The US have had two major warnings already with the real estate bubble and the GFC and still have refused to regulate the banking sector, instead bailing them out unconditionally to the tune of $700 billion which they put towards their profits rather then using it to continue making loans and letting it trickle down to the people the bail out was supposed to protect.

This is what happens when you have an unregulated banking sector coupled with huge international debt.

My heart goes out to the Americans that are affected by this Wall Street crash. They didn’t ask for this, and certainly they don’t deserve it. When the Government allows itself to be manipulated by the banking lobby  and other interest groups under the guise of individual freedoms versus collective freedom enshrined in the constitution, it’s only a matter of time before something like this happens again.

Employment is dire in the US. Employment is at 9.2 per cent*.

Having just visited the US most of the people I met there are either related to or knows someone who has been laid off or has been laid off at least once themselves.

This isn’t some friend-of-a-friend type situation, this is real, and it effects everyone.

The most disturbing aspect is that of the people I spoke to, it was just a given. “Yeah, they were laid off”.

There was no anger in their voice, not even sadness. Just this weird passivity, some sort of acceptance that somehow this was inevitable.

I read this article about why young people aren’t fighting back, thanks largely to economic factors and an education system designed to make people obedient, but with no health care, a declining economy and a steadily depreciating social security asset. A recent study showed that the vast majority of young people believe that the pensions they pay into won’t be there for them when they go to their mailboxes 60 years from now.

Why are people not outraged?

I hope people will begin to rise up and demand better regulations that will protect Americans in the long run.

*Employment statistics are from June of this year.

But this is my site, my rules and if you enjoy bitching about the business models of TV stations, iTunes, distribution and production companies then this is the story for you.

If not, well, there’s plenty of more serious stories here for you to read but this isn’t one of them.

I have an admission to make, I have been known to pirate movies and television shows from time to time.

But it’s not my fault, iTunes makes me do it.

Even though the latest episodes of TV shows such as Californication & Gossip Girl (yes, I watch Gossip Girl, want to fight about it?) have aired in the US and are available to purchase – come hell or high water I can’t buy them.

This is because production companies have made deals with Australian distributors not to ship items that haven’t aired over here yet.

I see no reason why TV and movies shouldn’t make a global premier in the age of instantaneous communication.

Oh no – they want to double-dip that soggy, spittle-caked cracker for all it’s worth.

If a global premier is asking too much then at least let me buy the copy of the DVD and have it shipped to me within a reasonable period of time, because I’ve pretty much given up on the possibility of watching the series from beginning to end on TV.

Television companies are still stuck on this concept of only airing popular shows during ratings season.

They don’t realise the internet has permanently changed the way people consume entertainment.

This isn’t news to anyone really, but I’ll say it anyway – if I can’t watch it on TV after reading about the latest episode online, I’m not waiting around a year and a half for it to air.

Expecting people to wait a year or more for episodes of tv shows that have already aired in the US is unrealistic and stupid.

As far as I’m concerned, patience is a card game played by our parents.

I do try to pay for the media I watch but when even Amazon won’t take my money – to put in terms the accountants will understand – “I will take my business elsewhere”.

The point is there are people that will give me this stuff right now, and for free.

I want to give you my money. Making me wait a year isn’t an incentive.

It’s time to start thinking of new ways to make people watch your show.

You can start by scheduling it to air on the same time every week…

Which brings me to my next point: stop changing the sodding schedule.

Anyone who watches Glee knows what I’m talking about, televisions are so obsessed with ratings & advertising profits that it has become almost impossible to keep track of which night the show is on, and at what time.

And it doesn’t work any better online.

Channel 10 have done a wonderful job of making it nigh-on impossible to watch anything on their so called “web player”.

For some reason they can’t seem to wrap their head around listing the episodes chronologically, or how to stop the player from randomly jumping to a completely different video, or even play at all.

Having failed spectacularly at watching TV series on my actual TV, buying it, or watching it online – I turn to iTunes.

Why on this green earth do Apple advertise its TV shows as available to purchase and watch in HD, and then deliver me a poor quality video of the wrong episode and still expect me to pay for it?

Is there some holier-than-thou noob sitting in a cubicle somewhere telling his bosses they should provide poorer-quality videos because they’re afraid the minute someone downloads it (i.e owns it), they will upload it on to a torrent site and no one will want to buy it from Apple anymore?

Does Apple think this is a good business model?

Here’s the thing.

I don’t WANT to pirate. I have no desire to upload videos to torrents, and I am one of the small percentage of people who prefer to pay for the shows that I watch – but when I can get a BETTER QUALITY pirated video FOR FREE than Apple is expecting me to pay for – there is something very wrong with this business model.

And it’s not like I’m not bothered by ads either. But I like to watch a few episodes in a row, rather than a badly edited – I’m looking at you Channel 9 – version of a TV show or movie or documentary whose conclusion won’t air for another three weeks.

Let me give you the money. But in return I expect a high quality video (online) or a copy of the DVD that I don’t have to wait nine months for.

If I have to wait nine months for anything, I want a freaking baby at the end of it.

I’ve been getting quite a lot of questions from readers about whether I think he really raped those women, and how that effects WikiLeaks.

