Political participation via the internet.. Why not right? Everything else is available on the net. Providing political information on the internet is one way to educate/inform and engage younger people in their democratic duties....(I'm not even registered to vote shhhh)

I signed an e-petition of sorts...

I have now done my bit for the people of Britain and their t.v license tax..I don't really understand what they are on about but I'm happy to help!!

Now to the important news...
The President of America, Barack Obama travelled to Pittsburgh, PA for the annual AFL-CIO convention. Obama expressed the importance middle class America in his address to the convention. "For over half a century, the success of America has been built on the success of our middle class. It was the creation of the middle class that lifted this nation up in the wake of a Great Depression. It was the expansion of the middle class that opened the doors of opportunity to millions more. It was a strong middle class that powered American industries and propelled America's economy and made the 20th century the American century...." http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/bradleyportnoy/gGM7NJ

closer to home:
How I understand it...
Representative democracy allows for one person (a member of a party) to represent the best interests of the people...a sort of team captain philosophy.."I'll take care of this guys" we elect the team captain according to how he or she plays ball and they make decisions on our behalf..it makes sense right? But what happens when the team captain has certain hidden agendas and is influenced by a third party? The ancient greeks endorsed a particpatory or direct democracy..every issue would be put to a team vote where majority rules. Raise your hands.
The modern 'public sphere' now includes a much wider social network via the internet creating a greater opportunity for our democratic nation to step up and express concerns (or just rip politicians to shreds) In Australia politicians are not untouchable...we love to devour their political, personal and religious beliefs almost to let them know that they are under a sever public eye and they are not above us in any way. The effects of having hundreds of blogs and forums online endorse this harsh/opinionated behaviour by the public. The politicians are scrutinised as it is our right to do so. The internet provides ample opportunities for us to have a dig.

The government's plans to censor the internet or create a 'clean feed' just reflects the great impact cyberspace has on the government institution. It appears they are not too keen on letting us see, hear and believe certain things that surface when surfing the web and to an extent the clean feed has certain merits. Websites showing potential terrorists how to make bombs or preaching anti-western behaviour poses a threat to national security, however is it really the government's right in a democratic nation to restrict free information in our public sphere? Many believe that the key to all of this is balance. Restricted/blocking harmful websites including pro-terriosm or child porn sites, and leaving material with no high level risk to be freely accessed. However aside from the mentioned high risk sites, who is to decide what our society should and should not be exposed to? Are we creeping back to the christian limitations of the past? Back to a society dictating to its citizens how life should be lead? Its worth a ponder anyway.

On another completely different note here is something I painted and scanned then tweaked on my mac