Plant a sapling day.

(Photo courtesy of eBay....)

It's World* Tree Day tomorrow (29th July - 27th for schools).

Tree's are pretty nifty things - they supply food, homes, wood, refuge, solace, oxygen, prevent erosion, strengthen embankments, create stable micro climates, etc. Only 1.5% of Australians had a go last year, planting just over 5 trees each.

It'll be nice to be able to point out to your grand kids "see that tree there little Timmy? Right next to it is a block of flats, and your old Pa planted a native blackwood there. Before it was 'dozed and turned into the very same paper used to make your report card." Timmy: "Wow! Your occasional bouts of lucidity really undermine the rampant senility!" You: "Ya-huh, just get in the hover-car."

Or something like that. I don't imagine the tree you plant can withstand the urban expansion for too long - not much is held sacred these days. You don't have to hug it, just plant it - because trees can't plant themselves y'know.

* - actually it's just an Australian thing - Planet Ark's National Tree Day - not official or anything.

Bracks goes.

At the ripe old age of 52, Steve Bracks, Premier of Victoria, has retired - as well as some other ministers no one cares about. I hope he manages to find employment with one of the many companies he allowed to rort the PPP's, because I doubt the parliamentary pension will be enough for the poor lad.

I'd like to thank him for the Upper House reforms, even though it was in their own interests, and seemed to turn the ALP into a Greens hating machine.

GOOD THINGS:
Upper House reforms.

BAD THINGS:
Continued privatisation of public transport.
Bay dredging.
Public-private partnership scams.
All that logging.

BEST THING I CAN SAY ABOUT HIM:
The last Premier was worse.

Making demons.

The media seems to be continuing to use the grainy photocopied image of Haneef, The Age has it on the front page as I type. The real image, as seen at DeadRoo, (courtesy of TVoTAY) shows Haneef is, well. A complete dork.

Dork's cannot look evil. You can't take them serious enough to consider them a threat. Maurice Moss from the IT Crowd is a great example. But can he be made evil with selective images? Let's try!
First step, grey scale, and cropping. Obvious in the Haneef photo.

Next step, to simulate the nice quality deterioration of repeated photocopies, duplicate the main layer, add some edge enhancement, and adjust the opacity of the layer to around 14%.

Next up, add another layer, fill it with noise, soften it, switch the blend mode to hard light, and adjust opacity to around 48%.

Now adjust the contrast to lose some of the finer details that make him look human. The almost-smirk has gone, the near-dimples have faded, and he looks less rediculous and possibly more sinister. It's hard to tell.
His afro and double-chin add too much to his character, so we can crop those out, and voila! A plausible suspect.

(As a site note, I can understand why the photo would lose quality when photocopied, but that doesn't explain why it's cropped, removing his dorky features.)

John Howard YouTube

I couldn't resist. But then again, I also couldn't tolerate his voice any longer to produce anything decent, so I uploaded it as-is. Enjoy.

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The gigantic, intercontinental conspiracy to accuse pollution of having disastrous consequences.

Or, to put it into weasel words – The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Swindle is a nice word – conspiracy isn’t. So let’s say swindle, despite the claim the entire climate change thing is a big old lie.

But, this thing goes all the way to the top – the governments of the world – from Communists to Democracies, it’s ensnared the UN, it’s changing the world’s laws, companies and populations are being convinced, changing their ways, their light bulbs, the colour of their power, there is no doubt this swindle is going to affect every single one of us.

So call it what you claim it to be – a conspiracy. This thing is JFK, Roswell, the reptilian overlords and 911-truth tenfold. It is big, very big – and the only reason proposed by the theorists for this monumental deception is that it keeps the jobs of some scientists secure.

Now, some people get a bit upset when unionists might push for a strike of some kind to protect workers jobs – but putting fear into the minds of all of mankind has to be some new record in protectionism.

The great tragedy seems to be our willingness to accept our actions of consequences – when our goodwill and concern is being exploited.

