Handing out free cans of Jim Beam makes you popular. See the things you learn when you have a job as awesome as mine?

Jim Beam on Campus is hiring. I’m currently looking for a QUT student with a sparkling personality and some organisational skills to join me in getting paid to host parties up at QUT garden’s point.

Email me at websinthe@gmail.com with a resume and proof that you’re a student at QUT.

Due to the somewhat popular nature of the job, my standards will be fairly high when selecting the winning applicant. Don’t let the hold you back, I’m looking for someone with a bit of creativity and a good sense of humor.

If you’re not funny and don’t like people, don’t apply. You’ll hate the instant popularity and the all areas access to dozens of parties, events and concerts that we have to attend.

*******

Last night I discovered that my scheduled comics weren’t working. It doesn’t help that my PC is on the fritz and I can’t connect to the net. I’ll try work out a solution tonight.

It’s been a big week with some promising signs for the future. I’ve been offered a position on the executive at QUT’s student Guild and hope to post more details as they come. I’m supposed to see the Guild president and general secretary on Monday and hopefully I’ll be posting some good news shortly afterwards.

I’ve also been given a coloumn in the upcoming QUT magazine QUTEmag. The first edition is still in proofing at the moment and my coloumn should be starting in the second edition.

Say a prayer or cross your fingers for it all working out. I’m really excited to be contributing to the mag and possibly doing some definite good on the guild executive.

I had planned to submit my uni assignments here on the site once they’d been completed but I’m rethinking the idea. Websinthe used to be my personal site; it’s grown far beyond that and want to keep websinthe heading the way it is.

Asher Moses, the journo we have come to look for as the signposter of the #nocleanfeed debate, has published Nick Xenophon’s denouncement of the filter.

As soon as the article was tweeted by Michael Meloni, the goldfish of the twitterverse began a rain of champagne and retweets celebrating the death of the filter scheme.

The problem is that nothing has been scuttled, the filter is still on track and the government has made no comment at all. 

As happy as I am to see Xenophon getting something right for a change, his vote has not yet been cast. Xenophon’s position on legislation changes the second someone can offer him something in return for his vote. He backed down on blocking the bailout as soon as Rudd offered him succor on one of Xenophon’s own little bugbears.

While the Retweets flew thick and fast, commentary from EFA heavy hitters and anti-filter lobbyists was cautious. 

EFA chairman Nic Suzor and vice- chair Colin Jacobs both agreed that the celebrations were premature:

Coljac: When I hear it from Conroy’s lips, I’ll relax. #nocleanfeed

NicSuzor: I don’t think we can afford to slow down or relax at this point. #nocleanfeed

Twitter user Warren_s puts it well when he tweeted:

warren_s: i’ll believe it when the votes are cast. Xenephon “blocked” Rudd’s stimulus until they gave him something in return… #nocleanfeed

The best explanation so far comes from mpesce:

mpesce: @disassociated True. For the rest of the Murray-Darling money, Xenophon will let Conroy have his #nocleanfeed.

What needs to happen now is that people who oppose the filter need to send Xenophon a letter or an email telling him that we support his decision. He’s going to be copping some flack from the ACL and their zombies over the next few days so a little bit of positive reinforcement will go a long way.

I’m not convinced that this is a particularly huge step in the campaign. It’s certainly a step in the right direction but we can hardly light up yet.

Stilgherrian tugged at the loose and threadbare lap sash that only barely held him to the car seat.

“I get it that Meloni is late for work,” he said as the car swerved violently to avoid a pensioner, “but why do we need six people in the car to get him there?” Websinthe turned away from the steering wheel and looked at Stil.

“Good God man, can’t you be more supportive? This man needs our help!” His speech was slightly muffled by the herbal cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Oncoming traffic started mashing down their horns as the car drifted into the wrong lane.

“Holy fucking hell!” He shouted. The herbal was still tucked tightly between his pursed lips.

“I thought we we’re going to Starbuck’s.” said Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU.

Coljac turned to Stil. “It’s a solidarity thing Stil. I’ll tell you about it when you’re older.”

