and we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can work. We can turn sunlight into energy using solar cells and we can turn water into steam using mirrors and make electricity as well as produce fresh water. We’re also pretty sure that we can produce hydrogen cheaply enough to be viable, hydrogen which can be burned to provide the heat source if the sun isn’t shining, but this technology also needs more research. They need more research because at the moment, they don’t produce quite the energy we require, although they get better all the time, but the real problem is that they are prohibitively expensive. That doesn’t change the fact that these technologies are available for use now, they are just not viable yet.

As many have said, it was only 150 years or so ago that we had no electricity at all. In less than 100 years of flight we went from crashing gliders to landing a man on the moon. This is stark evidence that we can get things done pretty damn quickly if we really want to. That makes me wonder just how quickly we could make just these two options viable if we really wanted to. 3 to 5 years in my humble opinion, would probably be quite long enough, if we can allocate enough resources to get the research completed. Once again it looks to be a simple matter of some serious logistics, but it’s not likely to happen unless we push very hard.

I think it’s interesting to note that over the last few years, funding to the CSIRO for both hydrogen production and solar energy has been reduced, while funding for research into “clean coal” and CO₂ sequestration has been increased. In three to five years it is my prediction we will have a “solution” where coal is heavily involved and I think there are a number of reasons for this, reasons that any government will wholeheartedly embrace.

1. We have a bucket load of good quality black and brown coal.
2. We make a bucket load of money out of mining, exporting and burning said coal (about $25billion)
3. An entire coal mining industry that would need to be seriously rationalised if we only needed half as much or none at all.

Number one provides employment for tens of thousands of people. Number two provides a constant revenue for the economy. Number three would cause massive unemployment in the mining sector and reduce the GDP, especially if we exported low cost solar energy to replace coal fired energy. These are all very good reasons for a government to keep the coal industry alive and very, very active.

Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power stations has similar attractions of course. We’d need to take more out of the ground which would require miners and would mean we’d have more available to sell. These two technologies, although detrimental to the environment, will definitely help keep the economy chugging along. The problem with the other two is that we just don’t know how much money they can spin and you know the saying, “better the devil you do….”

So like Tina, I’m not sure what good me having my say here in blogger-land and inviting you to make your own comments and observations will do. But it seems to me that if we want cleaner alternatives, then we have to push for them now. That means being vocal and forcing our governing bodies at all levels to realise that we’re really not as stupid as they like to think we are, that we know it can be done and that we want the research and the projects it inspires to remain in this country where their benefit will be truly appreciated.

10:06 AM - 11/2/2007 - comments {12} - post comment

The week that was III

It wasn’t such a bad week after all. It got off to a reasonable start, slumped horribly in the middle and eventually came good at the end. It went to the wire, but I actually made an improvement. So, feeling all happy with myself as I do, I’m going to launch straight in.

Quick trip to Williamstown and back for 31.87km at 27.3km/h. You know that slump I talked about? Well it started on Tuesday. I didn’t do anything special on Wednesday or Thursday, just some commuting for 35.36km at 18.8km/h (traffic). Saturday was a rest day because Sunday saw the first of the biggies.

All three of us have done nothing, so we thought we’d take a trip to Geelong and back bright and early. That ride came in at 97.89km at 27.4km/h. I was pretty happy with that because of the slightly better average to Monday’s 32km. Seems I’ve still got those endurance legs after all.

So where did we end up last week?

165.12km at an average speed of 24.5km/h.

Having lulled you into thinking I’m fit as a fiddle, it time now for the bit that Snowy’s been waiting for. Yes, my legs still hurt when I got up on Monday. I neglected the hot bath on Sunday, seeing as how it was 35 in the shade and I’m still paying the price on Wednesday. The 3.5 hours in the saddle hasn’t done much for my backside either. Oh well, there’s nothing for it, I’ll just have to go for a ride……

8:57 AM - 7/2/2007 - comments {20} - post comment

Birthday Rant!

Well, it’s my birthday today so I thought I’d treat myself to one of my favourite rants. Enjoy…:)

You see, I had a visit from some Jehovah’s Witnesses on Saturday. They were very polite and were happy to stop and have a chat with me. Obviously, these particular guys hadn’t been around before and I think the woman was angling for a cuppa because she kept trying to see into the kitchen. She was out of luck though, because I’ve been experimenting. I think you get a better argument if you keep them at the door. Although, if you invite them in for a cuppa and leave the bickies in plain view but don’t offer them any, that seems to work just as well.

