Slater on politics, 9/11, and Monsanto - video
Kelly Slater seems omnipresent at the moment. There's nowhere you can turn that's he's not being speaking out about a cause, backing a new enterprise, or winning a heat. He's like the Bono of 2016...ah, except for the winning surf heats business.
His latest appearance is a vox pop with Luke Rudkowski from WeAreChange. Slater, as you'll see, is an ideal interviewee for the US political agitators.
Comments
A flimsy interview and terrible forum for those topics to be explored. At 40 something years old with a clearly analytical mind I'd have thought Kelly would've moved beyond ideological revolt.
I blame the interviewer, Kelly looks like he is just trying to be polite, or maybe I'm bias for my hero.
A bit harsh? I thought it was good to hear a surfer discuss something beyond three fins or four.
Perhaps it is now that I read it back. However these truth agencies that have sprouted from social media really get my goat. Have you noticed how each of them tell the REAL NEWS and no-one else does. Russell Brand with his Trews, the Anti-Media, Anonymous and on and on, and Wearechange is just another one of them. I find them as agenda-driven as the mainstream news and often far less researched, less diligent, and more emotionally reliant.
Slater's description of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul as people "who speak truth" is telling. Which truth Kelly? First year art students learn that truth is subjective and depends on your point of view. Unless it's a material event there is no one truth.
If you want to word up the kids then teach them how to deconstruct the media because the "truth agencies" spread as much misinformation as the mainstream media does.
Thank you. You've nailed it
Testify!
Who is saying it? What are they saying? What might be their motivations for saying it? Who might be backing them to say it? What are they not saying?
Take everything with a grain of salt and don't just automatically accept that what you're being told is the truth.
Here endeth the rant.
if truth is subjective, then then statement "truth is subjective" is itself a subjective claim.
this shows that truth cannot be subjective.
if truth is subjective, then then statement "truth is subjective" is itself a subjective claim.
this shows that truth cannot be subjective.
It sounds more like contrariness for the sake of it rather than a desire to understand something. It also sounds like this is your first conscious experience with subjectivity. If your mind is amply blown I'd urge you to read and explore the topic, it's hardly groundbreaking going back 2500 years to Socrates and relative truth, and explored further by thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Hegel. It's made it's way into popular culture visa the Rashomon Effect. As I said it's hardly new.
You should also note I stated "material truths". Sun rising, this table existing, et cetera.
Well and good atticus, and true (?!), but just because something is taught in universities in first year arts degrees hardly provides substantial evidence that what is being taught is, in fact, true, or even the right way of looking at things, or even for the common good. It also completely denies any possible search for truth that isn't from an academic perspective, and academia is a very blunt tool.
The essence of this argument is to maintain scepticism, which is a great idea, but rarely practiced well. The first year arts student, plus all the academics and the fearless philosophers, take this logical analysis to an extreme that is untrue, that being 'that there is no truth'.
This just creates a better educated, but not smarter or more sophisticated, class of beings who pronounce things in black and white, whereas the world is almost entirely grey.
Appeals to academic thinking to prove one's point does not make a strong argument. There is not only truth, but there are degrees, or closeness to truth, which matters significantly in real world decision making.
And to curl and others suggesting that monsanto is anything other than a 'tending towards evil' corporation, you really haven't read enough. Monsanto, as a business, is largely about creating monopolies on seeds and pesticides, not a great force for human good.
GM is an experiment on food production for humanity, and monsanto uses the powers of the courts and lobbying to make it very hard for people to resist being part of that experiment. That is a truth.
All true Batfink however you missed my qualifying remark about "material truths". Of course it's on a spectrum, no-one is going to argue the truth about the sun rising tomorrow or the existence of the keyboard I type on. The subjectivity comes in points of view to matters of information (not hard facts, difficult to discern between the two). Also my "appeal to academia" was merely to show that what I proposed is very common knowledge - note how I said first year students and not professors?
Interesting times for the 'media business'. Corporate media's always telling in what doesn't make it out there for consumption.
Interesting couple of examples from the 'other' media:
https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/02/false-balance-abc-glass-houses-secret-...
