Hamas Victory In Palestine

The shock victory of the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas in the Palestinian elections has raised some very major concerns for the world. Based on the movement’s past history of suicide bombings and attacks on the Jewish state, there is indeed a fear of how Palestine will now develop in terms of its relationships with Israel and the West.

However, the Hamas victory is the direct consequence of what the West wanted - a democratically elected government in Palestine. Something which the West encouraged and nurtured, and that is one of the consequences with Democracy. Any party can win power provided enough people vote for them. As international observers noted, the Palestinian elections were a fair and “clean” election, and the Palestinian people voted in support of Hamas for various reasons.

More at my new blog.

Why Google Should Oppose The US Justice Department

As you may all have heard by now, the United States Justice Department has issued subpeonas to various search engines, including Google, to release information on their users’ search patterns. To date, Yahoo, MSN and AOL have complied with this request. Google has issued a firm “No” and is preparing for a legal fight in the US Courts to stop the Justice Department from accessing their databases.

The reason the US Justice Departments wants these records is so that it can then substantiate to a US Judge, that the Child Online Protection Act should be allowed to be enacted. This Act, first raised I believe, back in 1998, was defeated in the courts, however the US Justice Department continues its efforts to provide “evidence” that it is required to “protect minors from offensive content”.

Now the question is this. Even if Google complies with the US Justice Department, and provides them with one million search items for a specified time period, what will that achieve? Will it show that under 18 year olds searched the word “porn” and “sex”? No. Will it provide them with anything that is not already publicly available? No.

So what’s the point?

Deep down, I think the motives of the US Justice Department go beyond the gathering of supporting evidence for the US Government to try and get the Child Online Protection Act passed as law. All search engines and most web sites gather information on their users to enable them to fine-tune their services to the individuals’ use.

The search engines, and Google inparticular, have vast amounts of information on their servers which todate, have been used specifically by the search engines. If the US Justice Department succeeds in convincing the search engines in initially providing the URLs they are asking for, it will then open a precedent for future requests. It is this that Google foresees happening, and thus their blatant “No”. Today, it is simply a million search items and URLs. No personal details, no other information, just this.

However, lets assume that Google buckles and provides the details to the US Justice Department. What next?

Let’s assume that the information obtained by the US Justice Department shows that 10% of all searches related to porn with phrases like “twink sex”, “girl sex” and “boy sex”, amongst others. I can then see two things happening. Firstly the US Justice Department will pursue the attempt to make the Child Online Protection Act into law.

Secondly, and more importantly, I can see them then turning around to the search engines and saying “Ok. These URLs relate to child pornography. We want details of who conducted these searches”.

If Google does buckle under or loses their court case against them, the US Justice Department will have a precedent to request this information. If Google looses via a court case, then a legal precedent is established, and then the US Justice Department will have an “open ended” authority to request and obtain additional information.

For this reason and this reason alone, Google is opposing the subpoenas. The other reasons like “revealing Google’s trade secrets” etc are extra reasons which any company should protect. The fact that it is not an investigation into Google itself, but rather a fishing expedition by the US Justice Department on online pornography [and other related “child offensive” content], is an extra reason.

Personally I hope that Google sticks to its gun, continues to say “No” to the US Justice Department, and wins its case in court. By winning it will not only say to the government “hands off on our customers”, but also maintain that faith that so many of us have in Google that our private details remain just that - private.

James

visit my new site at www.jebadel.com where my new blog is located.

www.jebadel.com is now up and running

After a number of long days and some sleepless nights, the new site is [partly] up and running.

All my articles have now been copied over to www.jebadel.com/blog , where I will be posting from now on.

In addition, the Photo Gallery is also open to the public. Visit www.jebadel.com/photo for a quick look on what's there.

There are more sections coming online soon, including news, information, movie reviews and more. So keep an eye out for these. So bookmark www.jebadel.com and send me your feedback.

James

My Blog Is Moving

Hi all,

Over the next 24-48 hours, I will be relocating my blog to my own domain name. You may wish to update your links to the following:

www.jebadel.com/blog

Thank you

James

Campaign: Parthenon Marbles

In 1811AD, Lord Elgin removed parts of the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens, and moved them to the UK.

The aim of this post is to gather as many "signatures" as possible so that the so-called Elgin Marbles be returned to their rightful home.

To help in the campaign, I would appreciate it if you could do the following:

1. Post a comment supporting the return of the Parthenon Marbles back to Greece.
2. Add a link to this specific page on your blog, website, email or any format encouraging people to sign. The link you can use is http://jebadel.com/blog/?p=80

The Campaign will be run until October 18th 2006 for two reasons.