Anyway, we began with the usual menials, “how are you”, “lovely day”, that sort of thing, but quickly moved on to what mattered most. My spiritual wellbeing. Now bear in mind that it was lunchtime, I’d done night shift the night before and hadn’t slept yet. I told them this but they continued on undeterred, so I did too.

First came a little introduction to their tracts. Was I familiar with them? I explained that I was probably more familiar with them than they could imagine, being the type that likes to rip this stuff apart on my blog. He frowned and she told me that that wasn’t very nice. I told her not to cast aspersions where they weren’t warranted because I’d wager that she’d never read my blog and therefore probably wouldn’t know. So were they familiar with my blog? Well no, so we got that cleared up in short order. I explained that I was very polite about it, I invited comment and that they were welcome to do so too if they were so inclined, and left it at that.

So then we got onto how fantastic god is. Now this is where it got interesting. I agreed that he is indeed fantastic because god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Says so in that book you’ve got there. They agreed so I went on with the bit about that if this is how he wanted the world to be, and obviously he did, then he’s probably not really all that fantastic, when you think about it. When I mentioned that the people holding the reigns of power seem to all be good god fearin’ folk after all, they told me that they are the wrong sort of christians and are victims of false religion. Really? I told them the Mormons were here last week and told me that the Jehovah’s were wrong, so one of them has to prove it now. Would they like to be first? Apparently not…

That was when they started on the tried and true idea that the reason things are so bad is because there’s a battle going on. I agreed that Iraq is a prime example of what christians are capable of when they put their minds to it, but they politely corrected me. Apparently the battle is between god and the devil. I told them that this was news to me and asked if they were telling me that the current state of affairs was all the devil’s fault. They said “Yes”, I said “Oh dear…”

At least now we’re getting to the crux of the matter though, or so I thought. So I asked them to point out a story in the bible that mentions Satan or (anyone else for that matter) being cast from heaven. They told me it was all right there in Job. I said “Oh dear…” (again) and explained about the Archangel Satan, “The Accuser”, what his job is and that nowhere in Job is he cast out of heaven. Nowhere. If they were willing to look at my blog I’d have just pointed them to El Diablo. As it was, I had to explain that Satan really hasn’t been around that long and that the other old testament stories aren’t about the devil or Satan either and put them all into their proper historical perspective so they could understand.

After a rather frantic but fruitless search through the “good book”, accentuated by many surprised looks and red faces, we turned straight to the subject of living forever. I said “perish the thought”, they were aghast. They couldn’t get it through their heads that I’d rather have no life at all than spend eternity with a megalomaniac. Then I had to explain again that hell really isn’t an option because there isn’t really a devil in the bible. He told me it was all in Revelation. At this point I must have lost my presence of mind because I said that Revelation wasn’t written until 600ad. I don’t know where that figure came from, but he managed to win a point from me when he said it was actually 96ad. Conceded…

So just to be cheeky and to see if I could get away with it, I asked if we knew who wrote it. It worked, he said it was John the Apostle. So I took some time here to explain that John the Apostle was a contemporary of Jesus. They agreed. I then explained that 96ad is 96 years after Jesus is supposed to have died. I was greeted by blank looks, so I felt obliged to explain that even if John lived to be 100 (very unlikely) and died the year he wrote the book, he was only 4 when Jesus died. In that case, please explain how he could possibly have been an apostle if he was only 1 when Jesus began his ministry.

That was when they realised that that line of argument wasn’t going to get them very far, so they turned to science. Here, they really were scraping the bottom of the barrel. The first thing they mentioned was cryogenics (yes, we’re still on the “living forever” thing). I said that there’s nothing to worry about there, we don’t actually have the technology to make that possible, even though John and Walt had hopes. But if we thaw those lads out now, all we’ll be left with is a mess. That didn’t stop them though, so I explained about ice crystals and the need for some sort of anti-freeze, otherwise cells get destroyed during the freezing. I also explained that at the moment and at anytime in the foreseeable future, there’s probably very little chance of people being able to live forever by being frozen. They told me there are other ways to live forever. Oooh mysterious… I told them I’d be surprised if they could prove it.

