Jennifer Lawrence....I'm sorry

Today the Internet collectively ejaculated.

Unfortunately I don't think I'm too far off the mark when I say that. You see today was the day that scores of men (and I'm sure some women) have dreamed of. We all finally got to see what Jennifer Lawrence looked like naked.

If you haven't heard (and you will soon) a range of celebrities have had their privacy violated and naked pictures have been posted onto the Internet. Like those men and women I reacted with glee when I learnt about these pictures. They popped up on Reddit and suddenly my mouth was agape.

Was it her?

Could it be faked?

No. Picture after picture was posted showing Lawrence and others in clearly intimate moments (I did not see any of the star mid-coitus and have no plans to look) meant only for their partner. As the day wore on and I got down to my normal day of work I kept seeing news article after news article posted about the incident.

I also saw my friends posting about the leaked pictures. It gave me an understanding that I had not thought of when I saw the original pictures. I like to surround myself with educated people and the women whom I call friends are no exception. These women are at the forefront of the Australian progressive movement and so we often see eye-to-eye over civil rights, refugee rights and the role of women in society. Because of this I trust them implicitly and take everything they say to heart. At times I may not agree with it (see: Israel/Gaza) but I know that it comes from a place of well intention and that they have studied the situation from all sides.

Their tweets began to talk about an invasion of privacy, the lewd nature of men on the Internet and the hypocrisy surrounding these photos. How could we claim to be all for Internet privacy and yet go absolutely ape-shit over naked pictures of celebrities? How would we feel if our private photos were stolen and plastered online? Why should there be rejoicing at this?

From this I performed a small but vital piece of mental gymnastics.

How would I feel if my nudes were leaked? Have I ever sent nude pictures over the internet? Yes. Of course I have. In moments of intense passion, desire or lightheadedness I have of course sent photographs of myself naked to other people. Some of them have my face in them. Even if I had posed naked for artists (I have) those photos are of a completely different nature. These photos are taken for an audience of one, not of one million, but today they are seen by all the world.

As my mind continued to make these leaps and bounds (that I now realise should have been done before) I felt an incredible amount of shame and disgust. As the day wore on I saw these less and less as pictures of a woman whom I had fantasised and desired for years and saw them as what they truly were: abuse.

If I came across a video or a picture of a woman being raped or of a child being sexually molested I would not only feel sick to my stomach I would immediately report it to the police. One time I did unfortunately come across child pornography on Twitter. It disgusted me to no ends and I honestly still feel uneasy about the seedier sides of the Internet since that day.

So why did I not do the same thing when I saw those photos of Jennifer Lawrence?

Because she was an actress and with that comes increased media coverage, speculation and (in truth) I thought that I owned that little bit of her. Now these were not the things that came to my mind when I saw the pictures...they were what I thought afterwards, what I thought when I had returned to my senses. It's a disgusting realisation for one to have: that you have turned into the thing you have always claimed to hate.

To Jennifer Lawrence and everyone else who have had their phones hacked, their privacy invaded and their lives shattered...I am sorry. I am truly, truly sorry.

No I did not post those pictures. I committed no illegal act. I will never see the inside of a jail cell for what I have done. But I have perpetuated the abuse that you are suffering right now. Please, forgive me one day.

Why the NBN Matters

This is the copper that Malcolm Turnbull wants to propel the internet forward in Australia

The world has changed substantially in the past two decades since the advent of the Internet. Suddenly families that were once separated by oceans could now come together as one, a product could be purchased in America, shipped from China at the press of a button and be on its way to England as a gift for a friend and hundreds of thousands of oppressed people could tell the world their story with a simple tweet.

The backbone of this global revolution has been a free, fast and open Internet. Our current means of Internet access in Australia has been through the copper telephone lines which were laid in Australia in the early 20th Century. These copper lines have served Australia's telecommunications needs faithfully as we progressed from having a single telephone to allowing millions of Australians to have a phone in their own home.