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/news-corp-and-the-ash...
You will find yourself on a no fly list Kelly; remember to always bow to your masters.
Yeah Kelly..http://www.worldsurfleague.com/events/2016/mqs/1371/volcom-pipe-pro
I'm amazed that anyone would want surfers to get back in their box? Personally I think its really exciting that people like Kelly start talking about issues outside of just catching a wave. Or to quote John Milus from the Director's Cut of Big Wednesday, "Surfers weren't always idiots like they come across today, in the '50's, like the beat poets up on Venice Beach, we genuinely believed we had something important to say" Back in 2016, if we are now entering a new post-commercialisation era, where surfers have got something important to say about a more peaceful and environmentally friendly world; I say bring it on.
Presumably directed at me RR? I dont wish for Kelly to "get back in his box" at all. As I said he has an analytical mind and isn't afraid to use it. My objection is the type of media he chooses to voice his message, one that veers very closely to the call of the conspiracy theorist. Someone posted a New Matilda link above and that's great example of alternative media with integrity.
Look at when the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" took hold. It was not used before the 1960's and came directly from 'Murica. It is widely accepted that many institutions, lobbyists and media use this defence of "crazy conspiracy theorist" to discredit, perform public character assassinations and destroy conflicting movements or cultures. I wouldnt be worrying about what "conspiracy theory" websites are saying as its often more based in truth than MSM (Iraq war anyone). The fact that in our society some denounce something as crazy without investigation is in fact the very definition "crazy" ( i know, goes both ways - many conspiracy theories are unfounded - but to throw them out without investigation is worse)
Conspiracy theory's are fun but shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
no atticus; I don't believe in playing the man. it was a comment about the general nature of the media and how people react to it...people wanting surfers to be just about surfing feels out-dated to me. whilst i'm at it > on truth> 2,500 years ago Socrates said "there's no such thing as truth, other than this statement" the circular nature of that comment seems pretty relevant to surfing and 2016 for me...but im just a voice of one
So refreshing to listen too an open minded, obviously left wing surfer with conscience and influence. There's often so many conservatives surfers commenting in these forums. At last! I just don't get how voting conservative and surfing can ever go hand in hand.
amen to that brother! i applaud any celeb who comes out and speaks out against things like 9/11 regardless of the platform they use and how could you not go down a conspiracy road when talking about 9/11? i allways thought surfers were a little anti establishment a little edgey or lefty! maybe this is why we are having an identity crisis?
Obviously left wing? He admits a sympathy to Ron Paul's politics.
Just because a person/agency follows a conspiratorial line doesn't put them left of centre. What it does is show a lack of critical thinking, an inability to understand the chaotic nature of international geopolitics.
Straight back at you islandman. Wouldn't it be nice to see a new gen of high profile Australian surfers denounce the conservative rule in this nanny state. Sorry but I just don't get the correlation! IE Surfing and conservatism just do not go hand in hand! Maybe that's why a bunch of the surf corporates are struggling so badly - too many conservatives and footyheads took over in the 80's and 90's.
I wouldn't be so quick to label some one who thinks differently to you.
I persanaly am a left leaning humanist who loves the the outdoors and nature as much as I love science, history and reading. I am defiantly not a conservative I allowe the facts to inform me before opinion.
Yes mass media has an agenda, it is the exact same as the alternative media. Which is to reach more people and keep them as long as possible. Of corse you can't trust the media (in all forms) you have to think for yourself and apply some critical thinking skills. For example if you see an interviewer loading his first question like this interviewer did then that should raise some "red flags".
Only 3:20 in to the interview and the interviewer is proving himself as a first class idiot. "Secret testing" what is he talking about? If it's a secret how dose he and the hole world know about Monsanto and others using Gm in Hawaii and elsewhere. And "Monsanto in bed with the government " wtf? What dose this have to do with cancer?
"Secret testing" i believe is more referring to the test results Monsanto claims to be gaining from its Glyphosate use, they claim it doesn't cause cancer but almost every independent study conducted has found the reverse to be true. Monsanto does not publicly disclose what its methods or tests are. "Monsanto in bed with the Govt" is a statement that refers to the massive levels of staff turnover between Chemical Co.s and U.S Govt. This all helps the suppression of independent GM testing to further their agenda.