Firstly it is the birthday of one of Greece's most famous actresses and politicians - Melina Mercouri - who starred in movies like Never On A Sunday, A Dream Of Passion, Nasty Habits, The Victors and Stella.

Secondly, because as the Greek Cultural Minister, she led the most vigorous campaign to have the Parthenon Marbles returned. She is the undying symbol of the international campaign with the Melina Mercouri Foundation being supported by the likes of Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Sir Peter Ustinov, Paul Newman, Sir Sean Connery and Francois Mitterrand, just to name a few. [For more information on the Melina Mercouri Foundation, click here]

How many "signatures" am I hoping for? Well, wishfully thinking, I would hope we could together collect a million during that time. It isn't impossible if we all band together. Once collected, I will forward them on to the Melina Mercuri Foundation for them to use as extra support for the return of the Parthenon Marbles.

So please, if you can post a supporting comment and if possible, add a link to your online sites or on your email's auto signature, it would be greatly appreciated. Please post all your comments here..

James

The Day After Tomorrow

A few days ago I was bored, so I decided to watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" for the second time. The interest in the movie was two fold - firstly because of one of the actors who I have come to like [Jake Gyllenhaal] and secondly for the closing 15 minutes or so which got my curiosity going the first time I saw the movie.

Jake is cute, the kind of guy I could easily fall for. For those that don't know who he is, he is the co-star of the new movie "Brokeheart Mountain", the badly nicknamed "gay cowboy movie". But I am getting sidetracked again.

For those that haven't seen the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" is about how the world is hit by a sudden ice age, causing the entire northern hemisphere to be covered by snow within a matter of days. What I found interesting with the whole movie was the repercussions that flowed on from a such a global natural disaster. The survivors from rich countries were forced to migrate south of the equator in what is southern Asia, Africa and Latin America.

In the movie, the tables were turned on the rich countries, and the US President had to waive the entire Latin American nations' debts before Mexico would allow the survivors of North America to cross the border. Seeing the survivors crossing over the river border, tearing down fences, and heading south with the only possessions being the clothes on their backs, reminded me of the news reports of Mexicans heading north in reality.

That particular scene in the movie got me thinking.

The Third World has been for quite a few decades, barely surviving due to the massive debts they have. Money they owe to the rich countries and institutions of the world. In some Third World countries, the interest payments are so high that they are barely able to cover them, let alone pay off any of the principle that they owe. The direct consequence of this is that money they could spend on infrastructure and improving the livelihood of their people, is being used to cover these loans. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer with no real chance of reversing the trend.

We, in the rich nations of the world, tend to forget about the poor countries and their plight until something major happens - whether its a natural event like the tsunami in southeast Asia in 2004, or a huge famine in Africa. When such events hits our TV screens, we orchestrate fundraising events and poor millions [and in some cases, billions] of dollars into the affected areas to help out. And then return to our normal lives feeling good, thinking "we have done our humanitarian bit". Within a matter of weeks, we have all but forgotten about it.

These are temporary solutions to an ongoing problem, and will remain temporary until the rich nations of the world take up the courage to try and solve the problem on a permanent basis.

In the past, various governments from the USA and EU have promised to cancel the debts owed by Third World nations. Few of these have eventuated, and one wonders why the respective governments even bother offering this solution and then not implementing it. Being a cynic sometimes, one could say its to boost their own popularity on the international and domestic scene, especially if there's an election coming up.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are the biggest lenders to the Third World nations. These two institutions are apparently going to cancel debts for various Third World nations commencing from July 1st 2006, while the rich nations will ensure that these two institutions are compensated so as to not be financially disadvantaged by this generosity. Hopefully, this will not be another empty promise.

What concerns me with this though, is that if the World Bank and the IMF do cancel the debts, what happens then? Are there going to be conditions set on these Third World nations, stating that the money they used to use on paying off the debts, be used on improving the infrastructure and wellbeing of their own people? And if so, who is going to monitor it to ensure it is implemented? Further, are they going to clear the debts and then turn around and offer further loans, thus helping put these poor nations into a vicious cycle of debt once again?

Maybe cancelling the debts themselves is not the right solution. An alternative is for the rich nations to use the interest payments to pay for developing these nations. For example, if a country pays US$100 million a year in loan payments, why don't the rich countries then invest $100 million into these countries to build hospitals, roads, schools etc. That way, even though the poor countries are still paying off their debts, the money is in reality being used to develop them.