But these copper networks were never designed for what the Internet threw at it. It's not their fault. No one could ever have imagined the awesome power of the Internet. In 2007 when the Rudd government came into power they declared that no longer would Australia be held back by the ancient infrastructure. Instead they would cross the nation with a fibre network which would connect every house and apartment to the Internet through future-proofed fibre optic cables.

The current Australian household is lucky to get 5mb per second download on their current copper network. The Rudd government said that with the new fibre network the minimum speed would now be 100mb per second. In the near future they would even unveil plans for 1Gb per second.

These numbers may just look like numbers but to those who were deeply entrenched in IT infrastructure they were having a giant party. The possibilities for Australia were endless.

But why?

What does having a fast internet really mean? Is it just so young men could download porn faster? Perhaps play their on line video games with less latency?

Yes. But that's only the beginning.

Let's look at television.

The future of television is not in the traditional broadcast method but rather in digital streaming. In America companies such as Netflix and Hulu have completely disrupted the way that audiences consume television shows and digital media. This is a revolution that will hopefully make its way to Australian shores. Too long has Foxtel controlled every aspect of Australian television. From sport to BBC shows it seems that so many of our beloved television shows are being hoarded by 'Big Orange' and a premium demanded for simply watching them.

But let's move on to a far more important aspect than television: Healthcare

In Australia those who live in metropolitan areas have had relatively good access to quality healthcare. Those in rural areas have been forced to contend with substandard access. The NBN could essentially do away with that. The NBN allows the transmission of high-definition video and audio. If a farmer sees that he happens to have a mysterious rash he simply goes onto the computer and has a Skype conversation with a doctor. Being able to transmit HD video means that the doctor can easily diagnose the issue and prescribe treatment. But that's only the beginning. Remote surgery (aka Telesurgery) means that doctors are able to base themselves in Sydney and perform invasive surgery on patients almost anywhere in the world. What does this need? You guessed it, high-speed internet.

But what about the economy? Businesses have been able to thrive without the need for high-speed internet for hundreds of years! True, except the global economy has shifted and Australia is left behind.

No longer do businesses need to base themselves in New York, California or Sydney. Businesses can be truly global. They can have employees working in a remote village in the Congo provided they had a stable internet connection! As someone who works in social media I can't tell you the paradigm shift that has been the Internet. Customers that would once have had a small corner shop are now selling their wares on eBay, telecommuting is saving start-ups hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating costs and gigabytes of information are now being saved safely and securely in the cloud meaning that employees can, once again, work anywhere. The internet has revolutionsed the global economy and Australia is watching hundreds of billions of dollars sale offshore as companies divest from our sub-par internet.

So now that we know WHY we need the NBN and what we stand to lose if we don't have it.

So what's the issue? The NBN is on track to be built, right?

No.

As mentioned before the Rudd government stated their willingness to build a Fibre to the Home (FTTH) NBN. This means that the fibre-optic cable would run all the way to the property from the small junction box/node in the street.

Then the Abbott government was elected.

At that moment the entire future of the NBN was in jeopardy.

Why?

Because Abbott, and his Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, declared that they would build a Fibre to the Node (FTTN) NBN and from the node they would make use of the copper cables that remain in place.

Sounds great, right? They claimed that it would be faster and cheaper.

Except they're lying.

Firstly they could only guarantee 25mb upload. Unfortunately as soon as they won they retracted that claim. They can't guarantee you anything. They lied to you.

Secondly they want YOU to pay for the extra fibre from the node to the home. This means that houses that can't afford the upgrade (estimated to cost about $5,000 per home) will be left in the digital dark ages. They won't be able to access telehealth or e-education initiatives and they would be left to rot without any potential for growth. Not only is this immoral it ensures that Australia will remain a backwards country.

Thirdly they're paying Telstra billions upon billions of dollars to rent the copper network (it should be mentioned also that the new NBN board appointed by Mr Turnbull have retained their Telstra shares...if that's not a conflict of interest I don't know what is). This is the same copper network that Telstra, ten years ago, declared was 'five minutes to midnight and promised to overhaul within the next fifteen years. Well they no longer have to overhaul it because they're selling it back (excuse me...renting it back) to the Australian government at the tune of 11 billion dollars. Telstra is making out like bandits.

