Thursday, March 29, 2007

John Howard - Champion of the USA - Why?

"Perhaps this desire on the part of Howard's constituency to please the US answers the question why it possible for an elected PM to send Australian troops into Iraq without an electoral Mandate, Parliamentary debate, Parliamentary vote, Plebiscite or Referendum, and in the face of overwhelming opposition by the Australian public. Amazingly, the Australian Constitution allows a virtually dictatorial decision like that to be made without any such approval."

Read the whole article here:

In my opinion.. A loophole in the constitution that NEEDS to be closed.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Mt unique internet ID has been compromised?


Now how did that happen?

I must be getting famous or something..

So a money grabbing "get rich quick" domain re-seller has
registered my old domain name?

Check this out!!

Marketing Total S.A. (LAZERZAP-COM-DOM)
P.O. Box 556
Main Street
Charlestown, West Indies


Administrative Contact:
Marketing Total S.A.
P.O. Box 556
Main Street
Charlestown, West Indies
Fax- +852.30106405

Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Marketing Total S.A.
P.O. Box 556
Main Street
Charlestown, West Indies
Fax- +852.30106405

Record last updated on 25-Mar-2007.
Record expires on 24-Mar-2008.
Record created on 24-Mar-2007.

Domain servers in listed order:

Current Registrar: DOMAINDOORMAN, LLC
IP Address: (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
Lock Status: ok
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Data as of: 14-Jun-2005


Well.. What can I say...


I will keep an eye on this site occasionally..

Back in 2001 I setup a free domain redirection with a company called namezero. (they wanted me to pay after the trial.. But I never bothered..)

So namezero "kept" my domain name (activating a webpage on it) and periodically sent me emails asking if I wanted to "purchase" the domain name from them.


Dunno what wrong with the other links from
But the one dated may works..

Thats a redirect to from one of my main free internet webspace providers.. (I can't remember which one now..)

But check out my current link to lazerweb..

Look similar.. You betcha.. ;)

(Since I am obviously the original internet lazerzap..)

Shhhesh.. Get rich quick.. ha!!! not on my meager income you wont..
(dumb nerds)

I wont be paying for (rofl, pmsl, lmao)
(They wasted their money on that one....) will do me fine for awhile.. lol

BTW: Thanks to for providing the whois

Monday, March 26, 2007

Has WIN 10 gone too far?

Geez.. I dont know..
Maybe its me... But I don't think so..
I know I'm getting old. (49)
Perhaps it does make a difference that I have 2 kids under 14..
I guess because of that I'm getting more sensitive to TRASH on TV.

At 7.30pm on Friday 23rd March 2007 the kids and I were watching TV.

Although initially I didn't want the kids influenced by the Simpsons deranged American brand of humor. Eventually I bowed to the Childrens Peer Preasure.
(All the other Kids watch it.. They talk about it at school and we feel like your making us live in the 1950's. Why can't we watch the Simpsons?)

Thankfully as the years progressed the Simpsons became more Kid friendly.
(Even I get a chuckle at the antics of the Simpsons nightly nowadays.)

Night/Primetime - Friday, 23 March, 2007
SA - South East SA
6.00pm The Simpsons
6.30pm Neighbours
7.00pm The Biggest Loser
7.30pm The Simpsons
8.00pm The Simpsons
8.30pm The Sweetest Thing

Not that we get a choice on Win 10. Notice the 3 Simpsons episodes.
(Gimme a break WIN 10 - I now like the Simpsons.. But 3 Episodes a night??)

Then it was 8.30pm.
A Movie started. It was called "The Sweetest Thing".
Well.. This Movie had me off my chair and "attempting" to find a TV station I could happily allow the kids to see.

I mean.. It's 8.30pm on Friday Night. No School tomorrow.
So of course the kids want to stay up a little later than usual.
They normally go to bed on a School night at 9.30pm.

Anyway.. "The Sweetest Thing" isn't for kids..
It embarased me in front of the kids in the first 5 mins of the Movie.

Maybe I should just "give up" and turn off the TV after 8.30pm.
Because not much is suitable for the kids after that time.

I just thought that at 8.30pm on a Friday night the Network Executive who chose the content would have "eased" out of the Simpsons into something less severe for parents.

Win 10 rated it as (M) Mature Audiences. [Adult Themes or medical procedures, Coarse language, Sexual references/sex scenes] But in my opinion (for the 5 mins I saw it) It should have been rated much higher. Initially this TRASH was rated (R) in the USA. Why then is it rated (M) here?

In a nutshell.. It's about GIRLS who are looking for "Mr RIGHT NOW!!" rather than "Mr Right".

Very modern attitude you might say.
Yes why not brain wash our Daughters to think Cock a doodle doo any cock will do?

I'm sorry but this is un-acceptable as a parent of a young Daughter.
I don't care if the main offender has a change of heart later in the story.

