Petition Tag - services

Elance connects supply with demand. The suppliers try to compete with each other offering projects they'd be willing to do for X amount of money. Suppliers compete with each other, and as a result of unorganized supply, the individuals providing the services do not receive fair compensation for their services.

View petition

Members of the TAMU Student Senate have come up with a resolution opposing the candidacy of Dr. Spear for the position of Director of Health Services. The resolution has inaccurate "facts" and is bias against Pro-choice believers. The resolution basically says that some one advocating pro-choice "extremes" should not have an influential position such as Director of Healh Services in the conservative community of Texas A&M.

Many people have spoken out in petitions and e-mails supporting this resolution, but the voices of the people who are opposed to this resolution need to be heard also. Senators say they will vote according to what the majority of their constituents think, so we need to show the Senate that many people are opposed to this resolution and to also take that into consideration when it is time to vote.

View petition

The New York State Social Services Law Article 6, Title 6, Section 419 relating to Child Protective Services are unjust, ineffective, and racially biased.

This law requires ANY person, doctor, daycare, deadbeat parent, or stranger to telephone the New York State Central Registry Child Abuse Hotline to make an anonymous call to accuse a parent of child abuse or neglect WHETHER TRUE OR NOT.

The New York State Social Services Law Article 6, Title 6, Section 419 relating to Child Protective Services are unjust, ineffective, and racially biased.

When a telephone call is made to the New York State Central Registry Child Abuse Hotline. The person on the phone does not have to leave a name, just an allegation that a parent is abusing or neglecting their children. No proof or evidence is required.

Calls are only accepted by the accuser. Parents who have children in foster care are prevented from making this same call to the hotline.

This law states that an accuser shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal. No one is held accountable for making false allegations.

The harshest provision of the child protective laws are that children be removed from the biological home and placed in a strange foster care setting. Non-abused children are subjected to physical and sexual abuse by strangers daily.

73% of the children who are in foster care are African American, they spend an average of four years in foster care. 2% of the children in foster care are White. The remaining children are catagorized as other or Hispanic.

African-American children are overwhemingly penalized and removed from their homes without any prior evidence of parental wrongdoing.

The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances or the individual's character or background, making it irrelevant whether the parent is actually an abuser or not.

The racially disproportionate nature of the immunity law is not just devastating to African-Americans.

It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as the land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the justice system.

View petition

This petition is to request that Charter Cable reinstate broadcast of EWTN Global Catholic Network to the Catholic community in the Greenville, South Carolina region. When Charter Cable merged their Anderson area and Greenville area services, they changed all programming to the Greenville, SC programming already in place. The EWTN programs were deleted from the new schedule.

Charter has stated that they will not re-instate EWTN programming without a petition for same from local Catholics. This programming is FREE OF CHARGE to Charter, but will not be re-instated unless a demand can be shown from the local Catholic community.

Thank you!

View petition

Disabled persons in Newfoundland & Labrador have come under recent attack via Health and Community Services, whereby long term established care has been tested and tried by appointed Community Health Boards which lack educated and experienced personnel in being able to make proper judgment calls in often life threatening medical situations.

These boards are without specific direction or education on the need of individual clients and situations have arisen where disabled individuals have been left helpless and alone to provide for themselves.

Assessments previously conducted on clients with programs and services in effect as a result of these assessments have in many cases been privy to the discretion of front line workers, whereby irrational decisions have been made, and negatively affecting client services. Clients with sever and life altering disabilities are now being placed in unfair predicaments and many are taking ill.

Hospitalization of various individuals with severe disability requires specifically trained and experienced individuals to care for the patient. In all cases if this is a requirement of clients under the umbrella of Health and Community Services, then funding is channeled to the client for the purpose of employing these client supports. If however a client is hospitalized for more than 72 hours he/she will lose both funding and supportive service of the employee. This often puts grave detriment on the patient as most hospital staff are generally trained and have no experience in disease specific disability.

Persons with such osteo disease are now at severe risk of injury. This has to change.

View petition

The Federal Government is planning to ban all forms of Australian Licensed Internet Wagering Services. Legislation to be debated in Federal Parliament in June 2001 will, if passed, require all licensed Australian Internet Wagering Providers to close down their Internet Services.

Whichever way you look at it, Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston's attempt to ban internet gambling amounts to nothing more than a deeply flawed empty gesture from a hypocritical Government concerned not with policy, but with promoting a kind of nannyism which makes sense only to the politically gullible.