I’d like to say that it just might be possible for WikiLeaks to be doing a good thing in regards to the public interest, and for Julian Assange to still be an asshole.

The MSM and by extension the public have been polarising the issue in such a way as to have us believe that if Assange really did commit “surprise sex”, assault, or the various other sexual misconduct charges that have been laid against him – then WikiLeaks should cease to exist. Or alternatively, if he is innocent, then WikiLeaks remains to be a good thing.

I’m here to tell you: the two are not mutually exclusive.

Guess what? Influential people are seldom morally righteous: Bill Clinton was impeached for his affair with Monika Lewinsky – but he also signed the Brady Bill imposing a five day waiting period on handguns, developed a health care reform plan (which eventually failed), and pushed his administration on to the internet issuing Executive Order 13011 – requiring the all federal agencies to go online so that the public has easier access to information. Bob Crane used to secretly film himself with prostitutes and landed up cut into tiny little pieces for it – but nobody stopped watching Hogan’s Heroes (because making fun of Nazis is hilarious!).  Mozart was a drunk, he also composed over 600 concertos, symphonies and operas. JFK was a philandering drug addict, who just so happened to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis. George Washington had slaves, but he also led America to victory in the American Revolution, and Thomas Edison is reportedly a plagiarist but will still be remembered as the inventor of revolutionary devices such as the motion picture camera and the light bulb. Can we pause to consider for a moment that Assange might well be a sexual deviant that just so happens to be working towards the common good by leaking state secrets and ensuring government transparency?

To say that Assange is a bit of a dick would be an understatement. A self-declared “combatant”, it is clear there is more to his role in WikiLeaks than working for the public interest:  “I’m a combative person”, he told an interviewer recently. “I enjoy crushing bastards… It’s very personally deeply satisfying to me.”

When Assange was contacted by human rights groups, worried that the Afghanistan cables would identify and risk the lives of aid workers, Assange replied:

“I’m very busy and have no time to deal with people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses. If Amnesty does nothing I shall issue a press release highlighting its refusal.”

And in The Guardian’s Q&A this week, in reply to a rather long-winded question from a “former British diplomat” – “why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function?”,  Assange replied:

“If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.”

In regards to the charges – there are four, but very little is known about them. There are conflicting reports bouncing around the British press at the moment, claiming that Assange   tried to take advantage of one of the women while she was sleeping, and that he forced the other’s legs apart in order to have unprotected sex with her. Equally, there are also a lot of conflicting reports in the media questioning the credibility of the claimants. One is alleged to have connections to the CIA, then there’s the matter of a troublesome blog post about how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends. Despite all of this – the truth of these allegations are not known. The only thing I will say is that it is too soon, and we do not have enough information to be drawing any conclusions. The point is – guilty or not – it doesn’t matter. These charges have nothing to do with WikiLeaks, and should not be used  conveniently to condemn the organisation which consists of five paid employees and over 800 volunteers. As if the persona of one man is enough to tarnish an entire organisation.

News With Nipples also pointed out the hypocrisy regarding the way Assange’s arrest has been treated in the press, compared to another admitted sexual offender – Roman Polanski:

“It’s not surprising that the sexual assault charges against Assange have made headlines around the world, in a way that those against, say, Roman Polanski didn’t. I don’t recall politicians calling for Polanski’s assassination for drugging and raping a child and then spending the next 33 years avoiding countries where he might get caught. Just to be clear: one is a high-profile spokesman for a whistleblower website who has been accused of sexually assaulting two adults. The other is an award-winning film director who admitted drugging and anally raping a child. So why was one just a news brief in the world section and the other The Most Important Story Of The Week?”

Roman Polanksi actually admitted to the rape – (so I’m not sure why so many people rushed to his defence) – yet after thirty years, there has been no conviction. We haven’t yet heard all the evidence regarding the Assange charges, but the world is ready to condemn him.

We have no idea of knowing whether these charges are real, or whether there is enough evidence to convict Assange. Let’s try and remember however, – a guilty charge doesn’t mean he is guilty, likewise a not-guilty charge doesn’t mean he’s not guilty – it simply means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. If Assange is guilty – then he deserves to go to jail. But regardless, neither verdict should negate  the benefits WikiLeaks has provided by trying to ensure a more open and transparent society.

For the first time in years the cynicism has lifted, and once again interest in global political affairs has peaked. We have seen a global defiance of national defence organisations around the world, and have witnessed the spectacular failure of governments to stem the tide of classified information being made publicly available to anyone with an internet connection.

As I write this, over 500 mirror websites have been set up by internet users in response to the attempts of governments and companies to bring down the site. (You can access a comprehensive list of all the mirror sites here).

Wikileaks only grows stronger with every threat that has been made to the website, and to the life and livelihood of Julian Assange.

^Julian Assange on why the world needs Wikileaks.

Let’s take a look at all the attempts that have been made to bring down Wikileaks thus far:

- Amazon booted Wikileaks off its servers after Joe Lieberman pled for organisations to withdraw their support for the group.

- In an attempt to cripple Wikileaks financially, Paypal blocked financial transactions to the site so that users could no longer donate money directly to the website.

- A short time later software company, Tableau, removed graphs which categorised the cables by country and classification which were being hosted on their servers (ironically the data contained within the tableau software could only be accessed by PC users – so the loss only effected 50% of the internet community).