Ah, but that’s what god wants, or so I’m told and the proof comes from within. You can’t see it and you can’t measure it. Well of course not. Duh! Then they explained about god’s plan. You know, paradise on earth and all that. I explained that the pictures in their tracts (yes, she actually pointed to one as part of her explanation) really are very simplistic, extremely misleading and probably wouldn’t find a place in a decent illustrated children’s bible, unless it was one of theirs, of course. Then there were the inevitable cries of; “but the bible is the truth” to which they got a standard “what, the one you guys wrote in 1950, or the original?” Now I’m afraid to say that that didn’t go over very well. Seems I’m allowed to know my bible history, but Charles Taze Russell and the history of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is taboo to the uninitiated…:)

So it was that at this point I took the opportunity to politely explain that I really did need some sleep and so they took their leave. They were kind enough to leave me a copy of “Watchtower” and “Awake!”, so it wasn’t all bad at the end. I’ve got material enough now to last me quite a while…:)

10:26 AM - 5/2/2007 - comments {17} - post comment

Time to play tiggy

Well, Beep!Beep! It’s Me has tagged me again. I must admit, I do enjoy these. The meme is “Five songs to be played at my funeral”

I found this one tricky and had to think about it for a bit, but I think I’ve managed to come up with something. I’ll try and find links where I can…

1. Wish YOU were here – Pink Floyd
2. Come up and see me (Make me smile)  – Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel
3. The Pretender – Jackson Browne
4. Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding – Elton John
5. Eagle Rock – Daddy Cool (Crank it up!!!)

Now to tag some more unsuspecting souls…;)

Petermcc, Deena, Gryphonn, CatDog.

12:36 PM - 4/2/2007 - comments {14} - post comment

God and Conservatism

I was just poking around at GIFS, as is my want from time to time and I stumbled across this sentence: “Adding sense to Evolutionists’ fanatical hatred toward God, conservatism, and anything that represents them.” No, it wasn’t from one of the GIFS lads or lasses, it was a quote from the subtitle of a blog called Weapon Of Mass Destruction. As you can see, it’s an ID fundamentalist blog that makes some very “interesting” claims. As I read that, something struck me. It struck me in the back of the head, just above the neck and it did it quite hard. God and conservatism… Hmmm. Sounds a bit christian far right to me.

But wasn’t Jesus really a bit of a lefty? I mean he preached all that charity and “love thy neighbour” stuff and lived in poverty didn’t he? He was really a bit of a peacenik too, or so it seems to me. Sure, god’s been known to do his share of smiting, but he’s only ever really done that for the Israelites. I mean he never smote Rome for killing his boy did he? Come to think of it, I don’t think he’s ever done any smiting at all in the name of Jesus and I’m sure that Jesus wouldn’t want him to. All those heathens can be saved after all.

I’m also sure Jesus was a firm believer in only taking and keeping what you need too. Easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven and all that. Why say it if you don’t mean it? The guy was supposed to be “Mr. Truthful” after all. So if that’s the case, why do serious christians horde wealth? They’ll tell you it’s to do with stewardship and that christians make the best stewards, but there’s no scriptural basis for that argument at all, except that Paul says that you should be a good steward with what god gives you. Most rich people get that way either because of honest hard work, or like Sylvia Browne, by being complete crooks and shysters and god really has nothing at all to do with it.

So now I’m wondering what right the right have to hijack a religion that was started by and based on the teachings of a lefty. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no evangelist and there’s really not much love lost between god and I, especially when I look around at the state of the world he’s supposed to have created. Let’s face it, if this was what he wanted all along - and it seems to me that an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient god would have to have known from the very beginning and planned it that way – then he’s probably not a very nice bloke.

But Jesus was a serious lefty who pandered to the minority. In fact, he was the minority. The very embodiment of the underdog. Preaching love, peace and happiness, right under the noses of both the Pharisees and the Romans whom I might add, don’t seem to have been very happy about it, if what the bible says is any guide. I know it’s not much of a guide, but it really is the only document from that time, well almost that time (actually, the first books about him weren’t written until about 70 years after he’s supposed to have died – Luke was first) that mentions the man himself, so I guess we’ll just have to go with it for the moment.

So how did the neo-conservatives and the ultra rich of this world, who seem to have some serious representation in  the “religious right” and don’t seem to be at all averse to the idea of a bit of a war or some killing and destruction to protect their financial interests, ever come to think that they understood what Jesus is supposed to have said and stood for in the first place? It seems a tad hypocritical to me. You only have to listen to George for a minute or two and you’ll almost certainly hear about god and how fantastic and important Jesus is. I know the poor boy had an upbringing that indoctrinated him at an early age, but if he wants us to believe that he’s intelligent enough to be the president of the U.S., then that’s really no excuse.