“Are you shitting me Col? I’m almost a decade older than you!”

“Oh really?” Coljac looked confused. “Then you tell me.”

“I just said I don’t know!”

“Oh Fuck me sideways!” Websinthe yelled as he yanked the wheel hard to avoid another pensioner.

Meloni sat shotgun, knees tucked under his chin and sobbing. He turned to Stilgherrian and Coljac as they argued. “Why can’t you two just be nice to each other?” He wailed, tears pissing down his face.

“What the hell are you talking about?” Stilgherrian cried. His voice raised an octave on the last syllable, prompting a raised eyebrow from Taezer.

Websinthe took his eyes off the road again. This time one hand left the wheel as well, index finger jabbed in the direction of the weeping Meloni. “Jesus Fuck Stihl! Why can’t you think of the children for once?”

Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU sat in the back seat with Taezar. In his left hand was an iPhone, his right hand held an HTC and he had a USB pen held between his teeth. He looked up with inquiring eyes.

“Has anyone heard of the new touch screen phone that Boeing is bringing out?” He asked.

Taezar peeled her eyes away from her night vision glasses, her irises contracted into twin singularities from intensity of amplified daylight.

“I SEE GOD” she said. Her voice boomed like the death of a thousand suns and obliterated every window in the car. Meloni started wailing again. Coljac leaned forward and started stroking Meloni’s hair in an attempt to comfort him.

Bernadette McMenamin shot a dissaproving glare from the footpath as they sped past.

Stil held on to the lap sash so tight that it snapped. His mouth dropped into a desperate pitch of dismay as he looked at the snapped ends of the sash.

“Who owns this piece of shit?” he begged.

Websinthe kept his eyes on the road this time. “Does that really  matter Stil? Does it?” the herbal still hung unlit from his lips. “All I know is that we’re all going to jail for this.”

Coljac sat up straight, his smile beaming from ear to ear. “Oh good, we’ll get to see Clive again.” he said, clapping excitedly.

A collective wail of anguish filled the car. Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU clutched his three phones to his chest protectively. One of the phones beeped harshly.

“Hey Stil. Today’s Crikey just came through.” he said.

“My porn!” Stil roared as he launched himself into the backseat. He grabbed the phone and began reading as he curled up on Taezar’s lap.

Coljac reached back and grabbed the scruff of Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU’s shirt.

“That was awesome!” he yelled.

They all lurched forward as Websinthe flattened the brake pedal. The wheels screeched and the car began to slide. It stopped directly outside Meloni’s work. Websinthe was out the door immediately. He got to Meloni’s door before it was opened from the inside and yanked the weeping man out through the window.

Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU came up from behind and started carrying Meloni over his shoulder as Websinthe threw himself bodily through the reception’s front window. Shards and blood scattered across the front desk.

Websinthe rolled and kept running into the office proper screaming for everyone to “get the fuck down” and that it was “hammer time.” Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU burst in with Meloni over his shoulder just seconds later. He threw Meloni down on his desk.

“I’m here! It’s okay! I’m sorry I’m late!” Meloni yelled at the skirt walking past.

His boss strode up to Meloni’s desk, looking direly unimpressed. “I’m sick of your shit Meloni. I’m fired.” said the boss.

The boss broke into sobs and ran from the room with his face in his hands. Meloni, Ben Grubb from TechWiredAU, Stilgherrian, Coljac, Taezar and the bleeding and disfigured Websinthe all shot their hands into the air screaming…

“YAY! PIZZA DAY!”

Fin

I recently made use of the very public feedback form that Charles Sturt University placed on Clive Hamilton’s public bio. My request that other academics review his public commentary has been taken by Mr Hamilton as an attempt to silence him.

Round 1

I can’t help but feel that poor Clive has to respond to comments like mine on a regular basis. There are a lot of people out there that aren’t in awe of his academic reputation and take this debate seriously enough to call him out on it. Here’s my original feedback submission to CSU:

While Clive Hamilton is obviously a greatly respectable academic  there really needs to be more peer review of his media commentary  he gets away with too much inaccuracy [sic].