The reason this would be a more beneficial way of helping, is that the rich nations can gaurantee the money is actually used for improving these poor countries. Clearing debts gives the poor countries a lot of spare cash which can be used to buy non-beneficial items like armaments. The last thing we need to see is a large number of debt free Third World nations with some pretty modern military hardware.

Anyway, that's my five cents on the subject. I am now going to sit back and watch "Jarhead" with the cute Jake Gyllenhaal. Apparently he has quite a few scenes in the movie without his top on. :-)

James

What You See Is What You Get

How many times to do we see someone and come up with a perception or conclusion about the person? How many times, based on those conclusions, do we discover that we were right or wrong?

A couple of days ago I was having coffee with a friend of mine - and yes I do love my coffee sessions - and happened to cover the issue of perceptions. I must admit that on that particular day I was on a downer, not for any particular reason though. Mark raised the issue of maybe I should go out and find a local boyfriend, something which most of my friends are adamant I should do.

As those who know me either in real life or through my articles, I have been single for a while now. I mentioned to Mark that there were few guys that I had met that I would consider "marriage material", and those that were, seemed to be not interested. It was at this stage that Mark made his comment that had me thinking.

Mark made the comment that a lot of guys on the scene that he knew, found me to be unapproachable and were afraid of coming up and saying "hi". His comments shocked me as I consider myself to be a very friendly and approachable guy. I asked him for clarification. At first he was a bit unsure as to how to respond, and after some persistent "Tell Me!!!" from me, he gave me his reasons.

Apparently a lot of guys out there find me unapproachable for a number of reasons. The fact that I am friendly is not the problem. However the fact that I tend to know a lot of guys on the scene and socialise with them, plus the fact that am always surrounded by a lot of people; some guys see this as a barrier. Plus the fact that whenever I am out, I am always in a happy jovial mood.

One of Mark's own friends made the comment to him that he thought I was a rather attractive guy and would have liked to get to know me, but was afraid of coming up and saying hello. Afraid that I would not be interested and that he would have to somehow compete with the others around me.

His comments really threw me as I believe that I am a pretty open guy, and what you see is what you really get - a very down to earth guy with few hang-ups. I am friendly to everyone as long as they don't try to do me wrong, and will talk to anyone regardless of age or looks. That is me, it what makes me - me! I don't sit there and judge people by who they are. I don't believe in creating a "public persona" for when I am out so as to hide the "real me". There is no point, in my books anyways.

But what worries me now is that if this is a common perception about me, how do I change that? And further to the point, do I really want to? By changing I am also changing who I am, and that is something I will not do. Mark's comments have been confirmed with some of my other friends as well. There are things I could possibly do to make myself more "approachable" without changing who I am. Things like sometimes standing away from the others, being less "social" with my friends and the like.

But do I want to do that? Is it me that needs to change or should those that are interested show some courage and come up and say hello? It isn't that hard to do. A lot of people I know I have met at the bar, simply by making a "bee line" and standing next to them even though the bar might be closer to where I was originally standing.

If someone is interested then a casual "how's your night" or a simple "hi" is a nice ice breaker to start a conversation. If the other person is interested then they will show it.

So to those out there who MIGHT be interested, well with me, what you see is what you get. I am who I am, and if you are interested then come up and say hello. I won't bite, not unless you ask me to :-)

James

Google's Announcement

I simply can not believe that some people are still not seeing where Google is heading. Google announced on Friday the launch of Google Pack and an expanded Google Video service, and yet people still are trying to work out on "what is Google up to?".

As per my previous posts on Google [here, here and here], Google is moving away from its primary role of a search engine. Their primary - or more specific, practically sole - income source todate has been advertising. Their foray into the partnership with AOL, their launching of various programs and services, are to allow Google to diverse its income source.

Let's look at Google Pack. It's nothing extraordinary, however it is a seed. Download Google Pack and you not only receive anti-virus and spam programs, but also other third party [and generally non-proprietory] programs, PLUS, a myriad of Google products. So, many are asking "why bother" and "what's it going to achieve for Google"?

Simply this. By people using Google Pack, it will have the following repurcusions. Firstly, people will become more "loyal" to Google as they will start to rely on Google to provide them with not only new products, but also automatic updates on the products they are using. Further, as Google Pack becomes more popular, Google will then have the ability to charge these third-party program providers for the ability to include their products in the Google Pack.

End result? Additional source of income for Google plus more customers.