- On Friday the company which hosted wikileaks.org took the group offline.

- The French industry minister Eric Besson is examining ways of bannning Wikileaks in France. The company hosting the site, OHV, referred the matters to the courts. There has been no verdict thus far (but it didn’t stop the site mysteriously going offline again). The site was quickly rerouted through another Swedish server by the Swedish Pirate Party, and Wikileaks was back online again in a matter of hours.

- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested in Britain last night on charges of rape, molestation, sexual harrassment and “surprise sex” – (there’s an obscure Swedish law which provides Swedish citizens with legal recourse if their sexual partners do not use sexual protection without their consent). The circumstances relating to the charges are dubious at best. It is important to note that Assange’s lawyer says Assange was never read the charges, and this is a clear violation of his rights. I’m not sure there is enough evidence to convict Assange, moreover, what country has the jurisdiction to charge Assange for a crime which does not exist outside of Sweden?

- It has also been discovered that twitter is allegedly censoring the discussion of Wikileaks by excluding the term #Wikileaks from its trending topics, preventing people from knowing the true scope of discussion about Wikileaks unless they’re seeking it out independently  – although Matt Graves, the Communications Director of twitter, denies this. Bubbloy has published a very comprehensive and detailed analysis of the number of times the term #Wikileaks has been used on twitter, and the number of tweets relating to Wikileaks and found that the incidences by far exceeded any of the trending topics that were on twitter at the time the article was written. It’s exclusion from twitter trends is suspicious at best. I recommend you read the article in full for a more detailed analysis than I can include here.

- MasterCard and Visa have withdrawn their financial support of Wikileaks – however their cards may still be used to donate to racist organisations such as the Klu Klux Klan – an atrocious irony.

- Swiss Bank have used a legal loophole to freeze Wikileaks bank accounts. Apparently Assange used Geneva as a fake country of origin in his application and this excuse was enough to justify closing the account.

The attempts to bring down Wikileaks have only strengthened the organisations resolve (and the resolve of the interwebs) to keep the site online, and to keep the flow of confidential information open. Twitter users started surfacing such as “WikiAdvocate” and others like it – encouraging users to set up mirror sites in order to keep Wikileaks online.

The tally count as it stands now (according to the tally site Leaky Links) is 1097 mirrors. 142 of them are experiencing Denial of Service (DNS) attacks, 821 are online and 128 are up-to-date with 960 cables. (Thank you to @erinwye for providing me with this information).

The world will watch with interest the events which follow Assange’s arrest. It is understood that his legal council plan to resist extradition charges for fear he will be handed over to the Americans who are considering prosecution after it was reported that NATO has drawn up secret plans to defend the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Poland against any Russian threat. A Wikileaks spokesperson has already stated that they will continue to leak cables despite Assange’s arrest.

The world should take note. Though they have not yet released the “insurance cable” containing the remaining unpublished cables, (which is rumored to include cables relating to Guantanamo Bay), Wikileaks have already sent the encrypted file to people all over the world. A 256 digit code is required to decode the cables.

Arresting or assasinating Julian Assange will only make him a martyr for his cause. Neither arrests, nor shutting down Wikileaks will cease the flow of classified information around the web. If Wikileaks is eventually shut down, if Assange is convicted or killed,  hundreds of other websites and people will rise to take its place.  All journalists and anyone who believes in freedom of the press and freedom of information should be supporting Assange by creating more mirror sites for Wikileaks. Never again should the state withhold secrets that relate to the public interest. It is clear now that we cannot trust governments to act in our interest. Only through a free press, organisations that are prepared to risk closure and people who are willing to risk death and prosecution can information truly be free.

To quote the US High Court ruling on the Pentagon Papers “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”.

We cannot stem the tide. We should not be resisting the awesome power of the interwebs. It is the only guarantor of democracy.

Follow the breaking news on the Assange arrest as it happens at Social Scapegoat.

7.39 am – BoingBoing is reporting that the New York Times may be under investigation for espionage (aka doing their job).

6.45 Assange’s lawyer confirms Assange is being held in London’s Wandsworth prison, Britain’s largest and arguably ugliest prison which hold 1600 inmates.

6.58 am The Swedish prosecution authority website is said to be under attack by a group that is targetting all anti-Wikileaks companies, organisations and websites.

6.30 Philip Crowley of the US State Department announces that the US will host Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day. An irony not lost on anyone.

Read an excerpt  from the press release:

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.” - Posted on The Guardian.

6.05 am The Swiss Pirate Party offers Assange asylum according to The Guardian’s Richard Adams & Josh Halliday:

“The Swiss Pirate party has just sent an open letter to the country’s federal council urging it to allow Julian Assange asylum.

“What has happened in the US – political pressure leading to the suppression of free speech by private companies like PayPal, Amazon, EveryDNS and Tableau – should not be allowed to happen in Switzerland,” the letter warns, adding: “For all these reasons a consistent and uncompromising digital policy is needed.”

WikiLeaks.ch, currently the primary domain name for the whistleblowers’ site, was registered by the Swiss Pirate party in June, before becoming WikiLeaks’ main access point last week after being dropped by its DNS host. The party referred 4,000 people a second to WikiLeaks through WikiLeaks.ch on Sunday, it has told the Guardian.