However let's take a look at this copper, y'know the one that is meant to last us for at least another decade and a half, and we can see that not only is the copper network in dire need of repair and replacement. So the copper that Malcolm Turnbull expects to propel Australia into the 21st century looks like it won't last another week. The infrastructure backbone of the Australian internet will likely fall apart before it can even be used. That means that it will have to be replaced before it can be reconnected which will cost Australians substantially more and delay the rollout of a truly national broadband network by years.

But, in the interest of fairness, it behooves me inform you that a study recently commissioned by Malcolm Turnbull has found that the FTTN will be a far more cost effective network. The opposition stated that the report is 'tainted' due to the fact that it was compiled by people who were already critical of the FTTP plan in the first place.

See here's the thing: Turnbull's cost/benefit scenario doesn't take into account the fact that businesses will be created and the economy improving thanks to the FTTP NBN. It doesn't understand that with high-speed Internet (and it is believed that 1GB per second will become the norm by 2024) comes a rapidly diverse and successful economy.

By abandoning a FTTP internet Malcom Turnbull has ensured that this country will pay more money for a shoddier product that will not deliver any benefit to the people of Australia. It will take an extra several years to sort out his mess and will cost even more money. Turnbull's support of FTTN proves either his incompetence or his complicity in one of the greatest rorts this country has ever seen.

 

Why?

In the wake of Robin Williams's recent suicide this is the question that so many people are asking.

Why?

One could not say that Williams was unsuccessful in life. The man had spent forty years in the spotlight and was considered a comic genius. He had starred in countless films, TV shows and cartoons that had touched the lives of so many people. Yet four days ago he felt that there was nothing left for him and decided to end it all.

Why?

The simple answer is because Robin Williams was ill. He was ill from the moment he was born and no amount of medication, therapy or even reassurance could cure him. Robin Williams suffered from depression.

In the wake of Williams's suicide people are (finally) having a frank and upfront discussion about mental illnesses such as depression. They are beginning to see that depression is no longer an excuse to feel sad, no longer a con to be mean to people or to lie in bed all day. Depression is incredibly real and incredibly dangerous. Robin Williams was, and always will be, one of my favourite actors. His films shaped my childhood and in the past few days I have gone back and watched a few albeit with tears in my eyes. But if the untimely death of Robin Williams means that we are finally going to sit down and have a talk about mental illness like adults then it is an incredibly faint silver lining around the darkest of clouds.

Depression is, to be frank, a son of a bitch. Winston Churchill famously called his depression the 'black dog'. It's a fascinating term for it but also quite accurate. Depression is always looming over your shoulder ready to make your highs seem incredible and your lows seem unmanageable. Depression is like having the entire world, every person, flower, animal or mineral, connected directly to your central nervous system. You feel everything around you completely free of any kind of filter. Your heart is directly connected to every word that people say about you but, more importantly, your emotions rather than your brain fills the vacuum that are the words they don't say about you. In the midst of a downswing of depression any words of love and reassurance feel empty and hollow whilst you are constantly analysing and over analysing their silence as a form of criticism.

In the midst of depression you feel as if your heart has become void of any kind of hope. Each beat pumps blood around your body but you feel as if it is but one more unnecessary beat to sustain a life that is not worth living. Where your heart sits in your chest you feel nothing but a sharp pain, a reminder that people who are happy and successful feel no such physical manifestation of sadness, and your brain constantly sinks lower and lower into a pit of despair. Success does not alleviate depression. It does not make it go away. Robin Williams was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, was beloved by billions and had a loving family who cared deeply about him. Yet he also felt that everything was so hopeless he had to end his life.

That's what depression truly is. It is the absence of hope, of joy, of love and of trust. You no longer trust that small voice in your head that says 'everything is going to be ok' because it's not there anymore. Rather you have to be content with the fact that everything you're seeing, hearing and feeling is in the shadow of self-doubt and sadness.