8:05 AM - 2/2/2007 - comments {18} - post comment

Adoption

The debate has raged, the questions have been asked and answered, exemptions have been sought and denied. Finally, the battle has been won. Was it really the good fight though? Could this be just another case of political correctness gone to far? I’m sorry to say that this is one subject on which I just can’t seem to form an opinion, so you’ll have to help.

From The Age (30/01/2007):

Britain will not exempt Catholic adoption agencies from a new anti-discrimination law that the agencies say would not allow them to refuse to place children with gay couples, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today.

 

The adoption agencies will be granted a transition period, until the end of next year, to adjust to the new law, he said.

 

"Everyone is agreed that, above all, the interests of the child and particularly the most vulnerable children, must come first," Blair said in a statement.

 

"I believe we have now found a way through that achieves this and which all reasonable people will be able to support."

 

Despite the fact that there are many who obviously disagree with this decision and the fact that I can’t seem to decide, this is in fact, a very good outcome. It is important to note here that the state has prevailed over the church. The main reason adoption has been denied to the gay population in the past is mostly because of religious doctrine. Not just christian religious doctrine either. It really has had nothing at all to do with any notion that gay people can’t be good parents. That, simply put, is a fallacy.

But despite believing the above and knowing many gay people, I don’t know any that are bringing up children. This is where my quandary lies. Had I some experience with the matter, I may be able to form an opinion, however sketchy. The gay people I know are nice enough people and seem to be perfectly normal to me, but I have to wonder.

You see, I also know quite a few people who have separated after having children. All parents discuss each others children and I’ve often heard it said that this one or that one might need their father or mother. Now if you only have two mummies and need your father, how are you supposed to get that support? Conversely, if you only have two daddies and need your mother, where do find that support? Each are different and provide different aspects to the nurturing of children, or so my experience indicates to me.

So there’s the issue. In the case of a boy who needs his father, for whatever reason, or the girl who needs her mother, or visa versa usually for all the same or similar reasons, how do they cope when growing up with two mothers or two fathers. How do we know if this baby is going to need “her mother” or “his father” and place them accordingly? Do we really need to go that far? Do gay couples parent that differently than hetro couples? Well, all parents are different to an extent I guess, but I just don’t know. Would a heterosexual child growing up in a homosexual environment end up confused or unsure of themselves? Once again, I don’t know and you know how much I hate not having an opinion.

The problem, and the reason I’ve been thinking about it, is that it doesn’t really matter which side you look at the argument from, it all comes down to the kids. Are we doing what’s best for the kids? Some say we are, some say we aren’t. Those that say we aren’t, aren’t all church groups and some even seem to make reasonable arguments as I’ve outlined above. But does being gay really make that much difference when you're being a parent as well?

4:11 PM - 30/1/2007 - comments {17} - post comment

The week that was II

Well, I said I would, but do I have to? I mean, I did night shift last week and that always knocks me around a bit (yep, I’m starting with excuses). Besides, the weather was crap. Oh well, I might as well get it over with so you can get stuck in and tell me I’m slack.

It’s one of those things isn’t it? The opposite to that serendipity thing I was talking about in Introspection. Sort of an anti-serendipity with all the happy bits taken out. Why am I banging on about this stuff? Well firstly, I was just thinking “The sooner it’s done, the sooner it’s over” which of course provided me with a nice little side-track to head down for a minute. Secondly, I’ve been slack. So there…

Ok… Here we go… Fess-up time… I figured I was doing night shift and probably wasn’t going to get much done. I know, starting with a defeatist attitude won’t get me anywhere, but night shift is a time when all motivation leaves you. We start at 19:00 (7:00pm) and work until 7:00am. Occasionally there is scope for a little shut eye during that time, but not much. Besides, overnight is when they play the groovy documentaries where I see things like UFO hunts and people extolling the virtues of charlatans like Sylvia Browne. Most of my material comes to me on night shift, so sleeping isn’t really an option.

Anyway, all that being the case, I thought I’d best make sure that I commute on my bike for the whole week. That’s about as motivated as I can get during night shift and I actually managed to do it. I guess it didn’t turn out to badly though, now that I’ve tallied my km’s for the week. Now I want you to bear in mind that I really don’t have that far to go commuting. 5km to the station and back and another 6 or so to ride from work up to see mum. That’s going to double soon when she moves to rehab (yep, things are looking up, but she probably won’t be anywhere near as mobile, so care will probably be required. That sucks, but arthritis will do that to you.)