Along with this submission I included my full name, email address and personal telephone number.

His response is a classis.

Dear Mr Salsone

The University has forwarded your complaint to me. I find it astonishing that someone who purports to defend freedom of expression on the internet should complain to my employer with the objective of pressuring them to silence me.

It’s called hypocrisy.

No Clive, it’s called accountability. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be paid for innacuracy and tabloid sensationalism. Speak your mind Clive, just be willing for others to speak their mind about your opinion. Be willing to be proven wrong.

Given that I’m not exactly your average forum whoring net-kiddy opposing the filter so that I can watch porn, I didn’t immediately fold under Clive’s dire gaze. My response:

Dear Mr Hamilton,

I’m not even remotely surprised that you didn’t read the complaint properly, so I’ll explain it in more simple terms.

My recommendation to your employer was that your academic peers review your public comments with the same eye to accuracy and precision that they would with your academic work. I have intense respect for you as an academic, however, your public commentary on this debate lacks rigour and accountability.

I think you fail to realise that the pursuaiveness of your reputation blurs the reality of what you say. Our side of the debate has a much higher demand for proof as we lack the instant recognition that your reputation affords you.

If you feel that peer review of your public commentary is the same as silencing you, then perhaps you should lift your game when you write articles in the mainstream media.

It may come as a surprise to you that my primary concern in this debate is the protection of children. Finite resources, however, demand that the money we spend on protecting children be done in the most effective way possible. This filter is not the most effective plan, not by a long shot. If you’d read my blog a few months ago you would know that I originally came into this debate supporting the filter. I have since been willing to admit that I was wrong and have since changed my position.

I take it by the lack of any text to the contrary in the footer of your email that I can post this to my blog. Free speech being what it is, I’ll let my readership decide if my original comment was a bid to silence you or a bid to have you lift your game.

Clive, you and I both know that my comment was never a request to silence you, please stop jumping at shadows. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Sincerest Regards

Kieran Salsone

I pose the question to you all, was I too forward in my comment? Was I pressuring for him to be silenced?

If the overwhelming consensus is that I was out of line, I will happily write an apology and send a retraction of my submission to the University.

If not, then I ask that Clive explain to me exactly how he read my suggestion of peer review as an attempt at suppression.

Round 2 **update**

Clive didn’t waste a whole lot of time responding to my original email:

.. and should your articles and posts be subject to peer review too? Just to ensure their accuracy and precision, of course. Perhaps we could run them through the Central Committee for Truth on the Internet. But, no, that would not work, because you chair that Committee and it would be quite improper for you to review your own work.

What a load of dissemblish tosh your response to me is. You urged someone whom you think can exercise power over me to impose some form of restriction on what I say, and you claim that you were innocently suggesting ‘peer review’.
“I have intense respect for you as an academic” — yes, of course you do, as long as I say things you agree with.
I am just amazed at your pompous dishonesty and your contempt for freedom of expression. A bit of self-examination would go a long way.

Feel free to post this too.

CH

Well, this was my response:

Dear Clive,

My articles are reviewed by my peers Clive, and they have every opportunity to speak up about them. When I’m called out about accuracy problems I change my original post. Would you be willing to do that?

If you are going to trade on your reputation as an academic, then treat that commentary like you would an academic. I don’t presume to base my opinions on reputation, I base them on the facts as they are presented. Where I am wrong, I capitulate.

I would be more than happy to have every single one of my blog posts reviewed by academics. If you don’t believe me then please, find an academic willing to review my work and I will submit it to them for review.

Once again I ask why you are so afraid of peer review and why, if you are so certain of your opinion, you feel that peer review would restrict what you say?

Thank you for your views about my stance on freedom of speech, I’d be more than happy to keep an open dialogue between us so that we can discuss it more fully. It’s a topic that I find to be complicated and troublesome.

I’m looking forward to hearing from you again, perhaps with less vitriol next time.

Regards,

Kieran

Look, before the accusation comes, I’m not trying to be condescending or overly nice. I’m seriously trying to hold back the kind of invective that will get me in trouble.