We will never be able to understand what Robin Williams was thinking when he decided to end his life. We will never know how his depression manifested that day and if he felt that with everything piling on death was the only release. In the wake of his suicide the world mourns the man who made them laugh but hopefully now we will understand that depression and mental illness are no joking matter.

To Those On The Ground All Wars Are Crimes

It goes without saying that every single conflict in this history of man is a failure. It is a failure of diplomacy, of rationality and of humanity. The need to arm oneself, to don a uniform and to fight should always be an option of last resort.

A war can, and should, be fought on principles rather than realpolitik though this is hardly ever the case. Wars can be just and they can be morally right, they can be fought by priests or paupers.

But no matter what they are, and always will be, a crime.

The last several posts on this blog have dealt with Operation Protective Edge, Israel's latest foray into the Gaza Strip. No matter what you try to tell me I will always know that Israel has the absolute right to defend themselves from rocket attacks and the tunnels that Hamas have dug across the border.

But still this war was a crime.

I know that the IDF took measures not seen in modern combat to minimise the harm that came to civilians. I also know (and said here) that Hamas has and will lie about the number of civilian casualties. It is a core part of their military strategy to inflate the number of civilians killed and their actions have proved that it is a success. Except now it seems that the world is beginning to see through Hamas's facade.

But still this war is a crime.

It is a crime to those who had to endure it. To those who suffered. To those who lost their loved ones.

There could have been 0 civilian deaths and this war would still be considered a crime.

The destruction that the IDF wrought on Gaza is shocking. Tens of thousands are homeless and their lives are simply ruined. Those who lost loved ones are burning with a passion that will never be quelled. They are hating Israel. They will teach their children and their children's children and their children's children's children's children to hate Israel. War will almost never bring peace. War is a crime.

For those who see the Mosques that have been destroyed, the homes that are now rubble, the bodies in the overcrowding hospitals they paint a picture of indiscriminate destruction. Of wanton and reckless death. Entire streets of Gaza looks as if they have been picked up by the hand of God himself and smashed down to the ground.

The stories emerging from Gaza are of almost the complete opposite. Reporters are showing Hamas firing rockets next to UN buildings, of staged photographs and the use of ambulances as troop transports. Yet these stories will pale in the cacophony of voices condemning Israel. They will do nothing when faced with what Bibi Netanyahu called 'photogenically dead Palestinians'. Bibi wasn't wrong. But he shouldn't have said it.

Because at the end of the day all we're seeing is the destroyed buildings. All we're hearing is the twitter feed of someone complaining about 'F16s overhead' or 'constant booms' from the battle raging just a street away. We are seeing war from every angle and it is truly horrifying.

Because all wars are crimes.

We see World War II with the eyes of hindsight. We see the horrors of the Death Camps, the march of fascism and the possibility of a world ruled by a megalomaniac whose belief in racial theory was absolute. We see this now and we say that World War II was a moral and just war.

If Twitter, Facebook or 24 hour news had existed in 1940 then there would be no such chanting or cheering. Americans, Brits, Australians and Germans alike would all be lambasted for their use of 'disproportionate force' against civilian populations. Yet we are able to look back with the knowledge of what could have been and we could safely say that World War II was a just war.

To those who experienced the horror of Operation Protective Edge it is a period that will be etched into their memories until the day they die. For the Israelis who have been forced to run from Hamas rockets, that have had tunnels dug beneath their houses and have seen their homes destroyed from these weapons they too will remember it for the rest of their lives.

All wars are crimes.

But this one. This operation Protective Edge. Was just.

"Is Jerusalem Burning?"

Leave your thoughts on this article using the WoxxBoxx (Chrome/Firefox only)

I personally hate any comparisons to the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was the absolute lowest point in human history, a crime never experienced on a scale thought possible. The Holocaust was, quite simply, the absolute industrialisation of death. Ethnic conflicts before and since have not even begun to touch on the magnitude of evil that was Hitler and his death camps.

It would therefore seem hypocritical that I am about to compare Hamas to Hitler. Yet I can think of no other apt comparison where such a disregard for human life, of those you are meant to protect, other than that of Adolf Hitler.