As for the other announcement - Google Video. Nothing major here from the critics' perspective, except once again, they fail to see the direction Google is heading. Google's motto is "is to build products that organize the world's information and make it accessible to our users". Nowhere has Google ever claimed that this is purely searching and organising only what's on the internet! By allowing third party providers - this time studios, TV stations etc - to add their content and [if they wish] charge for it, is allowing Google to not only expand Google Video in line with their motto, but also generate additional income.

Think about it. Why spend hours illegally downloading an episode of CSI when for a couple of dollars, you can have it in a matter of minutes? Why complain that because of traffic, you missed the latest NBA game when you can download it for a couple of dollars and watch it at your leisure? Further, making the downloads compatible with various media players, Google is opening up the industry. So whether you use Windows Media, Real Player, VLC or iPods, you can view your downloads.

Google is creating the environment where regardless of whether you use Windows, Linux or some other system, whether you use Windows Media or an iPod, Google's offerings will work. Further, its programs [via Google Pack] will provide the user - in other words, you - an easier internet experience, where your programs are kept uptodate by Google.

The one thing everyone seemed to miss at the CES show was Larry Page's comment ""Why can't I plug a TV into any outlet, whether it's Wi-Fi, Ethernet or whatever?", and why were products being released that were not compatible with other products and/or services?. These comments underly where Google is heading, and everyone seemed to have missed it.

I am still sticking to my predictions in my previous articles. We are in for interesting times.

James

Being Gay

Over the last couple of days I have been in training for my new role within my employer. As part of a group of 25, we are becoming part of a new section within the company, focusing on a more indepth support for our large customer base. Having been in the communications industry - and the same employer - for over six years, I found the training session a tad boring.

What I found interesting was the group's composition. Out of the entire group, half were female, and most were under 35. In the entire group, four [including myself] were gay.

The part that I found sad was that I was the oldest gay person present. The other three guys were in their early to mid 20s, two of which I would describe as goodlooking musculine guys. The sad thing though was that out of the four of us, I was probably the most "butchest" one out of the lot. That's pretty sad as I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle of camp and straight acting.

During the presentations we each had to undertake, I sat back and watched with interest. I nearly choked when one of the gay guys got up, and begun their presentation - arms flying all over, wrists flapping, and the girlie infliction in the voice made even the real girls look ... well ... butch! Now this guy, who could be taken for a younger version of Kevin Spacey, would normally have me thinking of how to win him over. But, seeing him standing in front of 24 coworkers and being so feminine, put me off totally. The other two were no different. One could be easily picked out as a "sister" from a kilometre away, mainly from his walk, hand movement and voice mannerisms.

What I found sad, and in some ways disappointing, was the fact that they re-inforced the straight community's perception of what being gay is all about. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I act like John Wayne, but by god, I don't run around at work flapping my wrists screaming "Darrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrling" and "oh! that's so gorgeous". To me, my homosexuality is the sex orientation I have.

Sure, I camp it up when I am around my gay friends or at a gay venue. But when at work or straight venues, its pretty hard to pick that I am gay. For the record, I am not a closet homosexual. Most people who have been around for a while at work know I am gay, and those that don't know, find out soon enough. I don't hide my sexual orientation in any manner, as I believe that if someone asks me, I am honest with them.

Which raises an interesting question. Why is it that most of the younger gay generation are so feminine in their mannerisms? Is it because they equate "being gay" as "having to advertise I am gay"? Is it in the water? Is it their sign of rebellion against the rest of the community? Further, by them acting the way they do, are they encouraging the stereotypical perception of what gay is, and thus, putting the rest of us on an ever increasing upwards battle for equality?

I honestly don't know. What I do know is that although one of them did interest me sexually, their mannerisms have put me off them totally. All three are nice guys, but my interest in them is non existant. If I wanted to sleep with someone with feminine characteristics, I would sleep with a woman.

James

The Bailey Charter

Ok, this is one of those articles which is for fun, but also gives you an insight on how I think and what I would like to see. Scary ... but, what the heck! No one takes me seriously anyway :-)

The Bailey Charter is sort of my wish-list for humanity, and where I would like to see us sometime in the near future. It is my blueprint for humanity, so to speak, and me being so un-selfish, if any government or international body wishes to adopt and implement it - feel free to do so. No payment required.

The Bailey Vision

In the interests of universal peace and harmony, the following changes are suggested by yours truly:

1. The United Nations.

The United Nations shall be relocated from New York to the island of Cyprus. A UN Territory should be created within Cyprus and be an independent entity governed by the UN itself. The purpose of the move is to bring the UN closer to the centre of the world's population. Cyprus is at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa.