Round 3 **update***

Clive’s response to the above:

I wrote: “You urged someone whom you think can exercise power over me to impose some form of restriction on what I say, and you claim that you were innocently suggesting ‘peer review’.”

It’s clear you do find the concept of freedom of speech troublesome, as you don’t respond. An apology would do.

CH

The second comment about me not responding to the first comment is fair, so I stepped up.

Dear Clive,

I didn’t respond to that part of your email because it was attempting to provoke a harsh response.

My response is this: I urged someone who gives you credibility through their sponsorship of you as an academic to ensure that you are not abusing that credibility. I can understand why you would feel pressured by this but it’s the tradeoff you make for being a published academic.

If you had nothing to fear from peer review, you would not have been so affronted by my recommendation.

That being said, I do apologise that you feel slighted by my recommendation. In the future I will attempt to be more clear. I regret going straight to your employer but only because I didn’t go to you first. I apologise for not going to you first. I also apologise for not responding to every one of your points when you made them. I did, however, leave the door open for further discussion.

I find freedom of speech to be complicated and troublesome, I admit that. I pursue it regardless.

Now, tell me and tell everyone who will read this why you are so afraid of peer review.

Regards,
Kieran

This point has been floating around in my head for about 2 weeks now, though I honestly didn’t think I could do the notion justice in less than 3 thousand words.

Helen Razer’s latest article on the incivility of the Internet seemed like an apt place to pilot my opinion.

I think that one of the primary causes for the Internet becoming so dear to many of us is that, on the internet, the barriers to entry to so many pursuits and activities are incredibly low.

To be a writer on the Internet requires less than 2 minutes spent setting up a wordpress blog.

To be a shop owner requires similarly minute portions of time spent setting up a cafepress shop.

The context has not been lost, there is still far less credibility given to online sources than there are to brick, book or blood sources.

What the DBCDE fails to understand, and this is abundantly clear from their latest discussion paper, is that to apply traditional red tape and legal structures to the Internet kills the very reasons for its rapid and widespread uptake.

While the Government has the right to ensure the Internet doesn’t aid in the infringement of laws -in the real world-, they do need to start thinking of better ways to do it.

The DBCDE needs to think forward instead of trying to shoe-horn the Internet into existing legislation and red-tape.

While I don’t always agree with Helen, she does point out that the traditional bastions of credibility weren’t fast enough to adopt the keen new formats of today’s audiences. Wikipedia has nothing on Britannica, yet the format and hook of Wikipedia means it will be used by many more.

Examples such as this are why traditional media outlets are pissing fire at Governments trying to make them stop the nimble little e-buggers from bleeding them with a thousand cuts.

I’m not really surprised by the constant fencing between record labels and the torrent community. It’s quite obvious when you step back from either point of view – there are unusual and unexplored principles of economics being discovered, almost accidentally, by the torrenting community.

Less accidental are the leaps and bounds to creativity being made by the Cretive Commons movement. A whole new level of creative productivity has been unleashed as a legal framework finally caught up to the technology on offer. Creative Commons as a concept has matured to the point where Government agencies are starting to use it.

Creative Commons wouldn’t have happened in any other environment than the internet.

What if we could use the emerging issue of online depravity to create a new and superior solution that is more flexible, efficient and effective than traditional solutions such as censorship and filtering?

If there’s one thing that the Internet has taught everyone but the Government, it’s that you need to solve problems by moving through them, not walling them off. I see the NoCleanFeed debate as an opportunity to sit down and work out the best way the government can handle the internet on a philosophical level. The most recent DBCDE discussion paper indicates that the government is ready to ask the question.

The NBN and filtering scheme, however, indicate that the DBCDE is not yet ready to think of an answer.

Pornography is an integral part of the internet. A lot of the money and traffic that makes the Internet viable commercially is tied up in pornograpghy. Whether you like it or not, it’s something that needs to be in place for the internet to continue growing. The economies of scale just won’t add up if you start hacking away at vital parts of the equation.