I guess it’s time for the figures eh? Before you get upset with me about the first figure for average speed, please bear in mind that there are places where you have to walk with your bike. Not good for the average and annoying, but in the interests of not running anyone over and all that, I do it dutifully…

Commuting: 58.67km at an average of 18.8km/h

One single training ride on Saturday… Yeah, yeah, I know…

Distance 50.29 at an average of 25.3km/h

Total: 108.96km at an average of 22.5km/h…

That’s it… Ouch… Well I said I’d been slack, now you know just how slack.

This week will be different though. Day shift’s coming and as it gets closer, my motivation levels increase. I’ve got my ride planned for tonight and tomorrow, and I’m thinking about getting a “Mag Trainer” this week so I can turn my bike into an exercise bike and at least do something when it’s raining out there.  Maybe I should get one and wrap a coil around the magnet and generate the electricity I’ll need to run a fan and the radio or tele while I’m peddling. That way, if there’s no peddling, there’s no relief or entertainment. That might work. I could sell the excess back to the grid too. Let’s face it, with the work I’ve been doing, there’d be plenty to spare…Not…:(

4:45 PM - 29/1/2007 - comments {6} - post comment

Psychics.

I may have changed the name, but as you can see Plonka is still very much Plonka…:)

Those who are regular readers (you know who you are) will know that there are times I can be a bit of a sceptic. Something, or I should say someone, has come to my attention once again and I can’t keep my mouth shut this time. So people, it’s time for some more WOO! Grab a coffee, tea, vegemite and hot water or whatever takes your fancy, kick back, have a read and watch the clip. I’m interested in what you have to say…

There are two of these so called psychics or mediums in particular that get my goat. John Edwards and Sylvia Browne. Johnny boy seems to have been a bit quiet since people started to accept the fact that he’s a total fraud. I guess that if you say things like “I can prove it” and “I’ll take your test” and “Of course I can do it with a single person I’ve never met before in a controlled environment”, then go on to refuse to take James Randi’s test, fail miserably at proving it and just not bother to turn up for the last one, then it’s hardly surprising that the world wakes up and says “You look like a fraud to me!” Still, the guy made his money cashing in on people’s misery, and that makes him a total blackguard (and I mean that with all the old world sentiment attached). He should be made to pay it back but unfortunately, this swindle is legal.

Sylvia Browne on the other hand, can’t seem to keep her mouth shut and seems to be totally convinced by what she says about herself. This woman is worse than Edwards ever was in my opinion. I’ve been seeing her a lot lately, telling us how she works with the police all the time and gives them leads that help them solve crimes and in the case of the clip you’re about to see, telling people their kids are dead when they’re not.

Every time I see this woman do her funky thing, one thing strikes me. When she’s telling people what she’s “getting”, she always looks away and creases her brow, covers her face or waves a hand or both. These my friends, are classic signs of distress and are signs that interrogators around the world are trained to see as signs of lies being told.

She says she works with the police. Well as you know, I work for a paytv company and get to see a lot of weird documentaries. I saw an interview with her the other day where she talked about some of these “cases”, and I use the term loosely. I wonder why it is then that she couldn’t or wouldn’t name any of the police departments or even any county that she’d done work for. I also wonder why it is that I can’t find any valid information, by that I mean anything other than Sylvia Browne saying so, that confirms she’s done any work at all for any police anywhere. She also says she’s done work for the FBI, but that must be classified because they say that she’s never done any work for them when they’re pressed.

What I found interesting about it though, were her mannerisms. When she was talking about herself, she was able to look at either the interviewer or the camera without issue. When she talked about the “cases” however, she looked mostly at the ceiling with a rather painful look on her face. My first impression overwhelmingly, was that she was lying. The distress she was showing was unbelievable and unmistakable.

Anyway, to the promised clip. It concerns Sean Hornbeck and what she did to his parents on national television. I’d like the parents out there to try and imagine you are these poor people…

I’m of the firm belief that no parent should ever have to bury a child. I really don’t think I’d deal with it very well. But to make parents go through that unnecessarily is, in my humble opinion, a crime. But then to say that she’ll give them more information for her “standard fee”, whatever it is, well, blackguard doesn’t begin to describe it!

There are some links there that will enable you to do a little poking around about these two. Have a read and make up your own mind. As far as I can tell and as Robert Lancaster says she’s wrong more often than she’s right. Even if she averaged 50% though, that makes it no better than chance, which simply means she’s guessing.

So, you tell me, genuine psychic or complete fraud?

6:28 PM - 25/1/2007 - comments {21} - post comment