I am lifting this straight from Crikey.com.au as I am too mad to write something and besides it says it all!!!
Aboriginal assets to be seized, then rented back for profit
Darwin insider Henri Ivrey writes:
In moves seemingly impossible to reconcile with the protection of Aboriginal children on remote towns and communities in the Northern Territory, a document has come into the hands of Crikey that presages a federal government takeover of millions of dollars worth of assets owned by Aboriginal organisations.
At least Ned Kelly stole from the rich. Mal Brough is taking from the poor to establish a government-controlled property trust, from which he will then rent back to the dispossessed.
Organisational assets above the value of $400,000 are to be compulsorily acquired by Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) and transferred to a new entity, the Indigenous Economic Development Trust (IEDT), and then rented back at commercial rates to the same organisations from which the asset has been taken from.
In some cases this will make those organisations commercially unviable, leading to financial collapse and loss of Aboriginal jobs. Every reason for Aboriginal organisations for acquiring property as part of engaging with capitalism has been thrown out in favour of a centrally controlled government bureaucracy.
This is not about Aboriginal land in places like Arnhem Land: assets will be compulsorily stripped from Aboriginal organisations owning land and property up and down the Stuart Highway—Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs—no matter how well run, no matter what the level of services provided, no matter what those assets are being used for.
The early targets appear to be urban-based Community Development Employment Programs (CDEP). In a letter to these CDEP projects in towns and cities up the Stuart Highway, IBA’s "national manager business funding", Kim McIlveen is keen to introduce "new products and services that your CDEP organisation might qualify for".
One of these "new products" is "establishing an Indigenous Economic Development Trust, through which assets will be leased to Aboriginal businesses".
And he is cheerfully offering a helping hand.
"IBA staff and contracted service providers will be visiting each CDEP over the next few months to provide more information and invite you to discuss your business needs."
The sheer effrontery of it is extraordinary. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), in at least one instance, will be "resuming" an asset from an Aboriginal business which is being offered back for commercial rental to the very Aboriginal business from which it was compulsorily taken.
In many cases the assets have been built up over many years—in some cases decades. Some are jointly-owned assets. Some are leased to groups such as health services; some provide low cost housing. Some are funded through a combination of commercial income, commercial bank loans, soft government loans and government grants.
The latter factor seems to be the key. Any Aboriginal organisation that directly or indirectly received federal government assistance to acquire or pay off an asset—even in small part—now faces compulsory seizure of the entire asset.
Potentially, property and other commercial assets that are earning an income, and employing Aboriginal people, will be summarily resumed by a federal bureaucracy. At least one CDEP seems destined to relinquish the property it purchased, then lease it back from the IEDT.
And the amount of this Stuart Highway robbery could run into many millions of dollars if this principle is extended. In Darwin assets owned by Larrakia Nation and its business arm, along with the Aboriginal Development Foundation and Danila Dilba Health Service, face compulsory asset removal.
In Katherine the Jawoyn Association faces property losses as well as potential loss of assets in the tourist industry in the millions. Tennant Creek’s Julalikari Council owns low cost housing valued at more than $2 million as well as other properties.
In Alice Springs properties potentially being seized are owned by the Institute for Aboriginal Development, Tangentyere Council, Arrernte Council and Health Congress. Assets in all of these towns owned by the Northern and Central land councils could also face resumption by the feds.
John Howard visited the Aboriginal town of Ntaria (Hermannsburg) Tuesday this week.
"We have a simple aim," he told the locals, "and that is whilst respecting a special place of Indigenous people in the history and the life of this country, their future can only be as part of the mainstream of the Australian community.
"But unless they can get a share of the bounty of this great and prosperous country, their future will be bleak."
One can only assume the "special place of Indigenous people in the history and the life of this country" is something to do with continuously re-enacting those bits where land and property are stolen from them. Hard to work out where the "share of the bounty" comes in.
