Posted on

The Climate Debate

When it comes to trashing the planet, there is a lot the world’s leaders can control, and most of them have taken steps of varying degrees to implement strategies to encourage, and sometimes compel, people to do the right thing environmentally; manufacturers, businesses and individuals can all do their bit, and that’s a good thing. No one wants a dirty planet.

But what about the issues that are beyond their control?

Right now there is a tidal wave of protests demanding that World Governments “Do Something!” to stop global warming/climate change etc, and junior climate warriors worldwide have been getting a lot of media attention for wagging school to hold strikes/protests in support of the planet. A couple of them have even managed to pave their way to media darling-hood.  Good for them. They have engineered access their fifteen minutes. But while it’s all very well to say “Do Something” and there is a lot that is within government means, there are a number of other factors that have an impact on the Earth’s climate which are, like it or not, beyond human control.

These factors are not being given much coverage though, yet they should be because they are an integral part of what’s going on and they contradict the claims cited in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) that all global warming from 1970 to 2000 is anthropogenically produced (man-made). The claims have been based on an incomplete model that has excluded the natural quasi 20-year and 60-year climate cycle contributions that most definitely do affect our Earth.

One of these factors is sunspot activity. Sunspot solar cycles are approximately 11 years long. Sunspot activity hosts solar flares and the ejection of hot gases from the Sun’s corona and the number of sunspots throughout a cycle reaches a high and then goes on the wane, and the cycle begins again. But in addition to Solar Maximum (high sunspot activity) which affects the Earth’s temperatures by creating colder weather patterns, and Solar Minimum (low to no sunspot activity) which generates higher temperatures on our planet, we experience the impact of solar magnetic fields, ultraviolet radiation and solar flares, all of which impact quite noticeably on the Earth’s climate. Sunspot activity and temperature increases on Earth happen concurrently and studies are showing that sunspot activity overall has doubled in the last 100 years.

Governments have no control over sunspot activity.

Another factor is solar winds. According to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre, solar winds consist of magnetised plasma flares, which emanate from the Sun. These solar wind flares influence the galactic rays which then affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth. Changes in the Sun’s solar output affects our planet both directly, via the changing rate of solar heating and indirectly, by altering the processes that form clouds.

Governments have no control over solar winds either.

Then there’s Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which is the rate of which the energy from the Sun reaches the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. TSI fluctuates daily and the 11-year cycles in TSI measurements relates to sunspot activity.

Any form of Government control is zilch here too. Sorry.

The Earth’s climate cycles, also know as Climate Oscillation, fluctuate all on their own. Atmospheric temperatures, sea surface temperatures and precipitation are all quasi-periodic and climate changes noted since 1850 have been linked to cyclical, predictive, naturally occurring events in the Earths solar system. The natural quasi 20-year cycle/60-year climate cycle contributions have been clearly detected since that date, in all global surface temperature records in both hemispheres. The 60-year modulation cycle also corresponds with warming and cooling of the ocean’s surface temperature. The records are particularly easy to note in significant surface temperature maxima that occurred in the years 1880 – 1881, 1940 – 1941 and 2000 – 2001. These warmer periods happened to coincide with times when the orbital positions of Jupiter and Saturn were relatively close to the Sun and the Earth.

Fascinating, but again, completely outside of any Government control. The Sun, and the planets, do their own thing.

Now, if the above was made more public there might be a more balanced view on climate issues, and if students spent the day in school instead of trawling the streets, they might even find this information for themselves, plus get a handle on their spelling (jealous, environment and emergency on placards as “jelous”, “enviroment” and “emergancy”) which would serve them better in the future. Or they could just hold their protests during the school hols. Sure, I realise that would mean doing it on their own time, which may not be as attractive, but at least it wouldn’t cost them a learning opportunity.

Thing is, people have been fed a highly edited account of how and why the Earth’s climate changes. Yes, Governments can do much to ensure industries and individuals exercise more practical care when it comes to controlling pollution, but to blame “Government inaction” and previous generations for naturally occurring climactic fluctuations is just feeding that little clique who stand to make a great deal of money from our ignorance.