So we are faced with two paths. If we follow Conroy and his goons, we shoot the internet in the foot and everybody loses out. If we work through the issue in an innovative and creative way, not only will our children be better protected, but the Government can reap the rewards that come with a vibrant and fertile online economy.

Clive Hamilton’s case for restricting the internet fails to point out why the scheme must be ISP based and not PC based.

We’ve all come to expect at least some level of alarmism from Clive Hamilton and his kin and his post today doesn’t dissapoint. His well trained and reasoned tone of writing weaves a chilling tail of a young boy’s inadvertent descent into sexual deviancy through the unfiltered use of the internet.

As scary as his short story sounds, it is one that, like most Hollywood disasters, jumps several steps of logic in order to reach the desired conclusion.

If the accidental fall from grace of a young boy downloading pron is the situation we are trying to fight, why is it imperative that we discount PC based filtering as a solution? The situation he describes wouldn’t happen on my home PC, I’m running Integard. if parents were concerned about the situation, they too would run a similar product to ensure that this fictional young man could not access pornography while not being supervised.

His article fails to give a compelling reason why ISP filtering is needed and PC filtering is inadequate to solve the situation he scripted.

Spinning the low uptake of the PC based filters provided in the Net Alert as a failure of the project relies on a blatantly condescending attitude towards the Australian Public. The uptake of the free filters may have been small, but conservatives like Clive have repeatedly failed to mention the market usage of commercial products such as Net Nanny that were denied access to the Net Alert program.

The dollar value of the marketing campaign is often touted by Clive and Co as an example of the waste of time that Net Alert became. When you compare Net Alert’s $22 million advertising budget with the $180 million Tourism Australia spent on their failed campaign, perspective starts to set in.

Another much loved anecdote amongst conservatives is the story about a 16 year old breaking the filter within minutes of first seeing it. Fast forward to 2009 and my 10 years of hardcore computer literacy can’t break Integard in 6 months. I’ve met the guys at Race River, creators of Integard, they’re not stupid. The products on offer today are nothing like the crap originally offered on Net Alert.

Clive also manages to confuse freedom of speech with unrestricted access to pornography. Allowing children to view porn has never been a policy of the EFA. Classification of content is fine where it allows people to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to view it. Prohibiting adults from making that decision is different, we are fighting for the right of an adult to choose what they see, hear or say.

There are numerous mechanisms both economic and legislative that have not been explored as solutions to the issue of unintended exposure of pornography to minors. Clive misses the point that he has chosen to back a mechanism that infringes on civil liberties.

Perhaps Clive should show us how truly smart he is and suggest a solution that everybody can be happy with, instead of lumping in with the nearest idiot with a ministry.

…not that anyone actually cares.

As much as websinthe has become a serious blog over the last few months, I do like to indulge in the occasional frivolous post. 7 things turned out to be insufficient for my ego, so here’s 9 things instead.

1. I’m quarter Irish, quarter German, half Italian and 100% Australian. I’m starting to get sick of the concept of nations. Somehow I’ve been mistaken for jewish, palistinian, greek, russian and, oddly enough, chinese (long story). I also feel somewhat reluctant to call myself Australian given the behaviour of young people during the Australia day lunacy. This country never ceases to dishonour the memory of those that fought against oppresive warmongers.
2. I cry during books, movies, anything. You name it and I’ve probably had a good cry over it. I love crying, can’t get enough of it. Crying out of joy is my favourite. Big manly sobs – that’s how you avoid becoming a biggoted redneck ex general.
3. I’m the eldest of 5 brothers. My brothers are without a doubt the most interesting people I know. I am intensely proud of my family and count my brothers as my best mates. Between us we have”
   1. represented the state,
   2. the country,
   3. been involved with almost every industry imaginable,
   4. been published,
   5. been publicly shamed,
   6. been publicly commended,
   7. been in politics,
   8. against politics,
   9. had almost every psychological issue known to man
   10. beaten almost every psycholigical issue known to man
   11. slept with half of Queensland.
4. I’m going grey. My hair has been going grey since I was 17 and I feel great about it. While women can try their hardest to look younger, I’ll continue to try and look older. if it’s good enough for nature then it’s good enough for me.
5. I used to live in China. I taught English in China for a year after I graduated from high school. It was both one of the best and one of the worst experiences of my life. If anyone tells me that China is going to be the next super power I immediately know to stop taking them seriously.
6. Websinthe is a play on Absinthe. I’d been blogging for a number of years before I took the mantle of websinthe. I’d called previous blogs ‘the rant’ until one night I drank a half a bottle of imported absinthe and decided to register websinthe.org.
7. Websinthe is more than just a play on Absinthe. Good, now you know. If you’d like to know what it actually means, buy me dinner.
8. I’m Catholic. With the amount of support I throw towards Athiest groups and the sheer amount of ghost writing I do for a couple of American Athiest blogs, you’d think I’d have joined ranks with them by now. Not so. I was raised a Catholic of the Roman Catholic pursuasion and, these days, would be identified as ‘borderline pastafarian’.
9. I’ve been dealing with anxiety and depression since I was in my early teens. Not that dealing with depression makes you unique any more. In fact, one of the best treatments for depression these days is informing someone that it has become fashionable to need anti-depressants. All the indie kids with chips on their shoulders will cheer up just to buck the mainstream.