“We urge you to counter the interventions by the US and their ambassador in Switzerland. On the grounds of digital politics, the question of asylum for Julian Assange should be examined,” the letter goes on.”

5.20  am When asked about Visa and MasterCard withdrawing their support of Wikileaks, Mark Stephens replies

“I am advised that WikiLeaks can continue to exist. They have many thousands of journalists in a virtual journalistic community around the world, and they will continue. We are at only cable 301 today. We will see the rest of those 250,000 cables coming out so that full information is available.“

5.15 am – A very interesting point from The Guardian’s technology reporter, Charles Arthur who “points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are “white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.”"

5.00 am – Assange is driven away from court to cries of “we love you” from protesters, according to The Guardian’s Sam Jones.

4.54 am – Outside court, Stephens says:

“WikiLeaks will continue. WikiLeaks is many thousands of journalists around the world. A renewed bail application will be made.

We have heard the judge today say that he wishes to see the evidence himself. He was impressed by the fact that a number of people were prepared to stand up on behalf of Mr Assange. In those circumstances I think we will see another bail application.

They [those offering surety] were but the tip of the iceberg. This is going to go viral. Many people believe Mr Assange to be innocent, myself included. Many people believe that this prosecution is politically motivated.

I’m sure that the British judicial system is robust enough not to be interfered with by politicians and that are judges are impartial and fair. I hope I can say the same about Swedish prosecutors in the future.”

4.45 am More details on the charges from the Press Association and The Guardian:

“Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on 18 August “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.”

4.42 am Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens said “we are in the rather exotic position of not seeing any of the evidence against him.”

“This is going to go viral”, he said, also stating that many people believe the charges are trumped up and political.

“Assange could have been safely released today, Stephens told reporters. These allegations are very thin indeed, he said. He confirmed that further bail applications will be made.

Stephens claimed that Assange will be vindicated.

He added that the release of the US embassy cables would continue.”  – The Guardian

4.32 am  The Guardian reports:  “This case is not about WikiLeaks,” district judge Howard Riddle told the court.

Riddle refused bail on the grounds there was a risk Assange would fail to surrender. He rejected the prosecution claim that bail should be rejected on the grounds of Assange’s safety.

Of six people a the court to offer surety, John Pilger, Ken Loach, and Jemima Khan all offered at least 20 000 pounds.  An anonymous individual offered surety of £60,000.

When requested to supply an address Assange replied “PO Box 4080″. When the question was asked again, he said: “Do you want it for correspondence or for some other reason?” He later gave an Australian address.

4.04 am – Bail was denied and Assange is to be remanded in custody until the 14th of December.

3.51 am The two female claimants in the case said that a condom was a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, the court heard – reported by legal affairs commentator Joshua Rozenberg who was in court – The Guardian is reporting.

Rozenberg also told Sky News that the charges were not read out to Assange. Rozenberg reported that in one case Assange allegedly had sex with a woman who was sleeping, the other was coerced, allegedly.

“Assange’s lawyers made clear that the case would not finish today, Rozenberg said” – The Guardian.

The prosecution, representing the Swedish authorities, objected to bail on two grounds: that Assange failed to surrender and that he should stay in custody for his own protection, Rozenberg reported.

3.35 am Channel 4 reports that Assange requested the assistance of the Australian High Commission and that some members of the commission were allegedly inside the court with Assange.

3.28 am Assange says he will fight extradition to Sweden, according to the AAP and The Guardian.

3.08 am Upon hearing of Assange’s arrest, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates smirked and said “I hadn’t heard that but that sounds like good news to me”.

2.30am More financial problems plague Wikieaks. The Guardian reports that Visa has suspended all payments to Wikileaks “pending further investigation”. MasterCard also pulls out saying they are “taking action to ensure that Wikileaks can no longer accept MasterCard- branded products”.

2.00 am We are informed by Channel 4 news in Britain that Assange is about to enter court. Channel 4 news advises via twitter that recording devices were requested to be turned off:

1.15 am The Guardian reports tDemocratic chair of the US Senate’s intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, said Assange “should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage”.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, she says:

“The law Mr Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorised person to possess or transmit “information relating to the national defence which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”.

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the US government. Importantly, the courts have held that “information relating to the national defence” applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”

12.31 am – Assange’s op-ed piece is published in full at The Australian

“The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts: the US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US officials in Jordan and Bahrain want [sic] Iran’s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of Nato and US intelligence-sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantánamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian president only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US supreme court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.”

11.49 – I’m wrapping up for the night folks. I’m sleep deprived. Damn Australia on the other side of the world and stupid timezones. Will update in the morning when we know more. Night folks.

11.43 pm – Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, is saying that Assange has still not been told of the allegations he is being charged with in a warrent written in a language he understands – which is English, (apparently the warrant is in Swedish) and says this is a clear violation of his civil and human rights.

11.41 – While there are reports Wikileaks has no plans to release the insurance cable, it has apparently sent it supporters all over the world and can only be accessed using a 256 digit long code. More at The Guardian.