The explicit nature of the Movie coupled with the FOUL Language isn't something I want my Daughter to emulate.

Have a read of what kind of content was in "The Sweetest Thing"

Scroll down the page (of the above link) and really look at what was contained in this "M" rated movie.

Now maybe you understand why I was embarased with this TRASH going on in front of my Kids?

Another review link follows.. (Much smaller link - Mainly gives the storyline and reviewers comments)

From above link - 1 hour, 24 minutes, Rated R for strong sexual content and language.

Next problem...

Monday Morning just after Midnight. I turn on the TV.

Sheeesh They are playing JackAss.. OMG how disgusting.

I watch a man piss on some snow he has placed in an ice cream cone.
Then he eats it.
Then he throws up.

Whats wrong at WIN TV?

Is there anyone in charge there? Who do I blame for this garbage?

The last segment of JackAss I see a man insert a toy car into a condom.
Lubes it up with "Anal Gel" and sticks it up his anus.

Is this supposed to be funny?

I find it sick and disgusting.

Click the link to see what I (thankfully) missed.
(I'm glad I wasnt watching from the start)
I think I saw the last 10 mins - Only kept watching so I could blog this.
(Shakes head)

Sheeesh.. Someone needs to be sacked at WIN 10.

(I first saw this JackAss crap on the internet when it was first released. Never thought a TV Station would drop this low.)

It's either Infomercials all night or this shit!

(By the way. The Law of Probablity says some Kids were still awake and watching at Midnight - I hope your proud Mr TV Executive. With any luck it was your Kids who saw it and will try and emulate it. You total plonker Mr TV Executive!!)

I complained immediately to the poor girl who acts as an answering service to WIN 10.
I will email this next to WIN 10. I hope they realise that this is a complaint.
Next Stop will be A.C.M.A. (Australian Communications and Media Authority). If I dont receive a reply from WIN 10 within 30 days. As per current legislation.)

A copy of this letter with any reply is posted at

Pick up the ball WIN TV!!! You dropped it badly.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Sueing Mr. Santoro

Hmmm I thought.. This Mr Santoro has made a big mistake.. What he has done is in breach of the Constitution of Australia and carries large penalties as described in that document. Wow I thought.. The people of Australia can bring a class action against Mr Santoro and there is nothing he can do about it because it is written in plain language as being a condition of becoming a Member of Parliament or a Senator.

So I contacted my Federal Liberal Party Representative Mr Patrick Secker.
What follows is the email that I sent to him.

Mr Secker, ( )

I contact you regarding the conduct of Mr. Santo Santoro and his family.
Trading Shares in companies that he directly or even indirectly was able
to influence or assist as a Member of the House of Representatives is against the Australian Constitution.


See: Chapter I. The Parliament. (
Part IV - Both Houses of the Parliament
44. Any person who -

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or

(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But sub-section iv. does not apply to the office of any of the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen's Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives -

(i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section: or

(ii.) Takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors: or

(iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State:

his place shall thereupon become vacant.

46. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

47. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House or Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

48. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.


As a result I will be seeking legal advise in sueing Mr. Santoro for 1/4 of his yearly salary for every day that he failed to resign.

Section 48. indicates that a member of the house of representatives is to be paid 400 pounds per year.

Section 46. indicates that 100 pounds per day is to be paid by members who default on the provisions contained within the constitution.

Obviously members salaries have been increased and converted to decimal currency since the constitution has been formed.

I take section 46 to indicate 1/4 the members salary.

I therefore demand to know:

1. The date Mr. Santoro aquired the shares or bonds that he sold.

2. What other companies Mr. Santoro has interests in.

3. The date that Mr. Santoro disposed of his interests in those companies.

4. If Mr. Santoro has disposed some of his intersts to his immediate family.

5. If those shares or interests (disposed of to Mr. Santoro's family) have now been sold or traded.

6. What date those interests were disposed of.

7. How many days was Mr. Santoro in breach of the guidelines contained in Section 45. of the constitution.

If there are other acts or laws dealing with Members allowances or penalties in existance.

Please provide the information to me via the above email address.

Please Note: This email along with your answer will be posted on the internet site know as:

Thank You for your time taken over this matter.
End Email

Later I found this this surfing around you tube..

It seems I wasn't the only person to notice Mr Santoro.

Howard 'forced' down in Iraq?

On the TV I saw Mr Howard scampering from the plane..

First of all... Read this link..

Very interesting... And decidedly accurate..
How sad for Mr Howard..

Can you imagine how he felt?

Partially responsible for the destruction of Iraq

Now forced down into an area where he may have to 'face'
the people he has hurt so much...

Maybe the look of terror on his face wasn't
fake afterall?

Oh.. Certainly the Cameras were 'setup'

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares Blog Directory & Search engine
Blog Directory