Dob in those high petrol prices

Road Tube a website set up by the NRMA is inviting motorists to report high petrol prices.

"Motorists across NSW and the ACT are being encouraged to report high petrol prices over the Easter period on NRMA’s new RoadTube website.
Average unleaded petrol prices across Sydney should not exceed $1.25 over the coming days when considering the international benchmark price and the Australian dollar.
Regional prices are typically four to five cents more expensive due to transport costs and less competition in regional towns.
If motorists drive past service stations selling petrol for $1.30 or more they are being encouraged to record the details with their mobile phone via video or camera or leave a blog with the details at www.roadtube.com.au.
Drivers of the vehicle are reminded to pull over before using their phone.
NRMA Motoring & Services President Wendy Machin said if motorists encountered over-inflated petrol prices this Easter long weekend they could now do more than suffer in silence.
“Petrol prices have remained stable this week and we don’t expect them to reach the $1.30 mark over the long weekend,” Ms Machin said.
“However, if motorists see prices above the $1.30 barrier we want them to report it on our RoadTube website via video, photos or by leaving the details as a blog comment.
“The NRMA will collate the reports from the motoring public and present them to the Petrol Commissioner.”

Comic relief

No penis, no microphone

Herald journo Peter FitzSimons has this par in today's Sydney Morning Herald

Columnist for the Grafton Daily Examiner Peter Chapman on Tuesday: "While I hold no concerns about women reporting sport, I do not believe they should be handed a microphone to comment on major male sporting contests … I don't mind female sports journos doing colour reports, but for blow-by-blow, it has to be a male." His supporting argument? There wasn't one. Just, no penis, no microphone.

Radio interview with the Minister of Silly Walks concerning the $43 billion national broadband network and Internet filtering trial

A big thanks to Mark Newton for tweeting a link to this Stephen Conroy interview.
When addressing the ISP-level filtering live trial it is almost classic Monty Python.

NewtonMark Conroy sets pants on fire as a defensive measure to stop Kate O'Toole from kicking his arse: http://is.gd/rGrm #triplej #nocleanfeed about 17 hours ago from web

Graphic from Google Images

Democratic freedoms? A case of Obama saying one thing and doing another?

U.S. President Barack Obama has been in office long enough now for disconnects to emerge between his grand speeches and what he does in fact.
Never more so than in the case of the former Bush Administration warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens.

CNet reported in January 2008 that Barack Obama was against warrantless wiretapping:

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In 2008 an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put to the U.S. Senate.

This is what Obama as a presidential candidate is reported as saying of this amendment on 14 July 2008:

"I am proud to stand with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty," Obama said in a prepared statement. "There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people — we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties.

"This administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the administration to join us in that effort."

Obama then went on to vote for the legislative amendment which allowed immunity from prosecution.

However this immunity was not believed at the time to extend to government according to its Senate sponsor:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Since then a number of court cases have come to light including Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc v Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America.

Now in response to this and other current litigation President Obama (through the Department of Justice) appears to be asserting a surveillance power which is even wider than that previously asserted concerning warrantless searches.

President Obama may be smoother and better packaged than George W. Bush, but deep down he is nothing more than an expedient politician like those presidents before him and, just as unwilling to relinquish any power (no matter how dubious) over the citizenry.

Here is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFA) says about its current court proceedings:

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant's participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

For the full complaint in Jewel v. NSA

In March 2009 the Obama Administration replied to the EFA litigation with the GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT virtually asserting that everything (including publicly known facts about this wiretapping and data mining) is a 'state secret' or other form of privileged information.

Graphic found at BoingBoing

Easter as an ending, not a beginning (WARNING: this post is not for kiddies who believe)

Click images to enlarge

Original pics here

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

Iraq - the War on Terror still leaving a bloody fallout Bomb near Iraq Shi'ite shrine kills 7

Afghanistan - despite the propaganda NATO-led occupation forces are losing hearts and minds Obama seeks extra funds for wars

Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers versus Sri Lankan Government forces 'Civilians die' in Sri Lanka zone

Democratic Republic of Congo - civil war still unresolved DR Congo army fights off rebel attack in east

Pakistan - Protestors versus police Two Killed in Protests in Pakistan`s Baluchistan

India - KCP rebels killed in exchange of gunfire with police 3 rebels killed in Manipur

Somalia - civil war leads to lawlessness Aid Workers Quit Somalia

Ethiopia - rebel group still active Ogaden Rebels Counter 'Crisis' Claims by Ethiopia

Sudan - Israel versus whoever they please Report: Naval commando forces involved in Sudan strike

Columbia - FARC rebels take on Columbian Army Colombian Army and FARC Rebels Battle Near Venezuelan Border

England - British establishment against one lone man Policeman suspended over G20 protest death Video of police assault

......and various other places around the globe.

Monsanto goes a-Twittering

It's no secret that Agwired has a relationship with Monsanto the biotech giant.
So when it came out with this it was hardly surprising:

I ran across this article, Planting Cyber Seeds, written by Jeffrey Tomich for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I thought I would share it will all of you. The article is about how Monsanto has worked to tackle big issues through Twitter, the social networking tool that answers the question, What are you doing?

Because environmentalists were constantly trying to derail Monsanto in the media, the company quickly realized that they needed to address some big issues in the news for themselves. The group uses Twitter to discuss controversial topics like food labeling and genetically modified foods. Like many agriculture groups, Monsanto has realized that this is the best outlet to interacting with the nation's food consumers.

Sounds as though Monsanto is on top of the social media game doesn't it? However when you search for Monsanto on Twitter you find a different story.

MonsantoCo shows the company-endorsed face of Monsanto tweets, but over at the official Monsanto blog they linked to a Twitter realtime search which showed 5 pages of more varied results, with anti-GM tweeters hogging the space right now.
Including beekeeper protests and links to media articles about GM crop failures.
Although it has to be said the Monsanto Twitter is hardly overwhelmed with people tweeting it.

Seems that whatever online PR Monsanto tries, it comes to grief.