11.34 pm – CapitalFM is reporting that a major Wikileaks donor is now under pressure in Germany after failing to file a return on time. The Wau Holland who reportedly donated 750 000 Euros to Wikileaks and has been sent a second notice of to file their 2009 tax accounts. The tax authorities are denying this has anything to do with Wikileaks.

11.30 pm Techdirt is reporting that Swiss Bank has discovered a loophole by which to freeze Wikileak’s bank account. Apparently Assange falsely listed Geneva as his place of residence (he should have just written ‘planet earth’) and are using this as a justification for freezing the account. You can read about it here.

11.26pm The Guardian is reporting that Wikileaks have no plans to publish an insurance encryption code that will release the remaining, unpublished classified cables. Assange told the Guardian last Friday that the code to the encryption would be released if “something happens to us“.

11.15pm Wikileak is coordinating a protest of the arrest of Julian Assange at Westminster Court. Protesters are due to meet outside the Westminster Court at 13.30pm (local time) in London. You can find more information about the protests here. Twitter updates are also available at @Wikileaks.

11.13 One of the claimants is adamantly denying the charges are trumped up, The Guardian is reporting. “The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by the Pentagon,” the claimant said. Assange is strenuously denying all charges.

11.11 – The New York Times is  reporting on how the US have been going after Assange over the separate issue of the leaked cables.

“Justice department prosecutors have been struggling to find a way to indict Assange since July, when WikiLeaks made public documents on the war in Afghanistan. But while it is clearly illegal for a government official with a security clearance to give a classified document to WikiLeaks, it is far from clear that it is illegal for the organisation to make it public.

The Justice department has considered trying to indict Assange under the Espionage Act, which has never been successfully used to prosecute a third-party recipient of a leak. Some lawmakers have suggested accusing WikiLeaks of receiving stolen government property, but experts said Monday that would also pose difficulties.” - The Guardian.

11.10 – If you haven’t already, do read Clay Shirky’s Wikileaks piece.

“The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us: “You went after WikiLeaks’ domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don’t like the site. If that’s the way governments get to behave, we can live with that.”

11.09 – The Guardian reports comments made by Hilary Clinton earlier this year are coming back to bite her in the proverbial:

“On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognise that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the first amendment to the constitution [guaranteeing freedom of speech] are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.”

11.08 Court staff confirm Assange will likely not appear until 2pm. (Local time).

10.56 – Updates have come to a grinding halt. We will post information overnight as it happens, but it seems “that’s all folks”. For now. Do stay tuned. Please leave us your thoughts on the comment section. We will reply.

10.47 – We highly recommend you read the open letter to Julia Gillard relating to Julian Assange. It already has 3399 comments. If you are going to post a comment on The Drum, we kindly ask you re-post them here, or post similar ones.

10.45 pm – Information is slowing now. We await more details of the arrest and actions taken. In the meantime, what do you think about the arrest / Wikileaks in general? Should he be arrested? Should Wikileaks be taken down? Leave us your thoughts in the comment section.

10.24 – The #Wikileaks hashtag is going bezerk on twitter – despite this, #Wikileaks it is not a trending topic. Further proof it is being excluded from trending topics. (Twitter spokespeople have previously denied this claim). For a very detailed analysis of the Wikileaks trends, the incidences of the hashtag on twitter – refuting any denials of censorship click here. However, Julian Assange and Scotland Yard are current trending topics.

10.13 pm BBC World reported that a WikiLeaks spokesperson says Julian Assange´s arrest is an attack on media freedom but won’t stop group from continuing to release cables.

10.11 – The number of published cables stands at 913 as of 4.30pm this afternoon, news.com.au reported.

10.10pm On an ABC24 repeat – Gillard says Wikileaks leaking of information is an illegal act. Said Wikileaks would not exist if an illegal act had not been committed. Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis criticized  Ms Gillard for her “clumsy” language. “As far as I can see he hasn’t broken any Australian law,” Senator Brandis told Sky News. – news.com.au

10.03 – ABC Correspondent says it’s unlikely the police will have enough evidence to hold Assange.

10.01 pm Assange has written an Op-Ed piece for The Australian. You can read it here. *But open it in a new window, will you?

9.58 pm Despite Assange’s arrest Wikileaks continues to leak state secrets. According to MSNB, cables have revealed that NATO has drawn up secret plans to defend the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and Poland against any Russian threat. The revelations have allegedly prompted the US to consider prosecuting Assange.

9.57 pm – SBS is reporting other developments:
“  – Hong Kong’s security chief denied that the city was at serious risk of being attacked by Al-Qaeda during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, as leaked US diplomatic cables warned, citing Chinese intelligence sources.

- The militant group Hezbollah has acquired an arsenal of some 50,000 rockets and missiles, raising fears of an enlarged conflict with Israel, cables printed the New York Times showed.

- The United States suspected a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the Philippines of potential involvement in funding terrorists, another cable released by WikiLeaks showed.”

9.55 pm – The ABC is reporting that Assange allegedly turned himself in at 9.30am (local time) in London.

9.54 Statement from the London Metropolitan Police – courtesy of the Guardian:

”
10.30am: Here’s a statement from Metropolitan Police:

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit have this morning arrested Julian Assange on behalf of the Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape.

Julian Assange, 39, was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant by appointment at a London police station at 9.30am.