![]()
http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/monsantogovernment.jpg
So when he said "secret testing" you think he means private funded and owned testing that any and every company have the right to keep private. Like apple keeping their latest iPhone secret until it is released? I gess that makes sense, but it is muddying the water the way the interviewer was implying something sinister.
And the "Monsanto in bed with the Gove" I get, but I'm just confused by the implications. All companies of that size are all working closely with the government. Anyone heard of Halliburton?
But let's be clear there is no suppression of testing on gmo's its just that the results don't fit the agenda of the anti-gmo'rs. There are however proprietary issues because of painted products. Again it's just a way of muddying the water to suggest that something sinister is happening when in reality it's just the legal/political system that we have in place.
Have a look or listen
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112
I agree with your statement on product development and the right of secrecy, that's why we have a patent system after all. The problem I see tho is in Hawaii you have GM companies testing their wares in normal farming zones which usually have run offs into local streams through towns and schools etc.. I believe the residents do have a right to know if what's passing by in their local waterways is going to kill them or not.
Re govt. statement, yes this is entirely true and probably points more to errors in the system than Monsanto specifically. Same really as being debated in states at the moment with PACs financing political systems.
As with suppression of info there has been very convoluted information regarding this. From my understanding most reports coming out of America state they are fine whilst Euro and Asian study's do not agree and are moving to ban them. These countries do not have conflicting interests within their govt. systems and chemical co's. From my very limited understanding of the studies done its basically that the plants are not absorbing and processing the massive amounts of round up they put on GM crops as is being suggested.
I'm a little hesitant with the article. It gives the scientist much more praise on contemporary gene splicing techniques than traditional methods.. From what I understand the scientist have very little idea of which part of bio DNa is responsible for what and are combining 2 or 3 seperate genomes to create a new plant. The traditional way of cross breeding and pollination is a much more effective manner in providing safe results.
On he other hand I understand the food democracy problem and it is truly one of the battles humans will have to overcome. I remember reading something along the lines of the worlds pop. Doubling in 50 years whilst we loose half of all farm land. That is truly terrifying but I don't think Monsanto and Syngenta are the answer. Our globalised food system is failing left right and centre but we are still trying to expand it. Don't even get me started on how putting Gm crops into low social economic countries ha been proven time and time again to actually increase poverty and malnutrition in these areas due to western foreign policy. End rant.
Thanks for your comments dabutton, and I agree with you that the run of is a problem, but it is unfair to make it a Gm problem, standard farming methods have run of problems also and the "organic" farming methods are the wors offender (organic farming uses less affective fertilisers and pesticide requiring more resulting in more run of), after all gm's gole is to develop crops requiring no fertilisers and pesticide. I suppose my point is that this is a problem with farming and not gmo's.
Yes, Europe is very strict with gmo's (a rich and powerful part of the world with options) however I disagree with you when it comes to Asia thousands would die throug starvation without Gm's therefore gm's are a non issue. Take IR8 rice for example.
But just because Europe has Gm band in most capacities dose not mean that Gm is bad it just means that Europe is a democracy and that the anti- gmo groups are affective.
My big disagreement is with your 4th paragraph. The whole point of gmo's is that we know exactly which genes do what and it is a far more precise than traditional cross fertilisation. Although I appreciate your reservations towards scientists, we need to remember that good scientist don't have an agenda they just follow the facts.
I'll leave it greater thinkers than me to explain the benefits of gmo's.
"No discussion of GMO is complete without a mention of Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, 1977 US Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2006 Congressional Gold Medal winner, and best known as the father of the Green Revolution. The unanimous act of Congress states "Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history." The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation. Dr. Borlaug did it by pioneering the use of hybrid and genetically modified crops, designing new strains that could thrive in arid conditions where pesticides or herbicides were not available. He's also known for "Borlaug's Hypothesis" which proposes that the best way to reduce deforestation is to reduce demand for new farmland by using our best existing farmland to its maximum potential."