The British website "The Register" (www.theregister.co.uk) took one look at Alston's announcement last month and declared: "This man must be the biggest Luddite in history." It went on to say Alston's proposals pointed to "an overwhelming miscomprehension of the Internet" which "seems dedicated to ... destroying Australia's internet industry."

And we wonder why our currency is heading south so fast it will soon match Glenn McGrath's batting average. The world looks at Australia to now see an online gambling ban alongside worthless pornography legislation, a bizarre copyright ruling involving the forwarding of emails and a digital TV debacle of bewildering proportions. However, there's no denying gambling is a problem. We are veracious punters. This puerile logic has been used to decide the Government's online gambling legislation. If you have a computer, then you're just a click away from being a pathological punter. What hasn't been recognised is the fact that betting via the internet is a matter of choice and a matter of convenience. By denouncing Alston's moves and calling for the maintenance of our democratic and net freedoms, I am not trying to encourage gambling, quite the opposite. The net is built on a culture of freedom -- not just financially -- but also in an individual making choices, and as such, it should be free of controls, censorship or Alston-style regulations.

We can expect some strange rules within the legislation. If you believe a word Alston and Co are saying, they must also be dedicated to portraying Australians as heartless exporters of misery and family degradation. Why? Australian gambling sites will not be allowed to serve their compatriots, but they will be permitted to transact with foreigners. Obviously, our ministers feel no social obligation to a struggling family in Auckland blighted by gambling. They don't vote here, so to hell with them! Also, "Australian businesses wanting to offer betting services will attract off-shore customers", says Alston, "because we are seen to be a 'safe place' in terms of collecting". It's bizarre... we as Australians can't have "safe" services; however outsiders can?! The Government will not make ISPs filter gambling traffic, a tacit acknowledgment that a ban, in the true sense of the word, is an impossible mission. Therefore, Australians will be able to gamble on overseas sites. Just to recap ... Aussies can't gamble in their own country, but foreigners can, yet Aussies can go to overseas sites for a bet. The result of this will be pretty simple: Australians with a gambling problem will do their dosh overseas, and our local, legitimate gambling industry will be on the next flight out of here. Worst of all, this legislation lets the sharks back in to replace respectable businesses, such as Lasseters Casino, SportOdds, Centrebet, Readbet etc.

What are they smoking in Canberra? Some responsibility for this debacle has to taken by the National Office for the Information Economy, which is completely out of touch. It asked a services vendor -- of all organisations -- for a report on the possibility of enforcing a complete ban. NOIE reports: "ComTech found there are technologies available to implement a ban on interactive gambling. The Government could deploy these technologies at various 'enforcement points'. However, none of the technologies would be 100 per cent effective at preventing access to offshore interactive gambling sites and all would have negative consequences for internet performance." Gartner analyst Joe Sweeney says such a move would cost at least $US300 million ($612 million) and send many of the smaller ISPs to the wall.
The fact is, no-one can enforce a blanket ban on anything on the internet. China and the Gulf States continue to wage a pathetic war against freedom of information in the same way -- and they continue to fail. It is obvious that the Australian Government are ignorant of the fact that the net was designed by the US Defence Department specifically to avoid blocking.

If online gambling is banned, then where does that leave cyber share trading, which has been called the riskiest casino of them all, capable of hooking day traders into a cycle of addiction, loss and suffering? Talk about a modern version of Reefer Madness!

A solution to curbing online gambling abuse is relatively simple and does not require John Howard's parental methods. Firstly, regulation rather than prohibition should be encouraged. Only if gambling operators felt the rules outweigh the benefits, would regulation fail. Problem gamblers, or those under-age, could be dissuaded in a number of ways. Consider these US Internet Gaming Council tactics:
* Compulsory site membership before placing a bet. Applicants to supply proof of age.
* Establishment of a $1000 account before a gambler is allowed to play and a float never to be less than $200.
* Credit cards as the only form of payment (No-one under 18 is permitted to own one).
* Establishment of list of identified problem gamblers that casino sites should bar.
* Obligation on credit card companies and banks to approve transactions online with only approved online gambling sites. A government list of approved gambling sites, so gamblers know they are going to get a fair shake of the dice.
Many countries were looking to Australia for leadership on the issue of online gambling -- and an unworkable and flawed blanket ban was the best we could come up with. It's a pretty sad indictment on a country once renowned for its ingenuity and courage.

Sign this petition OPPOSING the Federal Government's proposal to ban all forms of Internet Wagering on racing & sports events by licensed Australian Operators, and it will be submitted to the respective offices of Prime Minister John Howard and Senator Richard Alston. Protect your right for online choice, convenience and freedom.

View petition