There’s plenty more but that’s about all I’m willing to post here. As much as I’m perfectly willing to spill more of the proverbial beans in person, there are people that read this blog who are, to be blunt, judgemental and cruel. I’m also engaged to a woman who needs to deal with the fallout of my public comments.

Perhaps this post should have been titled “9 things about me that are semi-interesting but won’t upset too many people’.

The DBCDE has announced a list of 6 ISPs that will be participating in the second round prototyping of the ISP censoring scheme.

The list includes Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.

So, what are the trial conditions for Senator Conroy’s ‘evidence based approach’ so far?

Primus has been jumping up and down to be a part of this trial since it was announced. While they are a tier 1 ISP and have to deal with considerable traffic, they are also one of the smaller tier 1 ISPs and have a predominantly SME focused consumer base, meaning that the traffic they deal with will be significantly removed from the kind of misuse that the DBCDE is so fond of overplaying.

The remainder of the ISPs range from small businesses catering for small business to operations the size of a local 7-11.

Tech2U – Was founded in 1995 and, as you can see from their website, promptly dropped into a time warp and remains firmly stuck in the internet of 1995. Tech2U is also a business focused ISP and so wouldn’t encounter a great deal of target traffic. In terms of ISPs, Tech2U is a soccer ball to iiNet’s Jupiter.

Webshield – Webshield already runs a filter on its service. Why are they testing these guys? The filtering system they are using works more like a PC based filter so expect their filtering solution to have intense overblock and serious performance issues at higher cost to consumer.

Omniconnect, Netforce and Highway 1 – OmniConnect is a cookie cutter small business run by a few guys out of a small office catering mainly to, yet again, business clients. Netforce is slightly more sophisticated but is still nowhere near being a tier 1 ISP and only supplies to businesses. Highway 1 only supplies businesses and even then only 3000 nationwide.

I fail to see how trialling with business focused ISPs is going to in any way protect children.

I know there are still some ISPs to be announced, but unless there are more than equal this many household focused ISPs, this trial is a sham.

If this were really a live trial, they’d be testing the filter on ISPs that are used by the average Australian family. So far the ISPs that serve the average household do not seem keen to be part of this live trial, what does this tell the DBCDE about the public’s interest in this scheme? Apparently nothing.

The fires in Victoria were still burning strong as the political vultures came out to take advantage of the situation.

The fires had barely ignited before Bob Brown was making the bushfires a political issue. I’ve been fairly supportive of the greens recently but I think it might be time for the new blood to put this guy to pasture if he’s going to pull stunts like this.

Clive Hamilton published an article on Monday’s Crikey analysing the effects of climate change as they related to the Victorian fires. I’m not sure but I thought an aftermath analysis was supposed to happen after, not in the thick of. He was well criticised for it by Crikey’s readership, but he’s far from being the only offender.