Brian Dunning
"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
Norman Borlaug
If you don't have anything to say........don't say it......well not while you are being recorded anyway.
.....and for him to imply that gm mosquitos could have been involved in the emergence of the Zika virus is not only profoundly ignorant but unethical. Celebrities who spread misinformation like this undermine confidence in the very processes and organisations most likely to deal with such epidemics.
I know I'm blind for my hero but I think slater was just agreeing with him. But yes what a stupid thing to say.
By definition Gm mozzies would have to be made in a lab. Also the mozzies are only carriers in the same way as they carry malaria. I wish we would idolise are scientists like we do our sports stars and celebrities. Knowledge is power.
I love Slats but for some to equate his comments to 'leftist politics' is pure nonsense. This is a man who has ridden the capitalist pony relentlessly over his career - wct, channel is, quik, wavepools, etc. He has concerns over many issues (like most of us) but this doesn't mean he's voting for Bill Shorten. Disappointing for some (Hulk J) but let's wake-up and smell the roses.
PS Nanny state = leftist politics (see Dan Andrews in Vicco)
Curl, if you are unaware of the relationships of those involved in US politics who also have an interest in Monsanto, Hillary Clinton comes to mind first, then you should do some more research and less typing. Monsanto and cancer.......... Fuck me, honestly how stupid are you? GMO's are known to be harmful not only to the environment, again bees and Neo-nicatenoids, but also to those who consume them. And as far as secrets , do you think Monsanto want you to know how harmful thier products are ( round up being a known cumulative neuro toxin) or would they want to keep quiet and keep selling thier shit to you?
As far as secrets, you only have to look at the TPP to know that back room deals take place at a corporate/ political level daily.......
Fuck my hole, some of you blokes should pull your heads out of you arse holes then the next step would be to turn off your TV and see what is really going on!
Blindly you actually surprise me as some one who writes the odd interesting piece. Would it be that far of a silly suggestion that the GM mosquitos that where released could be responsible....... Wouldn't be the first time. Cane toads?
what a fantastic story. But do you have any prof? Oh no because your full of shit! Sorry to come on a bit strong but you called me stupid when you are making stupid shit up that you have no idea what you are on about.
All food is organic! All food is chemicals. All organic food is made of chemicals. Most food have been selectively bread over thousands of years for the purpose of giving humans a better food supply (cows, corn and weat as we know it couldn't exist in the wild) some food are known to be more harmful to humans than others. However according to the science no Gm food has ever been prove to be more harmful than any other variants, I.e. A food grown using up more land and more pesticides and being wors for the environment cleverly marketed as "organic".
If you have some actual evidence then I'm all ears, but it can't be just some anti-gmo anti-science wish we were all in touch with nature bullshit.
You really have shown your intelligence on the topic. The environment and especially the bees would benifit greatly if farmers ( not Monsanto ) would stop using fertiliser ( round up) and use a crop that was pesticide resistant. In Australia we have a massive problem of farmers fertiliser washing into the sea and killing the reefs.
Also how cool would it be if science and farmers were left alown to figure out a way to feed more people using less land! Seriously it's only a society that has an obesity problem can afford to make this shit up. In Asia where Gm rice has to be use otherwise thousands would starve to death no one cares. 7 billion people to feed and most are hungry.
Yes Monsanto is a larg company with lobbyists in the government, so is ford, ibm and Apple. Wake up that's the way it works. Complaine about the real problem that is the system,
But the irony is that Monsanto and other larg agriculture companies don't care about this because they also own the company's that sell you the overpriced and bad for the environment "organic" food products.
As for me I haven't watched the news in nearly 2 years. And if I do I always apply my critical thinking skills and don't belive most of what they say. You see I read science reports on the issue then I don't come of like an idiot making shit up.
Like Gm mozzies? WTF? That would mean that a compani would see the benifit in killing people, spend money on researching how to genetically modify mosquitos and adapt them to kill people. All for what? Look out soggydog your foil hat is getting in the way.
Not sure you've quite got your head around this one, mate. Roundup is not a fertiliser. It's a glyphosate herbicide which kills everything except the GM crop. The benefits of GM crops are that you can douse the entire field in Roundup and not endanger your harvest. The potential dangers are that the residual Roundup finds its way in to the crop, then into us, and builds up in the body, causing increased risk due to cumulative exposure.