But more on them later.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The War on Welfare

The Australian Government seems hellbent on making the lives of welfare recipients as miserable as possible, with those who are unemployed and claiming the Newstart Allowance being the hot targets for government agendas designed to make their lives even more difficult and system-controlled than they already are. I am talking about the debit card system that will replace the allowance being paid in cash.

Sure, I won’t deny that there are people receiving unemployment benefits simply because they will not work, but I’m not talking about them. Or the teenaged girls who have opted to make government-funded pregnancies a lifestyle choice. I’m talking about the genuine cases, many of whom are older Australians who have been caught in the crossfire when the retirement age was raised. They are now required to find work again because they are below the age of retirement and if needing to claim the Age Pension, they cannot. So they have been put on to Newstart and it’s either find another job, or be forced into taking on “voluntary” work (15 hours per week) or their benefit will be affected.

The problem with hitting people aged 50 and upwards (40 and upwards for women) is that employers will not take them on because they won’t employ older workers, and all the schemes devised to encourage businesses to take them on, fail. Many have been retrenched in a downsizing exercise or they took their retirement at the age they should have been able to do so, only to find they could not claim the pension. Paid employment doesn’t happen for these people, despite their skills and experience, because they are considered too old. This is the reality.

And now the Australian Government is wanting to introduce a cashless debit card system. They are calling it a trial but we all know what happens with “trials” of things that no one wants; in these instances, “trial” means permanent from the get go. Initially, the card system was to apply to new recipients under the age of 30, but has been almost immediately raised to under 35. The cards will mean that only a small amount of cash will be available as the card, basically, can only be used to purchase foodstuffs and whatever the system deems necessary and the card will carry several restrictions on what can be purchased. Parliamentarians in favour of the debit card claim it will stop people spending their unemployment money on drugs and alcohol, but if they think that is going to stop them using drugs and alcohol they are fooling themselves. People with an addiction will just find another way to access the cash they need to service their habit and my guess is there will be a sharp rise in robbery crimes. Addicts will go with whatever works to get the money they need to feed their addiction, end of story.

But while on the subject of drugs and alcohol, the cashless debit card is going to be tied in with drug testing. Those who fail a drug test will have their payments quarantined. Right. Scott Morrison first raised the subject of drug testing welfare recipients in his May 2017 budget speech, while he was still Treasurer. Widespread condemnation though meant it was dropped from the Welfare Bill. But now he wants to resurrect it, while at the same time refusing to consider increasing the Newstart Allowance to a more liveable amount. At present the allowance falls below the poverty line and the greater number of people stuck on it are those older Australians mentioned above.  Those supporting the “trial” are claiming it has been designed to “help” new welfare recipients to obtain work, those not in favour are seeing it for what it really is; a further attempt the control the lives of people who have found themselves having to rely on welfare and is guaranteed to keep them dependent for the foreseeable future. What it won’t do is help them.

But linking the card with drug testing is also sneaky, because it will link “welfare” and “drug use” in the minds of the population, which is a sly way of getting around the issue of refusing to raise the Newstart Allowance to a more liveable amount. It’s disgusting really.

Thing is, once established, the welfare cashless debit card, with all it’s restrictions, will go right across the board and everyone receiving a benefit is going to find themselves forced onto it. It will not solve anything, nor help any of the recipients.

But is sure will restrict their lives.

Posted on

When the Thought Police overthink…

Sometimes you just have to wonder. I’m finding myself wondering why anyone would get themselves all wound up over some classic children’s literature, written early in the Twentieth Century, and pick it to bits for being “inappropriate” for today’s little bubble-wrapped offspring. The authors are copping it too.

English writer, Enid Blyton (1897 – 1968), wrote many of the classics in question, which have been put under the Thought Police microscope for years now and have been watered down under the banner of “editing for modern audiences” which means removing or rewriting any bits deemed too harsh for the littlies to cope with. Enid, herself, has also been denigrated as racist, sexist and homophobic and perhaps not “a very good writer” anyway, which is the excuse the Royal Mint used for scuttling plans to produce a 50 pence coin, commemorating the 50th anniversary of her death. They are worried about the backlash from the self-appointed Thought Police and their cronies.