The United Nations should undertake a major structural revamping, including the Security Council. A Peoples Congress will be established within the UN with its members directly elected by the citizens of each member country.

The UN shall have it's own defence force for the protection of the UN Territory and associated administrative regions. Further, any UN forces sent to countries as peace-keeping, shall also be peace enforcing and have the right to not only defend themselves, but ensure that their UN charter is implemented. The UN shall take a more aggressive stance on the implementation of its rulings and decisions, even if the use of UN troops to enforce these is required.

2. Olympic Games

The Olympic Games will continue to be held at different locations around the world. However, every second summer Olympic Games shall be held at Olympia, Greece. Every second winter Olympic Games shall be held on the slopes of Mt Olympus in Greece. The establishment of the facilities at Olympia and Mt Olympus shall be jointly financed by all nations, and come under the control of the UN. Greece shall hand over an area of no smaller than 50 square kilometres around Olympia and Mt Olympus to the International Olympic Committee, which shall administer the area.

3. Human Survival

All nations shall allocate 1% of their GDP to the World Human Survival Fund which shall be responsible for the establishment and funding of infrastructure in the Third World. The WHSF shall establish industries and allocate resources to produce sufficient renewable resources to not only feed the poor nations, but allow for the development of medical and educational facilities.

4. Space Colonisation

The exploration and colonisation of space shall fall under the administration of the UN. Individual nations shall be allowed to undertake space exploration and colonisation, however administrative control shall rest with the UN.

5. World Resources

All governments shall aim towards a sustainable world economy. To achieve this, the renewable world resources shall be exploited, and industry shall be directed towards these rather the exploitation of non-renewable resources. Where nations are heavily dependent on non-renewable resources for their income, these nations shall be encouraged to slowly migrate to renewable resources through the WHSF and other world bodies.

The full Bailey Charter will be available online soon with more in-depth details on the UN, Olympics, world economy, space, human rights and more. So keep an eye out for it.

And as I said earlier, anyone wishing to implement it - feel free in doing so. No payment required at all ;-)

James

A Good Deed

Are you superstitious? Do you believe that whatever you do on New Year's Day, will set the pattern for the rest of the year? My parents always told me to "be a good boy" on New Year's Day, not to argue or fight, otherwise I would not have a nice 12 months.

I am not superstitious, not in the slightest. Yet 3 days into the new year, and I am beginning to wonder.

My New Year's Day was a good one, a very relaxing day and enjoyable. With dad, brother, sister in law and my two nieces over for lunch, followed by a number of visitors during the day. What was unusual was the fact that instead of following my usual New Years Day of not spending money, I went to the local service station for cigarettes, and came back with a large bag full of lollies, biscuits and ice cream [it is summer after all here in Australia]. The whole shopping spree was just under $80.

January 2nd was a day off for me. Although the day was spent doing housework, I somehow managed to not only spend nearly $200 in buying software programs via the Internet, but also helped a friend design his website. Yup - just being friendly, except the software was for him!

January 3rd and off to work I went. Don't know why, but I went through my mobile phone book during one of my breaks. Some of my friends are extremely well off, others are comfortable, whilst others are struggling financially. Now don't know why, but I sent the following text message to three of my younger friends who are financially hard up.

"If you had a choice, what would you choose - the envelope or the box"? was the question. Two chose the envelope, one chose the box. $1,200 later and two cheques of $400 were in the post for two of them, and the third had an iPod in the mail!

Now, don't know about you but I am financially okay. However, at this rate, I think I will be dead broke by the time my birthday comes around in March. So I am now praying that this New Year's Day superstition is just that - superstition. On the off chance that it isn't superstition, can someone please please give me a phone number for a Counsellor, because I think I will need all the help I can get.

James

Coming Soon

One of my New Year resolutions is to do some good in the world, not that I don't do that now. But, I will be promoting some interesting newcomers.

Launching shortly, is a new face in the Australian modelling industry, who I hope goes a long long way. Full details will be announced soon here on my blog. As a teaser, below are some photos.




Photographer: James Bailey
Model: Lochlan
All photographs are copyrighted to myself via Bailey Entertainment. Reproduction in any manner is strictly prohibited without written consent from myself.

Happy New Year

To everyone, I wish you all a Happy New Year.

May the coming twelve months be one of happiness, success and full of dreams coming true.

On New Years Eve, have fun, drive safely and play safe.

Catchya all in 2006!