He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, all alleged to have been committed in August 2010.

Assange is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.

Sam Jones is on his way to the court.”

9.46 Sky News reports Julian Assange’s solicitor Mark Stephens says his arrest is a “political stunt” and says Assange wants to find out the allegations he faces so he can clear his name.  Stephens reportedly told Sky New’s Rhiannon Mills that they will resist any attempts of extradition “mainly on the grounds that he may be handed over to the Americans”.

9.41 pm (Aus time) Philip Williams says there are suspicions Assange’s arrest is a a political tactic on ABC News 24. Swedes deny it is political, stating seriousness of the charge. Wikileaks spokesperson has said they will continue to leaks despite Assange’s arrest.

9.32 pm The Guardian report British police confirm Assange has been arrested. He is due to appear in Westminster Court later today.

9.55 pm The Guardian reports Operation Payback threaten to go after paypal after they shut down the website of the Swiss bank PostFinance, Raw Story claims.

On its Twitter account the group said: PAYPAL.COM IS DOWN! AND YES WE ARE FIRING NOW!!! KEEP FIRING!

“Instead of harnessing the different qualities of men and women to energise us, we are striving to make men and women equal,” says Asher.

Asher says that while more women fight to shatter the glass ceiling men are become less like men. (I assume you mean straight men, right Asher?) And by “men” I can only assume Asher means the emotionally repressed morning whiskey drinking silent types that grace the screens of Mad Men. The ones that make witty racist and sexist jokes in between neglecting their children and cheating on their wives.

According to Asher women taking on more responsibility and opportunities in the workplace is making men feel a tad uncomfortable. It’s just that having women in positions of power is so confusing. It just comes with all these new rules. How can men possibly report to The Boobs? Having a male CEO is just easier, there’s no possibility of getting distracted by his boobs in board meetings, and the risk of making an inappropriate remark about his clothing is remote. The implication that the pursuit of equality = a reduction in masculinity is impossible to quantify. The threat of emasculation is hardly justification to cease the attempts to achieve workplace equality, there are plenty of steps that can be taken to help ease men through the “difficult” transition.

Asher continues by citing “renowned Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo” stating that he “believes men and women have different roles “set not only by society but set by physiology””.

“The current trend is for dads to be more hands on. But for all we know it may be proven in a hundred years time that that may be a negative thing for the upbringing of children,” he said recently on Seven’s Sunday Night program.”

(Well if Channel Seven says it it must be true).

“They’re there to be protective. A man has to have a good job; he has to do well at school so he can get a good job and support his family. A woman has to be loving and caring,” he said.

Wow. A renowned scientist. Well if a scientist says it, it can’t be wrong. You know a world renowned scientist  once said that African American people were less intelligent than white people based on the circumference of their head. Yep. His name was Dr Samuel Morton and it turns out that his hypothesis was completely wrong and his research was littered with errors, fudged data and miscalculations [1]. It didn’t stop him from telling people it was true, though – and it didn’t stop people from believing it. Never let the truth get in the way of a good argument. Just because a scientist says it doesn’t make it so. I’d also like to see what evidence Dr Teo has to support his hypothesis, but this proof is strangely absent from Asher’s article. I suppose we best take her word for it.

“As a 29-year-old single woman, many of my peers don’t appreciate my traditionalist views.”

Yes, it’s Asher’s age, and relationship status that is troubling to her feminist peers, not her self-loathing, anti-feminist views.

Asher goes on to say that feminism has come at the “expense of femininity, chivalry and attributes of the opposite sex that instinctively attract us to each other”.

I’m not sure why Asher is so concerned about the shortage of sexually attractive women – is there some drought I’m not aware of? Asher is not only confusing the idea of feminism and femininity (I’m going to invoke the Michael Richard’s defense and say some of my closest friends are feminists but they also shave their legs, wear dresses, and aren’t opposed to wearing red lipstick once in a while), she is also imposing her own definition of femininity on to other women. Furthermore, it is not this narrowly defined term of “femininity” that attracts men to women, women to men, women to women, and men to men – it’s chemistry – that certain Je Ne Sais Quoi – he likes the way she flicks her hair when she’s nervous, she likes the way he smells. It can take anything to attract people to each other and I guarantee if you put 100 couples in a room together and asked them what attracted them to each other no two answers would be the same. Sure, men like boobs and women like a nice pair of arms, but if attraction came down to just physical attributes, only super models would be breeding.

Asher references an excerpt from David Dieda’s book “The Way of the Superior Man” (doesn’t this say it all?) describing the attraction between men and women as “sexual polarity”, saying it needs “varying degrees of strength and vulnerability.”

“This force of attraction is the dynamism that often disappears in modern relationships. If you want real passion, you need a ravisher and a ravishee. Otherwise you just have two buddies who decide to rub genitals in bed,” writes Dieda.