Enid’s writing reflected the times as they were during her lifetime and her books were really popular with children, but as well as the labels dumped on her by the Royal Mint, Australian newspaper columnist, Jacqueline Maley, has decided Enid was also a snob because of the type of characters depicted as the baddies in her stories, and added she has “no issue” with the books being “edited” because she doesn’t want to have to “explain” to her four-year-old child what a golliwog is.

Really? She must have opted not to look into that.

Well that’s okay, because I have. The golliwog first came about as a character in a series of children’s books created by illustrator, Florence Kate Upton, and produced in collaboration with her mother, Bertha Upton, who wrote the 13 Golliwog books, the first of which was “The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwog” in 1894.  The little character and the series of books became very popular. But where did the name Golliwog come from? Well, disappointingly for the PC crowd, it was just a random name chosen by Florence for a favourite toy, a little black rag doll in colourful clothing, when she was a little girl, and is believed to have been derived from the word, polliwog, which means immature frog/tadpole. No mention of race or colour. Nothing there to distress the little one, after all, Jacqueline.

Anyway, the golliwog became so popular that British jam manufacturer, James Robertson and Sons, began using a golliwog called Golly as it’s mascot in 1910, after James had seen several children playing with golliwog dolls in America. Golly remained their mascot until 2002, when the company finally succumbed to pressure from the politically correct and Golly was dropped. What a shame.

Pseudo history has had a field day with the golliwog though, attributing many alleged racial slurs to the doll. In 2015, one of the alternative histories to emerge claimed the golliwog doll was based on Egyptian workers forced to serve under British occupation during the Anglo-Egyptian war. But there are no records to support this, as there are no references to any such connection prior to 2015.

Before her death in 1922, Florence Upton was quoted as saying “I am frightened when I read the fearsome etymology some deep, dark minds can see in his name.” because it was, after all, just a name she chose for her favourite toy and was completely devoid of all the negative, racist connotations later attributed to it. But this is what happens when people go looking for things that are not there. In the absence of something to find fault with, they will just concoct something, and before long, many will accept it as truth, even when it isn’t.

Like a series of children’s books based around Dorothy Wall’s little character, Blinky Bill; sanitising him as a politically correct, green, environmentally conscious type; all of which he wasn’t. Blinky was always into mischief and getting into trouble! But the children exposed to the sanitised Blinky Bill believed this version is the original. The books really annoyed me and I didn’t give them to my kids to read. I hate what is happening to children’s literature, and am not plussed on the character assassination of authors either. It is all so nanny-state.

Let’s leave the classics alone.

 

 

 

Posted on

The Reality of TV Hook-ups

What is it about The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, and their spinoffs that have people believing it is an ideal setting for meeting Mr/Ms Right? Ditto Married at First Sight?

We are talking reality television here. An artificial environment, lots of competition and in no way does it compare with meeting someone on a normal footing outside in the real world.

To begin with, you have a couple of dozen hopefuls trying their damnedest to make the right impression on the “star” of the show, while outfoxing the rest of the contestants, and the whole sordid affair takes place in an artificial environment of cocktail parties and the kind of “dates” only the very wealthy can pull off in real life. They are cooped up in a harbourside mansion/tropical island setting for several weeks and the only member of the opposite sex they encounter during those weeks is the “star” (except on the island thingy, lots of opposites there) on the lookout to meet someone; with view to relationship.  Hence all those attractive options falling all over themselves (and the “star”) in the hope of snaring his/her attention and no one ever says “multiple partners” which is what this really is.

The “star” meanwhile, has a really good time.

But in the real world, who would tolerate a situation where the person they were dating was also dating so many others at the same time? At a guess, I’d say none. But reality television being what it is, some of the wannabes have discovered the possibilities a slot on a reality television show can offer; such as a lucrative media career, even if they don’t manage to get the guy/girl. What has convinced me that many view this type of TV as a springboard to bigger and better things is the number of reality show contestants who have scored such placements as a result of appearing on one of them. No experience, no qualifications, no having to work their way up in the field, they just have to either look good, appeal to the viewers or both and…viola! Media Star! If they also score the Bachelor/Bachelorette as well? That’s a bonus. It has definitely had an influence on other hopefuls vying to make the same jump.