Now, can someone please tell me A) why it is necessary to take over assets owned by Aboriginal groups and RENTING them back to the same group they are being stolen from (let's call it what it is, outright theft!) At a commercial rent (how do you define a commercial rate when there is nothing to compare it to is another matter altogether!)
B) How exactly does this help the children, who are the whole point of the exercise, when all it does is increase the poverty in the community, which any social commentator will tell you WILL increase child abuse?
C) How can J-Ho still say it is all about child abuse with a straight face?
I would say more but I am just too mad right now!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
OK so tell me this...
Today, I got told I did not get a job, a job that they acknowledge I could do quite well, because I was too dynamic. Um, too dynamic? This is a customer interaction role and I am "too dynamic"? WTF?????
Seriously, if you are responding to customer enquiries, and following up on problems they have identified, how can you be "too dynamic"?
Words fail me!!!
Seriously, if you are responding to customer enquiries, and following up on problems they have identified, how can you be "too dynamic"?
Words fail me!!!
Friday, April 13, 2007
OK J HO!!! Enough, already!!!!
This just really gets my goat!!!!
Ban HIV-positive migrants: PM
*
April 13, 2007 - 1:00PM
HIV-positive people should be denied entry to Australia as migrants or refugees, Prime Minister John Howard says.
While saying he would like "more counsel" on the issue, Mr Howard said HIV positive people should not be allowed to migrate to Australia.
"My initial reaction is no (they should not be allowed in)," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
"There may be some humanitarian considerations that could temper that in certain cases but prima facie - no."
Mr Howard said Australia already stopped people with tuberculosis coming in and this was why he supported stopping HIV-positive people as well.
"That's why I say prima facie, my position is no - although there can be some circumstances where there may be a humanitarian reason and under certain conditions for that to occur, but generally speaking - no."
Mr Howard was commenting in response to new Victorian health department figures showing the number of HIV-positive people moving to the state had quadrupled in the past two years.
He said he would look at changing the law to stop HIV-positive people coming to Australia.
"I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that nationwide and I know the health minister (Tony Abbott) is concerned about that and is examining ways of tightening things up and I think people are entitled to be concerned."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ban-hivpositive-migrants-pm/2007/04/13/1175971314887.html
Now, to me I fail to see what the problem is. It is not like HIV positive people are about to run rampant and infect everyone....
Ban HIV-positive migrants: PM
*
April 13, 2007 - 1:00PM
HIV-positive people should be denied entry to Australia as migrants or refugees, Prime Minister John Howard says.
While saying he would like "more counsel" on the issue, Mr Howard said HIV positive people should not be allowed to migrate to Australia.
"My initial reaction is no (they should not be allowed in)," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
"There may be some humanitarian considerations that could temper that in certain cases but prima facie - no."
Mr Howard said Australia already stopped people with tuberculosis coming in and this was why he supported stopping HIV-positive people as well.
"That's why I say prima facie, my position is no - although there can be some circumstances where there may be a humanitarian reason and under certain conditions for that to occur, but generally speaking - no."
Mr Howard was commenting in response to new Victorian health department figures showing the number of HIV-positive people moving to the state had quadrupled in the past two years.
He said he would look at changing the law to stop HIV-positive people coming to Australia.
"I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that nationwide and I know the health minister (Tony Abbott) is concerned about that and is examining ways of tightening things up and I think people are entitled to be concerned."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ban-hivpositive-migrants-pm/2007/04/13/1175971314887.html
Now, to me I fail to see what the problem is. It is not like HIV positive people are about to run rampant and infect everyone....
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
And one last Hicks related post for a while....
You can tell this has really annoyed me can't you....
There is a copy of the plea bargain details "here"
With all the talk of him not revealing any details of the treatment he has already admitted he suffered, what are we to make of "this???"
I feared they'd shoot me, Hicks said before gag
Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent at Guantanamo Bay and AAP
April 3, 2007
DAVID HICKS feared he would be shot if he did not co-operate with US interrogators, the Australian prisoner says in an affidavit for an English court case.