Rubbing genitals in bed? David really knows how to turn a woman on. This is just flat out social Darwinism! I’ve mentioned this in several previous posts so I will try not to go into too much detail here but I really tire of the idea that there is a “norm” when it comes to sexual relations. If we cracked open the taboo of sex and really put it out in the open – it’s likely that we would discover there is no such thing as “normal”. That’s the thing with the dominant gender paradigm – it ignores anything that doesn’t fit into its nice cozy definition of what it means to be a man. In reality not all men want to be the aggressive male dominating the vulnerable woman who isn’t really that into it, and not all women want to be submissive. I know this may be hard for Asher to understand – but some men don’t want women with diminished sex drives. If that concept is hard for Asher to wrap her head around, this next one will blow her mind: some women might even have a more elevated libido than their partners! I know – shocking right? Needless to say I certainly do not give Dieda’s book as much crediblity as Asher does. To me Deida is just another chauvinist masquerading as a qualified expert telling people what they ought to be doing in bed, simplifying sexual chemistry down to a basic equation of: submissive woman + aggressive dominant man + erection = GREAT SEX. And if that doesn’t make for a healthy sexual relationship I don’t know what does.

Asher quotes a comment made by James May in a promotion for his new show called “Man Lab” about men lacking basic survival skills like wiring a plug, putting up shelves or countersinking screws. First of all – it’s illegal to do your own wiring in this country, but I digress. If you’re not convinced by Asher’s tricky use of statements of opinion from celebrities to booster statements of “fact” without considering what ulterior motives that celebrity might have, then maybe a reference to evolution will do the trick:

“For thousands of years men were providers and protectors and women nurturers,” writes Asher. “Evolution provided each with the physical and emotional assets to do these jobs well.”

It has never occurred to her that the changes in gender roles are themselves a part of evolution.

“Well into the last century the husband provided his family with a home and food and this sole responsibility gave him a sense of power and purpose. And women didn’t feel pressure to justify their existence with a career. They were proud home makers and mothers.”

I resent Asher’s implication that women were shamed into joining the workforce. It couldn’t possibly be that they were bored. The desire to contribute to society, to learn a skill, hell – to learn – is apparently out of the realm of possibility for Ms Asher.

“Now, two thirds of Australian families with dependent children have two incomes. Women are more independent, and consequently they are less dependent on men.”

I’m not sure why Asher wants us to believe that less people staying together out of financial obligation is a negative. What good would come from two people who don’t love each other staying together because of money? That sets an excellent example for their children, let alone the guilt, sadness and anxiety that results from growing up in a loveless household.

Asher states that women feel forced to rejoin the workforce after having children to avoid the stigma of being a housewife. Because the stigma of being a housewife is the only reason women want to join the workforce. It has never once occurred to Asher that women actually enjoy working, that some women find their job more enjoyable, or as enjoyable as parenthood. There’s no mention that some men would prefer to stay home with their kids given the chance, and that many regret missing the opportunity to form close bonds with their children because the gender pay inequity has forced them to be the main breadwinner. There is absolutely no shame in being a stay at home Mom or Dad. The pursuit of gender equality isn’t designed to make housewives feel ashamed, it’s to give both genders the choice to stay home, or the choice to work. Breaking the glass ceiling would change the family dynamic for the better: It would mean men and women could have the opportunity to share their work and family time equally and neither parent would feel as though they had to sacrifice their relationship with their children or each other in order to cover the cost of living.

“Women are also suppressing traditional feminine characteristics like elegance and fragility to take on high power careers and step into male dominated roles.”

Another subjective opinion put forward as a (completely unverified) statement of fact, associating power with masculinity. If Asher wants to stay home with the children, whilst taking on vaguely feminine characteristics (which I assume involves wearing pearls in the kitchen), more power to her, but the idea that power can only be a masculine trait is insulting and incredibly sexist. So too is the idea that women can only be found to be attractive for their feminine features and never for their intellect – in which case Asher is completely contradicting herself by writing this article. It’s because of the feminist movement that Asher could even publish her article on The Punch. Asher should just put away the laptop, shut down that twitter account, put on a pair of heels and start looking for a tower she can be rescued from – we wouldn’t want the men folk to feel insecure.

“However, a British survey of 2000 men revealed one-third of men would prefer to be the sole breadwinning traditional father while another quarter would like to be the main breadwinner with their spouse working only part-time.”

Lies, damned lies and statistics. We are not told what questions were asked in the survey. We’re also not told how these men answered these questions, or their reasons behind it. It could be that the men that took the survey wish they had more time to spend with their partners, or they wish that both parents didn’t have to work such long hours whilst leaving their children in child care or with babysitters. Without more information these statistics are meaningless.

“Instead, men are sporting aprons, doing their own ironing and pushing trolleys down supermarket aisles – roles that don’t exactly exude manliness”.

Men doing their own ironing? Is the world coming apart at the seams? And pushing trolleys – well that’s just downright humiliating. A man couldn’t possibly draw pride from taking more responsibility for the “family unit” (as Asher refers to it). Apparently the workplace and the bedroom are purely masculine domains and as women seek to conquer both, men have run out of things to feel proud of. Apparently there’s no pride to be drawn from being an emotionally attentive partner and father, there’s no satisfaction to be gained from cooking a meal, or helping with the laundry – or doing anything to reduce the stress of your overworked partner – these are things only women can feel proud of.

“It seems marriage is becoming less about being dependent on each other and more about living independent lives. But is it making couples happier? Now, 40 percent of Australian marriages are predicted to end in divorce.”