Call me a cynic if you wish, but my back-up is the number of narcissistic ex-reality show types now calling themselves a “brand” and expecting doors to open for them all over the industry and getting downright antsy if they don’t. Like one of the women from the last season of Married at First Sight, who is having issues with the fact that high-end fashion houses, cosmetic companies and the media in general are not beating a path to her door. If anything, the feedback has been a bit negative. I think she fully expected to become everyone’s favourite overnight but celebrity appears to have eluded her.  The viewers didn’t like the type of person she appeared to be and I think that may have been a factor here. She not alone though, her co-stars look to be in the same boat; no offers, and obscurity staring them in the face.  But they’re trying hard.

Okay, reality shows based around “romantic” hook-ups can be entertaining. up to a point. Viewers like the drama, but with contestants now seeing it as a free-for-all on the partner level and a chance to get television exposure, I find myself questioning their motives more and more. Add in that they get paid while appearing on the show and some have even made it a kind of career (finding their way into the spinoffs) and I have some serious doubts about their commitment to potential Mr/Ms Rights. The other thing I find myself querying is why they have to resort to reality TV to “find love” in the first place? Too shallow to form an enduring relationship in real life?

Could be.

Posted on

The Dairy Debate

When is milk not milk? When it is a plant-based product, and we are seeing a lot of plant-based products labelled as “milk” now and the trendies are all over it.

Among the non-milks are almond, soy, coconut and macadamia, and while each is a healthy foodstuff in its own right, as milk they attract a lot of additives to make them more palatable, something that is totally unnecessary with genuine full cream cows milk. Non-milks contain such additives as sugar, salt, dipotassium phosphate (whatever that is), ascorbic acid and something called gellan gum to name just a few, but it’s a long list. Check it out the next time you are in a supermarket. It’s surprising what’s in them.

But try to explain all of that to those who have convinced themselves that “milk” derived from plan-based alternatives is a healthier option is like trying to convince the anti-gluten advocates that gluten is really a healthy food, except in the case of those with coeliac disease or some other form of gluten intolerance. People avoiding gluten when they don’t need to are not doing themselves any favours, as they are denying themselves a food that contains a lot of really good things.

Meanwhile, it’s non-dairy, plant-based, non-milks are a thing now and the trendies are embracing them with fervour because they wrongly believe that they are a healthier alternative to real milk and sound cooler. They aren’t, and it doesn’t.

These non-milks especially don’t work for babies, toddlers and young children in general, who need the calcium found in genuine dairy products to develop strong bones and teeth, plus gain a lot of other health benefits, yet there are parents opting for plant-based “milk” which doesn’t cover the requirements and hospitals have reported a spike in the number of children presenting with malnutrition as a result of dangerous diet trends, especially non-dairy diets and that controversial extreme; the vegan diet. Adults who want to go vegan? Good luck with that, because it is not a healthy choice, but Do Not place your kids on a vegan diet as it is extremely unhealthy for them.

But in the interests of good health, as far as the anti dairy crowd go, they would be better off grabbing and eating a handful of the actual nuts rather than ingesting the liquid extracted from them, along with all the additives because at least the nuts themselves come additive-free.

But while plant-based non-milks remain on trend, the demand for them will continue to keep them on supermarket shelves and people believing they are a “healthier” alternative to dairy will remain deaf and blind to the fact that they are not. Dairy is natural, contains vitamins and minerals essential for good health and genuine milk does not need sugar, salt and all those other additives to make it taste better.

It just does, and it is.

 

 

Posted on

The Situationship…?

Okay, it would appear that this is a word now, but what it means is anyone’s guess and, me being me, I just couldn’t resist the temptation to come up with a few definitions of my own.

Officially, (apparently) a “situationship” is what you are having with someone when it’s more than a friendship, but not quite a relationship and if that has still left you in the dark, then feel free to join the rest of us. Initially I wondered if a liaison like that could be termed a Claytons but that couldn’t be right. A Claytons is the friendship/not quite relationship you have when you’re not having one at all.