I agree that the line between natural and unnatural, organic and inorganic is hazy one. Inorganic sodium chloride (table salt) in moderation is harmless, but totally organic hemlock is likely to make you want to lie down. For ever.
But the main point is that the burden of proof should be on the side of Monsanto to prove that their food is safe, not on the public to prove that it is harmful. Most informed people who avoid GM foods are not actually anti-GM. They are simply concerned about food safety and increased pesticide exposure.
Sorry my mistake I meant pesticide not fertiliser, but the point of gm'ing the crops can be for different reasons, larger harvest, quicker tern overe or most importantly and most common is to make the crop pesticide resistan. I.e. les or no pesticide needed.
to say the burden of proof falls on companies like Monsanto is corect, however when good science is done and a group such as the anti- Gm group spread misinformation using methods like the anti-vaxxers or the creationists it needs to be pointed out. Tin foil hats are everywhere when talking about this issue.
Sorry, you've missed the mark again. It's a HERBICIDE, not a pesticide.
Additionally, your claim that making crops pesticide resistant means that less pesticide will be used is illogical. The only reason you would genetically modify the crop to be pesticide resistant is so that you can use more pesticide without damaging crop yields. Hence the concern.
Anyway, as pesticides naturally damage pests more than plants, the focus has been on herbicide resistant GM crops, and the most widely used is glysophate, which the World Health Organization announced last year "probably causes cancer".
http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181
As you say, good science needs to be done, and tin-foil-hat-types are everywhere when talking about this issue, but to lump them together with those who have legitimate concerns is a divisive PR tactic used by Monsanto and others to discredit their opponents.
Let's just be fair to both sides and encourage research and discussion without confirmation bias. Most people are well-intentioned but misinformed and get defensive when challenged. The only ones who tend to lie knowingly are those with something to gain by doing so. And those with the most to gain in the GM game are the big players like Monsanto. That should at least make us cautious.
I don't think it's fair to say that I have missed the point at all, I might not be doing a good job of explaining myself. I am talking about the benefits of Gm crops. You are talking about a single type of herbicide.
The herbicide you are talking about is used in ALL forms of agriculture and land care, As stated in the article you linked to. Not just Gm. Therefore the herbicide linked to cancer has nothing to do with Gm at all. If the herbicide is dangerous as the article suggests then it would not be more dangerous for Gm crops as much as it would for non Gm crops. I do however concede that SOME Gm crops use larger quantites of the herbicide.
I am not arguing that round up is healthy, my point is that there is no health risk from Gm crops. I have no doubt that there are some bad farming methods using Gm as there is undoubtably bad farming practices not using Gm crops. Coconut oil in Sumatra anyone? Soybeans in the Amazon?
To label all Gmo's as unhealthy and causing cancer because a herbicide used on some crops (some Gm some not) is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
My comments about Gm crops requiring less pesticide and fertiliser may not be clear, sorry. I mean to modify the crops to be pest resistant requiring less or no pesticide. That's why I have liked to articles doing a better job than I could.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4454
I don't think you really belive that the only ones who lie are the ones who have something to benifit. Have you ever had a conversation with an anti-vaxxer? Or if your mates are like mine "you should of been here yesterday t was 6ft and clean"
So to be clear I am talking about the overall benefits of being able to use Gm crops in genera, I belive you are unhappy with one example of Gm crops in practice. Which is good and important but the difference is important. Gm crops are just as healthy as non Gm crops prepared in exactly the same way.
Yeah you tell em Soggy Dog. Some of these keyboard conservatives should get off their collective high horse. Yeah the interviewer was a bit of a toss, but hey beats the hell out of same old dis dat surf talk. KS would never vote conservative redneck styles that is very clear the ween. He an Obama man minimum, and me thinks way more to the left than that.
I wonder how the surfboard makers of the world view him since buying into Firewire , and the boards are made in Asia , and then containered to Australia and the USA and then every store gets them on consignment ?
