His Master's Voice

Now here’s a question…

Back in March 2003, did Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper plagiarize a speech made by Australian PM John Howard two days previously?

Both speeches were made at a crucial time, when each of the former British domininions was justifying participation in the invasion of Iraq

‘Harper as Plagiarizer’ is the thesis of this rather clever video put together by the Liberal Party of Canada:

But there’s at least one other plausible hypothesis.

Perhaps BOTH Prime Ministers were reading texts drafted by the SAME third party?

Some comments below the YouTube copy of Stephen Harper copies Australian Prime Minister John Howard make this suggestion. One speculates Howard and Harper read scripts prepared in the White House.

It’s conceivable. But more likely, I think, that all the colluding  ‘Anglo-Saxon’ national leaders – from London to Ottawa, Washington to Canberra – were following the same direction.

If cantral casting wasn’t actually located in Tel Aviv, it might as well have been.

In the debate over compulsory Internet censorship in Australia since Kevin Rudd came to power, arguments repeatedly advanced against the proposed mandatory ‘filter’ by technically-savvy observers have been consistently ignored or deflected by the scheme’s key public advocates.

Stephen Conroy

It’s rather like playing tennis with opponents who don’t hit the ball back across the net; instead, they use a dead racket or flick the ball off to the side.

It makes for a very one-sided ‘debate’.

Almost the entire IT industry says: “what about X,Y or Z reasons why this policy won’t work and may prove counter-productive”.

They (Conroy, Hamilton et al) reply: “Well at least we’re trying to do something! It may not work perfectly, but at least we’re doing somethingl“.

They dismiss concerns such as the potential for back-door political censorship as a ‘red herring‘. But they won’t say why.

All in all, debating the advocates of compulsory Internet censorship is worse than playing tennis with a defective robot. It’s like wrestling eels.

URL Convert

With that in mind, I wonder if anyone has brought this little web ad to Minister Conroy’s attention?

URLConvert will convert an IP address into a longer, numeric address with no dots (called “DWORD” format). It can also convert either an IP address OR a domain name into hexadecimal format, for example, phplabs.com becomes %70%68%70%6C%61%62%73%2E%63%6F%6D You can use this capability to bypass some content filters and also to prevent your network administrators from knowing the real URL’s you’re visiting.

URLConvert  can be all yours, folks,  for US$39.95. But you may choose to wait. Doubtless open source versions will follow.

Clive Hamilton

What is Conroy/Hamilton’s repsonse likely to be to this bit of news?

On past performance, they”ll shrug, look very pious and explain that no scheme is perfect. At least they’re trying to stop child abuse. At least they care. If they’re in a feisty mood, they may add something like this: “blccking some child porn is better than blocking none at all! What – do YOU support child abuse…?!!”

The unwillingness of compulsory ‘filter’ proponents to give serious answers to critics who point out how easily the ‘filter’ can be circumvented strengthens my suspicion that this plan is not really what it’s claimed to be.

Proponents of the compulsory filter know it won’t block access to pornography – or anything else, for that matter – to those keen to access forbidden fruit. What’s more, they don’t seem to care.

What the mandatory ‘filter’ will do is extend the type of content censorship to the web that currently applies to mainstream media.

Martin Bryant: patsy?

That would mean, if you wish to read the full range of perpectives on historical matters such as World War Two, 9-11, the London bombings of 7th July 2005, the Port Arthus massacre or the 1978  Sydney Hilton bomb atrocity – over time you may not be able to do so without taking deliberate action to evade Government censorship.

It would mean that anyone in school, university, using a library computer, working in a  public institution or large company – or a home user who doesn’t take specific action to get round the filter – will only find a limited range of views on some crucial debates about history and current affairs.

Controlling information access for ~95% of the population is well worth doing, if you have an agenda you’d rather not expose to public scrutiny. It makes your ‘problem’ a lot more manageable. 100% censorship would be even nicer, of course. But you can settle for less. Over time, you may be able to tighten up.

Kevin Rudd and Friend

It’s my opinion that this is why there’s a push to censor our internet. It is a push that’s evident not only in Australia, but throughout the so-called ‘western’ world. It’s taking different forms in different juridictions.

In the USA, commitment to the First Amendment remains a bulwark the would-be censors have yet to overcome. In Australia, we have no equivalent constitutional protection.

Having lost their near-monopoly over the media, various interest groups with undue power, who hanker over yet more power, would rather like their quasi-monopoly back.

If we let them, they’ll get it. But we won’t.

If I’m right about this, a raft of flow-on questions arise. For instance, is Minister Conroy himself aware of this underlying agenda?