So, it has to be something else, and putting it bluntly, I suspect this term might be someone’s attempt to make Friends With Benefits sound a whole lot nicer. If you’re not up on that one either, it defines a friendship where two people opt to engage in non-exclusive sex, sans commitment, and no bad feelings should one or both of them enter into a more permanent relationship down the track with someone else. But while they’re doing FWB they are footloose and fancy free in an arrangement which allows them to have reasonably regular sex despite the absence of a Significant Other. Personally, that’s what I think a situationship is.

But perhaps not. It’s possible this may have become the go-to word instead, for the commitment-phobic to fall back on in an attempt to extricate themselves from another’s efforts to upgrade them to Significant Other. Commitment-phobics are happy to do sex, but live in fear of acquiring SO status, so a word that defines their all-take and no-give approach to intimate relationships, while leaving their partner stumbling around in limbo, is going to work really well for them. “Look, it’s evolving, but we’re still in a situationship at this point.” There’s probably no comeback for a statement like that, unless you ask them to define “situationship” which they probably won’t because then they would have to tell you the truth. As in, the relationship is never going to go anywhere.

That sounds feasible too.

Lastly however, situationship may just be a word coined by someone as confused about the status of their current liaison as we are  about the definition, but it sounded good at the time so they said it and now it’s out there. Well yes, they’re together but not quite. Huh? Reminds me a bit of Gwyneth Paltrow’s “conscious uncoupling” or whatever she called it. Yes, I understand it meant a split of sorts, but was that split a temporary marital separation, a beeline for the divorce court, or a tricky physical disentanglement from a downright awkward tantric yoga position? Your guess is as good as mine on that one.

Meanwhile, feel free to mull over “situationship” and put your own slant on it. I admit, it does have the potential to become a buzz word, which means it could be applied to a swathe of situations, and it probably will be before too long.

Even if no one can define it.

Posted on

Why the Trout Pout?

If you have ever watched a reality television program, or just seen the promos for them, you should be familiar with the Trout Pout. This is where someone foolishly decides their lips are too thin (perhaps they are just normal, you know?) and opt for some lip filler. Way too much lip filler and it’s not a good look.

As cosmetic procedures go, lip filler is becoming very popular and there’s nothing wrong with having lips plumped if they are looking a bit thin. But there’s plumping, and then there’s plumping to absolutely ridiculous proportions and guess which one is proving to be the the most popular, especially amongst teens and young adults who don’t need filler in the first place? It’s the ridiculous proportions one, just in case you aren’t clued in here. And this is the thing I don’t quite understand; what person in their right mind wants lips that look like raw sausages of the thickest variety?

Well apparently a lot of them do and as this is the hottest thing since drop-jeans exposing underwear and lower back tattoos, there is an influx of underage teens throwing tantrums to force their parents into signing the consent form which will allow them to have the procedure and I kid you not, the bottom line is the “troutier”, the better. In their opinion, not mine. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the attraction of lips so abnormally filled that you can barely eat properly, let alone speak and be understood. Yet this is what teens of both genders want right now. If their parents have any sense though, they won’t sign.

But I have to wonder about the surgeons willing to perform such a procedure on an underage kid. On anyone for that matter. Seriously, how irresponsible is that? Look, it could be that they know that by the time said teens are old enough to have the work done without Mum’s and Dad’s signature, they will have A) realised that this is one cosmetic procedure they can live without or B) the Trout Pout will have (thankfully) gone out of fashion. Either way, the surgeon won’t get paid so…hand out the Parental Consent forms and turn them into little freaks now while the fad is still current and they are screaming for it.

Like I said, I don’t have an issue with a little bit of plumping when lips are looking a bit thinned out, a little bit of filler can look really good, but the emphasis is on “a little bit” which has a much better chance of looking natural. Two fat sausages where lips used to be does not. So I’m wondering if those who have gone overboard with the filler ever look in the mirror. I mean really look. How is it that when they are gazing at their reflection that they cannot see just how abnormal it looks? Why are they not seeing how bizarre their friends look? Why on earth do they want to look bizarre anyway?