If these scientists get their way, and end the debate on climate change, there would be no more research to be done, and they’d be out of a job. I’m not entirely sure how putting yourself out of a job can be considered to be protecting your job – but I have yet to find a denialist that acknowledges this contradiction.

I still haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie – he’s not a scientist, and neither are opinion columnists – I’m not impressed that scientists have to rely on such a mouthpiece, and I am steamed the politicians seem more interested in vote-grabs than doing what logic would suggest needs to be done. I have seen the Great Global Warming Swindle, and I have seen this brilliant and complete destruction of it.

I do recommend tuning in to the ABC tonight to check it out, but I am still a little confused how the BBC could have produced this terrible pile of dung.

Views of France

The Tour de France is back - I have to say, whoever came up with the idea of scrolling cameras across practically an entire European countryside for hours upon hours upon hours, gets my vote for the most brilliant TV idea since political satire.

It's just a shame they let freaks and junkies on push bikes into frame now and then.

No detention if u gotz skillz

Wait wait… let me get this straight – we get all these refugees, give them the old ALP/Liberal mandatory detention, with the possibility of indefinite detention (thanks Keating), breach their human rights, lock up children, etc – because they might be dangerous.

And then some doctors imported from countries which, for some odd reason, don’t have as many doctors as they need, turn out to be dangerous?

Perhaps WE (we, as in: Howard) decide which refugees come to this country, and the circumstances in which they come, but it’s the business lobby that decides which skilled migrants come.

Don’t expect skilled guest workers to be holed up in a detention facility for years on end, it’s not going to happen.

A bleeding man comes, they chuck him in a cell and check his accent.
A skilled man comes, they chuck him a job and check his skills.

There will be no rigorous terrorism-test, they rely on, and love exploiting these people. The Howard government’s commitment to protecting us from terrorism is not greater than it’s commitment to opening Australia’s doors to workers so grateful for the opportunity to be here that they’ll work their fingers to the bone under shit conditions.

If a terrorist wants to enter Australia, they need only collect a few dollars or a few skills – they’re not going to jump on a boat. Lock up all immigrants and refugees if that’s your solution to the problem, or else don’t lock them up at all.

Because the disgusting contradiction just reared its fucking head - and Howard's shame is laid bare. Actually, come to think of it – this contradiction was pointed out by a Senator, around about the same time the Border Protection Bill got bi-partisan support, can’t remember his name though, Bob something.

Smoking bans

Smoking is now banned in pubs here in Victoria (and NSW), with all indoor smoking outlawed. Except for a few high roller rooms in casinos – which is fine, because the patrons there are immune to cancer because of their wealth, and any risk to the staff is offset by the sheer honour of serving our dear betters.

It’s a good thing. But there is still one hazard in our bars that is a threat to the wellbeing of patrons and staff – drinking. Violence, lowered inhibitions, sexual assaults, and the general unco-ordination of inebriated patrons is a hazard no lesser than smoking.

We should ban drinking from bars.

There will be a public outcry, but there is little reason for it. Smoking can be made safe indoors with creative use of divisions and exhaust, but drinking is nigh on impossible to make safe. There are already laws on serving alcohol to then drunken, but they aren’t enforced to anything remotely acceptable. Plus – in this day and age – there is NO excuse to encourage the consumption of alcohol away from the home of the drinker. No drinking in pubs will mean less cases of drink driving.

But maybe an outright ban isn’t necessary, perhaps patrons should be encouraged to pop outside to drink when they feel the urge. Maybe only serve low (light) alcoholic beverages.

High rollers.

I can understand why the high rollers need to be exempt from laws, such as the smoking ban, but I find it outrageous that they are, unfairly, restricted to their exclusive rooms in the casinos.

The wealthy should be exempt from the indoor smoking ban in all establishments. I propose a tag, attached with a lanyard – that indicates the status of the wearer. One part press tag, one part diplomatic immunity.