(Note the use of the word “predicted”). With less financial dependence, and more focus on emotional compatibility could it be that more couples are becoming free to realise they’re just not compatible? We might find in the future that less people get married, but more married people stay together. Or even that more people are married and more people stay together because they are free from letting financial circumstances dictate their relationship choices.

This entire article is a case of cognitive dissonance – Asher comes across certain statistics that she feels somehow relate to her general worldview and uses them to bolster her argument without citing any real evidence at all that it is the case. It’s like saying two plus two equals a sack of potatoes. Relationships fall apart for a variety of reasons. Feminism isn’t responsible for divorce any more than women were responsible for male infidelity back in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and so on. Infidelity was reportedly higher but seemingly more acceptable back in the “golden days” than it is today – I’d be interested in finding out what reason Asher attributes to this – were women not feminine enough back in day either?

“Would we be happier if more of us accept that men and women are not equal?”

No. We would be happier if stopped looking at things through gendered perspectives and realised all people are different, and that all people deserve the equal rights and opportunities. We’d be happier if all people were equal.

[1] Michael, J.S (1988) “A New Look at Morton’s Craniological Research” Current Anthropology 29: 349-354.

The Australian Christian Lobby doesn’t get to run a monopoly on ethics.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are planning to boycott the implantation of full body scanners (which have been linked to cancer by medical experts) tomorrow (Nov 24) on Thanksgiving – one of the busiest travel periods – by choosing a physical search.

As if flying weren’t a stressful enough experience as it is, between invasive security procedures, the fear of cancer and the ever increasing collection of Qantas “incidences”, it’s a wonder anybody wants to fly anymore.

In a bid to maximise profit and minimise expenditure, Qantas have outsourced their maintenance to countries such as Singapore and Germany. Now when I fly to the States, I not only have to worry about a security guard checking out my goodies, I also need to keep my fingers crossed that I make it home alive.

Steve Purvinas of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association revealed that unlike in Australia, overseas contractors bid for the work, and Qantas goes with the engineers that charge the cheapest rates. Moreover, Pervinas also says that the ratio of overseas licensed engineers to unlicensed engineers is about 40 to two – making it impossible for licensed aircraft engineers to properly check all the maintenance work that is being done.

I can’t help but think that if airlines were channeling as much money into engineering as American airports are channeling into security, I’m sure flying would be a much less stressful experience. (And Qantas’s reputation would remain untarnished).

We have already seen the danger signs.

This month alone has seen seven Qantas safety incidences including engine problems, ruptured turbines and electrical failures.

And the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association have already gone on record saying that the companies safety record has suffered as a result of outsourcing.

Last week it was found that the QF32 passengers are lucky to be alive – it was revealed that the A380 narrowly avoided a mid-air explosion after a stray piece of shrapnel destroyed the flight control systems, severed fuel lines, damaging a drive motor and blowing a rather large hole in the wing.

Not exactly inspiring stuff. It’s enough to make even the most experienced flyer think twice, let alone the increasing number of people who harbour fears of flying.

Can you blame them?

The travel industry has suffered terribly since 9/11, at a time when things are already bad, the last thing airlines should be doing is skimping on maintenance.

If mounting public pressure isn’t enough of a motivation for Qantas to bring their maintenance back on-shore, then maybe dwindling ticket sales might make them change their minds.

Australia (and the world) should vote with their feet and opt-out of offshore maintenance.

If you would like to see Claire Connelly get all hot and bothered, put on some Barry White and head over to The Drum and read her article “Some Well Meaning Men & the Dominant Gender Paradigm”.

Have a sexy, sexy day.

Follow us on twitter:
@SocialScapegoat
@ClaireRConnelly

The motion was supported by Labor and Indepedents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor while the Coalition and Bob Katter refused to support it.

However, Julia Gillard is holding strong that Labor defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and remains adamantly opposed to a conscience vote.

Despite this, Senator Mark Arib (who earlier this week denied being reprimanded by his party for urging them to change their position) says he will push for Labor to support marriage equality at the next national conference which has been brought forward from 2012 to late next year in order to deal with the matter.

Meanwhile gay and lesbian couples in Gillard and Abbott’s electorates of Lalor and Warringah are eager to meet with the two leaders who have previously turned down requests to meet with high profile advocates for reform.

“Supporters of equality in Julia Gillard’s electorate are clamouring to meet her, and given her support for the Greens’ motion, we expect her to oblige”, said Alex Greenwich – the National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality.

“Even though he voted against the motion, we hope Tony Abbott will also meet with the supporters of equality in his electorate.”

The AME say they expect all MPs to take this opportunity to open their hearts and minds to the stories of everyday same-sex couples in Australia and listen closely to how discrimination in the Marriage Act adversely affects these couples and their families.

Federal Parliament is not expected to vote on a Marriage Equality Bill until later next year and it is hoped that the personal stories shared in meetings during that time will convince many MPs to support equality.

“Over the coming weeks AME will call on its supporter base of 15,000 people to help facilitate couples, parents, grandparents, siblings and friends to meet with their local federal MP and Senators,” Mr Greenwich said.

“When a vote on marriage equality is taken, sometime next year, this parliament will have the opportunity to make history and send the message that all love is equal”.

“If not they will be remembered as the Parliament that heard the cries for equality, but chose to give love a cold shoulder”