Sure, to each their own, live and let live, etc, etc, etc. But there are fads and then there is utter stupidity and personally I place pumped up sausage balloon lips in the latter category because I am pretty sure that’s where they belong. I am also hoping that parents with teens young enough to need a consent form to have this procedure done remember how to say “No” and find the gumption to stick to it when they do. This is not something your young teen needs to have done. Braces yes, lips filled to the max, no. Definitely not.

Just say no, okay?

 

Posted on

When Governments want to Sticky-beak

You know, whenever a government department uses the words “more convenient”, “safer” and “more secure” in a sentence, you can be sure that it is not trying to do you a favour. These are buzz words designed to make you think they are, but the reality is they want something from you that ordinarily you might baulk at providing, so rather than say so outright, it couches the request in something that sounds like it just wants to make your life easier.

It doesn’t. What it wants is for you to pave the way for it to sticky-beak into your affairs, not because you may be up to no good, but simply because it wants to have that option and if you have handed over access without realising how far that department intends to delve into your life, you will a) never get it out again and b) have no comeback.

Biometric data (voiceprint, facial scans) is one of the worst things you can agree to give, so don’t. Right now you may be being asked by some government department or other to “volunteer” one or both of these as a “safe” and “secure” way of communicating with the department, but down the track the “voluntary” option will be removed. Either supply it or have no access unless you appear on site in person. Many may view this as inconvenient, and that’s because it will be, so many will just hand it over. It has begun here in Australia with those on social benefit payments, and while it is still a voluntary thing at this point, that will change.

People are also being asked to link their government services as well, like their health record (if they haven’t opted out of that) to their government pension or benefit etc, etc, etc. Which will then give the Home Affairs Minister, or any other government department everything they need to take a really good look at you, even though they have no valid reason to do so.

Which is what makes the plan to introduce a Counter Terrorism (temporary exclusion orders) Bill a bad idea, as it is Step 1 in pushing through legislation to allow this particular minister to sticky-beak on us. Any of us. And how would a counter terrorism bill do that? In another attempt to get the controversial Bill passed, the news has just been conveniently released that 40 jihadists have returned to Australia, it just doesn’t say when they returned and for all we know, they could have done so quite a while ago. So while the Bill, technically speaking, means those who did a midnight flit to go and fight with ISIS and the like have to cool their heels overseas while their intentions to return to Australia are assessed (which would take around two years), what, we have to ask, of the ones already here? Personally, I think if they nicked off overseas to commit atrocities under a terrorist flag, they can just stay there, but some have arrived back home and this is where the Bill has big potential to become Step 1, because the Minister is going to claim the government needs to keep tabs on them, so we need the tech that will allow him to do so on home soil and this will open the door to the government (him actually) getting access to anyone he or his department opts to deem a “threat”. Do you see where this is going now?

Other government ministers can see exactly where he’s going with it and have already guessed what he is really up to (because of that Home Security Bill he has tried to get passed) and to date have refused to support it. With luck they won’t be cajoled into voting with this one, which will grant the green light for this guy to get what he really wants; a technological back door into the lives of any one of us. Not because he needs to, but simply because he wants to be able to and once the technology is there…

Well, there will be no going back, and that’s a worry.

 

Posted on

The Pill-testing Debate

Pill testing. It’s been hogging the media here in Australia for a while now, but at the risk of getting the pro-test groups all bent out of shape, I find myself leaning towards the “No” side because I am still of the belief that people need to be responsible for their own actions, up to and including taking something that they know has the potential to harm or kill them. Like, how hard can that be?

I think the bells began ringing when 15-year-old Anna Woods collapsed and died after taking an Ecstasy pill in 1995. While Anna’s death was tragic, it did sound a warning that perhaps Ecstasy was not the harmless party drug that people had originally thought it was and the media storm that followed revealed the drug could contain all manner of toxic ingredients that could cause nasty side effects, permanent injury and in other cases, death.