I am not here to say that all Palestinians are akin to the SS or the Nazis. It is not. They are not. Such comparisons are not only wrong but they are insulting. They insult me, my family and every single person that suffered under the heel of the Nazis.

But.

I can most certainly see similarities between Hamas and Hitler.

The tension in the Middle East has reached unbearable levels of destruction. As of now Israel and Hamas have a 72 hour truce and IDF forces have mostly withdrawn back into Israel. We are starting to hear reports of what happened in Gaza. Something that I have heard, independently from THREE different people, is that IDF soldiers were confronted with suicide bombers, children running at them with grenades, as well as and UN facilities like clinics rigged to explode as soon as an Israeli soldier stepped inside.

This is truly something that we in the West, who devised the laws of war, cannot comprehend. We in the West, despite all of our mistakes, have a respect for human life...both the ones of our own citizens and the ones of our enemy. In World War II, generally speaking, we declared war on the armies, in Iraq (both 1991 and 2003) our fight was with Saddam and in Libya in 2011 it was to prevent Gaddafi from massacring his own people. Our wars are not against civilians but against armies, governments and perverse ideologies.

Not so for Hamas. Not so for Islamic Jihad. Not so for ISIS or Hezbollah.

Why do I say that Hamas is Hitlerian?

Because only in Hitler's twisted and cruel mind could such disregard for human life be justified. When it was obvious that he was beginning to lose the war to the Allies Hitler decided to implement a policy of 'scorched earth'. If Hitler could not have Paris then there would be no Paris left to have.

The order was given to the German governor of Paris, Dietrich von Choltitz to set explosives up at strategic points around the City of Lights. When it was obvious that the city would be lost he would push the button and leave Paris a smouldering wreck of carnage and twisted metal.

Von Choltitz, to his credit, disobeyed this order. He had seen through the charisma and glanced at the insanity behind Hitler's eyes. Yet this would not be the last time Hitler would attempt to leave nothing left. As the war was coming to an end and Hitler was trapped inside his bunker he demanded that Albert Speer, Minister for Armaments, implement the 'Nero Decree'....the complete destruction of Germany and the German people.

Once again saner heads prevailed as Speer refused to carry out such a disgusting order.

But why do I bring these up? Why do I talk about Hitler?

Because when I was reading this article yesterday I could not help but compare the two. The use of civilian buildings as booby traps, stealing supplies from your own people to build terror tunnels and firing rockets at a city that you consider holy....just to kill people?

When von Choltitz was in Paris Hitler called him to see whether or not his order had been fulfilled to the letter. He asked his military governor there one simple question:

"Is Paris burning?"

When the roles are reversed. When Hamas remains true to their founding charter which calls for every single Jew, no matter where they reside in the world, to be put to death...what will Khaled Mashal say? What happens when the jihadist group realises that it cannot have the Islamic caliphate stretching from Arabia to Europe? What will their reaction be?

Surrender?

Peaceful coexistence?

No.

Death.

Destruction.

Slaughter.

Genocide.

The goal of Hamas would be 'if we can't have it....no one can'. There is no love in Hamas, no joy, no empathy or humanity. There is but fascistic jihadism.  There is an absolutism that shows no mercy either for the Jews or for the people of Gaza. There is no desire to moderate or negotiate. They have shown simply that negotiations and treaties are but a tactic to stock up on more weapons. They have made it clear that their concern is not for the people that they claim to represent: if they cared for Gaza they would have built schools. They would have build hospitals. They would have built infrastructure. Instead they stole the cement and resources used to build Gaza into a proper nation for Gazans to further their maniacal goal of killing Jews.

When Khaled Mashal rings his operative only a few short kilometers away he will ask one question:

"Is Jerusalem burning?"

We can only hope and pray that the person who picks up the phone will be as sane as von Choltitz. If he isn't, if his aim is the destruction of Judaism and the reestablishment of the Caliphate then the cities of New York, Sydney, London and Paris will be facing similar calls.