He talks about morals and brand integrity in outerknown , and then in the poorest part of the market , some call it still the heart and soul of surfing , the making and designing of surfboards, he has has to put his boards on consignmet which no other surfboard company does?
I lve Kelly but when I found this out it really tarnished what he says as what he does is different!
This is just a bit of posturing for Kelly, a fashionable hat to put on in public.
His actions, as Sharkman have indicated, speak far louder than his words.
Am sure his love of golfing doesn't do much for the courses local waterways and fauna - fertilisers galore.
so you're saying that monsanto is good a company, is good for humanity and what kelly says is all wrong?
of course he's not saying that but what Kelly says is just words and actions speak louder than words. He is majority owner in a company that is wreaking havoc amongst board makers and is stunting the growth of younger surfboard workers and designers , by having unscrupulous business practices , consigning surfboards and taking away space for real home made boardmakers . But money is important , he is American!
Excuse my Ignorance here but how is Slater 'stunting' growth of new board shapers.
Having boards on consignment is generally not a good idea from the manufacturers angle.
most young designer shapers start sanding and glassing locally , now there is a lot less local boards being made , less opportunity for young guys to get into the industry.
Keep surfing Kelly. You do that so well.
Monsanto blows...people should really be made aware that some of the choices that they make now, can change the way we do things in the future!!
Big companies are ruining things...
That is a really interesting video, a perfect example of what should rais the red flags.
A few of the logical fallacies I spotted apart from being inaccurate.
Strawman, slippery slope, appeal to nature, appeal to emotion, appeal to ancestors and personal incredulity. ( If you are not awear of logical fallacies google them and learn them, they help in every day life in everything from bying a car to seeing throug the deception in our media)
Just because the video is flaued in its arguing doesn't mean that it is wrong, but not putting in an independent scientist or a counter view shows us that the makers have a message and would rather be wrong and spread their message than being on the right side of science.
Someone should ask him what it was like rooting Pam before she went saggy! But then again there's a movie!
how can organic foods grown without pesticedes, herbicides and fertilisers be bad for the environment? Curl where's your prof? Ha ha prof I need prof!
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/brazil-tests-gm-mosquitoes-...
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2016/02/03/the-zika-conspiracies-have-...
Curl...conflicting articles from the above links. Who is right ?
Are they? I think the first article is concerning reducing mozzie numbers and the second is showing that their is no relation between Gm mozzies and the zika virus.
I could be wrong and will read the nature article properly after work.
sorry, to be clear, I meant:
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/brazil-tests-gm-mosquitoes-...
and
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2016/02/03/the-zika-conspiracies-have-...
Tony,
I don't think they are contradicting one another. The first (American Scientist) article is just reporting on a study about some GM mosquitos that are being developed to try and combat Dengue Fever. The study was conducted in a small area in Brazil (read all about it here http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003864). They had previously conducted a trial in the Cayman Islands with the same mosquitos ~ 5 years ago.
The second article fully acknolwedges this study and the release of the mosquitos, it is just saying that there is no credible evidence to link those mosquitos with the Zika outbreak.
ok, got it … back to school for me. Yeah, I can see there is no link but I assumed (wrongly) that they were linked. GM mozzies - now that brings in a whole new equation. Ahhh,, the monster mozzies are coming !
I realised that I just don't see the conflict.
Ah yep, I'm agreeing with you here Curl. There is no conflict between the 2 articles.
Sorry I was trying to reply to Tony's coment
I realised that I just can't see the conflict
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. A Bible for thinking
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
The audio book of "The demon haunted world" is one of my all time books.
An obvious ABC conspiracy in itself!
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/the-incredible-...
seems to be all these great conspiracys happen in the mighty united states of america whats wrong with us aussies? but you only have to look at jfks famous speech in which stated he would not be swayed by secret societys or conspirators and then the poor guy got a bullet in the head! that is proof enough for me that conspiracys exist, america went steadily down hill after his death
http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx?geo_country=es#...
KS always in it for the money. Product of his upbringing. Great surfer though.
Hey guys, long time lurker here who had 2 share this little modicum of synchronicity. Shirl reckons 2 say g'day.