Right. That should have been sufficient to cull the number of users, yes? Well, no, it wasn’t. Ecstasy pills and the like have made greater inroads into the Australian drug culture, become synonymous with music and dance festivals and despite the warnings all over the media, the user rate has grown, resulting in more people suffering permanent damage, with the death rate from pill use increasing alarmingly. And this is the bit I don’t get; why would you deliberately ingest something that has your highly possible demise written all over it? It is still a tragedy when people do and die as a result, but no one can claim today that they bought the pills in ignorance. We all know they are toxic. We all know they are very bad news. So why would anyone be stupid enough to take the risk?

Well firstly, there’s the silly supposition of “It won’t happen to me.” Sorry, but it so will. “Everyone else is taking them!” Really? So that’s a good reason? Every user that has either dropped dead or been left permanently damaged from taking these pills no doubt thought exactly the same thing, assuming they gave it any thought at all and once you have taken one bad pill, that’s it. For you, anyway.

And now we have the blame game. Responsibility and consequences, appear to have become dirty words unless they can be attributed to someone or something else. In the case of the dangerous pills being hawked around the festival circuit, it’s “the government’s fault” which takes personal responsibility right out of the equation. Except it doesn’t. Right now, in NSW, the pro-pill testing groups are blaming the government and in particular, the NSW Premier, for the death of every fool who plays Russian Roulette with a pill, and loses, because she has said no to pill testing booths at festivals and the like. Well, sorry to rain on their parade and all, but the blame doesn’t lay with either. It is not up to the government to hold your hand. The blame lays squarely with the user who, despite all the health warnings about these pills, still opts to buy them and use them. If they die as a result, the fault is theirs and theirs alone. I understand that this won’t go down well with the pro-pill testing lot, but I don’t care. It’s time someone spoke up and dumped the facts on them. Festival organisers can’t be held responsible either. They already have a police presence at their events, and sniffer dogs. What else would you have them do? The government has made all the information about the dangers of these pills readily available. What else should they be expected to do?

If you are old enough to attend a festival, you are old enough to take responsibility for your own health and safety, and that’s the bottom line. If you opt not to buy/use the pills, I congratulate you for using some common sense regarding your life but should you decide to take them, then it’s unlikely you are reading this because you died. If you died, it’s on you, hon, no one else.

Seriously, you need to wake up!

Posted on

The Naked Truth!

With all the drama that has afflicted many of those who have done so, one would think the message may have got out there by now but apparently not. I’m talking about posting pics of yourself in the altogether online and believing no harm will come to you as a result.

Trust me, it can find you all right and if it does, it could get really nasty and turn your life upside down.

Like the “sextortion” racket currently targeting people, a high percentage of whom are young men, via dating apps and social networking sites. What happens is this; people make a “connection” with another person and it appears all very nice. Before long, however, the person at the other end suggests a move to a private chat room where they can continue their conversation. Once there, they will quickly manage to bring the chat around to requesting some naked images, either pics or videos. Now, one would think that this request should present as a Big Red Flag, warning of the strong possibility that something’s not quite right, but the number of people missing the flag completely is staggering, and the numbers are growing.

So what is it about a request from a complete stranger, asking for intimate images, that’s failing to alert people? Seriously, there is only one kind of person who does this, and you’ve just met one of them!

In the case of sextortion, once those images have been uploaded and captured at the other end, the sender will almost immediately begin to receive threats demanding either money, more images or both, with a warning that failure to comply will result in your naked pics being uploaded to the Internet. And it’s unlikely to stop should you pay up. As with any form of blackmail, it will go on and on.

This is the ugly reality of sending naked pics of yourself to anyone, or in allowing someone to take intimate pics or video footage of you. Regardless of who has snapped them or has possession of them, there are no guarantees that you images won’t end up being shared publicly via the Internet. It’s what happens. I guess the best filter here is to ask yourself if you would be okay with your family, your friends, your boss or you workmates, plus thousands of complete strangers seeing them. If the answer is “not on your life!” then don’t get your gear off in front of a lens. Just don’t do it.

Sextortion is one of the nastier ones doing the rounds at the moment and it is also a crime. If you have been caught by a sextorion racket, you need to report it to the authorities. But if not, then heed this as a warning. Do not give anyone access to naked images of yourself. Anyone at all, because you have no guarantee of privacy and no comeback if you willingly pose and it gets out there. Sextortion is possibly as bad as it can get.

You do not want to go there.