It’s possible, but I have some doubts. Conroy may well believe the nonsense he sprouts. He looks to me like a front man for irrational policies. In that respect, he reminds me of George W Bush – and unsurprisingly, his popularity is trending in a similar downwards direction.

Kevin '84

It was Prime Minister Rudd, I suspect, who cut deals to implement this Internet censorship policy with persons unknown before the last election.

If that’s untrue, Mr Rudd can doubtless deny it.

But it’s hard for me to believe Rudd dreamt up this political nightmare for his Government on pure whim.

Kevin Rudd may be many things to many stakeholders.

But he’s no fool.

Inflation is a terrible thing.

Less than two hundred years ago, it was possible to buy land rights in a tropical country for 3 shillings and 3 pence per acre – at a time when the average weekly wage in Britain was roughly one pound.

The land in question was in “a very anglophilic region, with already existing infrastructure, untapped gold and silver mines and large amounts of fertile soil ready to be settled.”

Six acres for a week’s wage! What an offer! Naturally, it was very popular. Investors snapped up these ‘land rights’ (presumably without a thought for the rights of the indigenous people).

Poyais Loan Certificate

Soon a ship was chartered to take eager new settlers from Britain. Their destination sounded like paradise. Why, it was “even free of tropical diseases!”

The first vessel to sail contained a large chest stacked full of the local currency. Many emigrants converted all their pounds before leaving, taking advantage of an excellent rate of exchange. Passengers “included doctors, lawyers and a banker who had been promised appropriate positions”. Some bought commissions in the army of their future homeland.

Another ship with more than twice the number of passengers left England six months afterwards. Five more were dispatched later.

Yet despite all this enthusiasm, the country in question – the Principality of Poyais – did not actually exist.

Gregor MacGregor

Gregor MacGregor, the self-styled ‘Cazique of Poyais’ who’d been responsible for the story, was a conman.

When would-be settlers arrived in ‘Poyais’, they found “an untouched jungle, some natives and couple of American hermits who had made their homes there”

Only eighty passengers from the first two ships made it back to England alive. When they arrived home, London’s City papers published their harrowing narrative. The truth was out!

The tale of the Poyais Scam is a ripping yarn of the first order. If you’re not familiar with it, here’s an amusing account. Not only does it tell you what happened next (widespread disbelief and denial, escape, arrest, acquittal and multiple repetitions). You even get the chance to purchase your very own Bond Certificate as a memento.

Here’s the offer:

“Bond Certificate from the State and Government of Poyais dated in 1823. This historic document was printed by Whiting Priting Company and has an ornate border around it with a vignette of a Crest flanked by unicorns. This item has the signatures of the Company’s Officials including William John Richardson and is over 185 years old. Excellent condition. Includes 58 unused coupons.”

Poyais Bond Certificate - still for sale!

Unfortunately the price of this attractive piece of paper has shot up since the good old days. It now costs $395, at a 20% discount!

Although this hoax began in 1820 and was exposed late in 1823, it did not stop then.

By 1826, after trying to defraud the French with rather less success, Mr McGregor was back in London, where he:

“claimed that (non-existent) natives had elected him as the head of state and became just “Cacigue of the Republic of Poyais” and opened a new office at 23 Threadneedle Street in the City, without any diplomatic trappings and in much a smaller scale than before. He issued a loan worth £800.000 as 20-year bonds with Thomas Jenkins & Company as brokers. The scheme was announced in the summer 1827.”

“In 1831 MacGregor promoted a “Poyaisian New Three per cent Consolidated Stock” as “the President of the Poyaisian Republic”. In 1834 he was living in Scotland and had to issue a new series of land certificates as payment for unredeemed securities. In 1836 he wrote a new constitution for the Poyaisian Republic. The last record of any Poyais scheme is in 1837, when he tried to sell some land certificates.”

It’s fun to read old stories like this, because it helps remind us how much humanity has evolved since the pre-Victorian era.

No-one would ever be so gullible these days, would we?

WhatReallyHappened lists this story under ‘Humor and Satire’, which is where I think it should belong. Yet Britain’s Daily Telegraph seems to take it seriously.

Flame by Burger King: "the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broilled meat"

So who knows anymore? What is satire – and what’s ‘reality’?

Perhaps you’d like to buy a friend a bottle of Burger King meat-smelling perfume?

Before making a rash decision, consider the sales patter:

“Flame by BK captures the essence of that love and gives it to you. Behold … now you can set the mood for whatever you’re in the mood for.”

Can their respective minders PLEASE ensure neither Ehud Olmert nor George Bush get bottles of this dangerous stuff for Hanukkah?

There’s more about Flame at the FireMeetsDesire website, which markets bottled stench to the blood-thirsty masses.

You can even click for a virtual spray. It triggers an explosion of pixellated white fat globules, but appears to be quite safe.