Rooted, another blog in the Crikey group, jumped the gun as well, though his readership took the opportunity to add their 2 cents.

Natalie Bennet of the Guardian has used the Victorian Bushfire crisis as an opportunity to criticise Australian environmental policy and promote her own journalistic career. The comments section on her article is equally full of insensitive ideological opportunism.

Some parts of her article ring true until you realise that a lot of it is factually wrong. It is written from the perspective of someone living in a very different environment. It is written with very little understanding of how this bushfire is unique amongst Australian bushfires. It is appallingly timed and should have been sat on until after the crisis.

TVNZ.co.nz yesterday posted a Reuters article already talking about the pressure the bushfires had put on the Government to combat climate change. Well done. The fires are still burning and the death toll is still rising yet the entire article is written in past tense. Pushing the environmentalist ideology can wait until humans have stopped dying.

David Packham at the Australian also couldn’t wait to start pointing the finger at Academics and the Greens party. Whether or not you agree with his article, it seems to be a little soon to start waving your arms and screaming ‘I told you so’.

Of course, there’s always one idiot that was taking a shit when God was handing out brains. Pastor Danny Nalliah from the fundamentalist christian sect ‘Catch the Fire Ministries‘ has gone and claimed that the fires were due to God smiting the wicked Victorians for supporting Abortion.

I had originally written about Senator Conroy issuing a PR release while fires raged. I’m swapping this out for a better comment by Michael Meloni that more accurately reflects my opinion after having read more about the situation.

I don’t think Senator Conroy used the fires as a smoke screen for his press release. Today was an important cyber-safety event across the entire country and his department was yet to issue a press release. The day before is an appropriate and common time to do so and considering its contents were in no way insensitive to bushfire victims, I don’t see a problem.

Content filtering – as well as the other initiatives – are often mentioned in all DBCDE cyber-safety PR. On this occasion it was mentioned only once and very briefly. The Government mentioning policy in a press release is not something we should throw our arms up about. Save that for when they don’t include relevant information and when they try to hide it. That’s when it’s a problem. Time can be better spent either fighting the clean feed or helping those affected by the bushfire.

No one is doing anybody a favour kicking up a storm about this non-issue. Mike

Regardless, the ‘Feral Goldfish’ got up in arms about it, and I may have been part of this at first.

The Inquisitr [sic] posted a tirade against Stephen Conroy’s office for issuing the release. The Australian Blogosphere caught hold of it and collectively spat in Conroy’s direction.

The online community’s indignation at Conroy using the fires to smoke screen his release turned to hypocrisy soon after. Dan Warne at APC Mag made calls to redirect the funds from the ISP filter to help those in need in Victoria. Great idea, still too early.

The notion was echoed by dozens on twitter and in the blogosphere as EFA board members and Anti-censorship lobbyists like Michael Meloni looked on in disgust.

You’ve got some people saying Conroy is insensitive and others using this disaster to try and axe #nocleanfeed – Bad

While the rest of the world needs to keep going and can’t grind to a hault over this. the media, the blogosphere and lobbyists need to leave the Victorian bushfires alone until we can deal with the human death toll. While the fires are still burning, using them to push a line is insensative and still (10th Feb) too early.

P.S I sat on this as long as I could out of respect for the dead.

Did I miss anyone?

What are your thoughts on the issue?

When is it appropriate to begin these kinds of discussion?

I’ve decided to make the World’s greatest shave thing a public event.

Where

At the moment I’m hoping to hold the shave at Val-Ray Jewellers at Brisbane Square in the Brisbane CBD. It’s a small shop but I’m hoping to have the event held out the front or near the front.

When

The event has been slated for Noon on Saturday the 14th of March.

This means I’ll need help from others as I will actually be working at the jeweler that day.

Alternatively I’m looking to have it on Thursday or Friday evening in the same location. I’d appreciate some feedback and will be asking for it over twitter as well.

How

We’ll have clippers and hair colour (spray) set up at the event. We’ll have one or two people attending to people’s hair and a crowd going to reassure everyone that they look awesome.

Why

We’re doing this because it’s a good cause.