And his Australian lawyer says he was tortured during his time at Guantanamo Bay, contradicting Hicks's plea bargain statement, in which he said he had not been mistreated by the US.
Hicks, who has spent five years in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, last week pleaded guilty to a charge of giving material support to terrorists.
In the plea bargain document, Hicks said: "I have never been illegally treated by any person or persons while in the custody of the United States."
But the ABC's Four Corners last night reported that Hicks had recently signed an affidavit for an English court setting out ill treatment.
"I realised that if I did not cooperate with US interrogators, I might be shot," the ABC quoted Hicks as saying.
In the affidavit Hicks also claims that he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on in Afghanistan, the ABC reported.
He could hear other detainees screaming in pain, saw the marks of their beatings and had a shotgun trained on him during interrogation.
Hicks says in the affidavit that by early 2003, he "felt that I had to ensure that whatever I did pleased the interrogators to keep from being physically abused, placed in isolation and remaining at Guantanamo for the rest of my life", the ABC reported.
He also details twice being taken off a US warship, flown to an unknown location and physically abused by US personnel for a total of 16 hours, although two US investigations have found that claim unsubstantiated.
The allegations were made in a document which was to have been presented to an appeal in London against the British Government's refusal to grant him citizenship.
In this he says he had been repeatedly hit on the back of a head with a rifle, slapped on the head, spat on, kicked, stepped on by troops and punched in the temple. He also claims that a piece of plastic had been forced into his rectum "for no apparent reason".
Hicks's Australian lawyer, David McLeod, made the torture allegation when asked about further interrogations that Hicks has agreed to undergo before he left Guantanamo Bay.
As part of his plea bargain, Hicks signed a document saying he would co-operate "fully, completely and truthfully in post-trial briefings and interviews".
Asked on Sunday about these interviews, Mr McLeod said: "Steps were taken this morning to introduce David to the interrogators here at Guantanamo and there will be a process which will unfold before he leaves. He will be asked to co-operate in a number of issues, but we don't see any problems."
When asked if this would take the same format as his previous interrogations, Mr McLeod said: "Well, hopefully without the torture this time."
His statement was provocative, given that Hicks is still waiting to be transferred to Australia.
Mr McLeod was able to speak more freely than Hicks's American lawyers because he was not a signatory to the plea bargain. Only US lawyers are allowed to represent the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
End quote
Sort of makes a total mockery of what he agreed to in the plea bargain doesn't it? But, do they really want to charge him with perjury, knowing what could come out? I think not!!!!!
There is a copy of the plea bargain details "here"
With all the talk of him not revealing any details of the treatment he has already admitted he suffered, what are we to make of "this???"
I feared they'd shoot me, Hicks said before gag
Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent at Guantanamo Bay and AAP
April 3, 2007
DAVID HICKS feared he would be shot if he did not co-operate with US interrogators, the Australian prisoner says in an affidavit for an English court case.
And his Australian lawyer says he was tortured during his time at Guantanamo Bay, contradicting Hicks's plea bargain statement, in which he said he had not been mistreated by the US.
Hicks, who has spent five years in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, last week pleaded guilty to a charge of giving material support to terrorists.
In the plea bargain document, Hicks said: "I have never been illegally treated by any person or persons while in the custody of the United States."
But the ABC's Four Corners last night reported that Hicks had recently signed an affidavit for an English court setting out ill treatment.
"I realised that if I did not cooperate with US interrogators, I might be shot," the ABC quoted Hicks as saying.
In the affidavit Hicks also claims that he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on in Afghanistan, the ABC reported.
He could hear other detainees screaming in pain, saw the marks of their beatings and had a shotgun trained on him during interrogation.
Hicks says in the affidavit that by early 2003, he "felt that I had to ensure that whatever I did pleased the interrogators to keep from being physically abused, placed in isolation and remaining at Guantanamo for the rest of my life", the ABC reported.
He also details twice being taken off a US warship, flown to an unknown location and physically abused by US personnel for a total of 16 hours, although two US investigations have found that claim unsubstantiated.
The allegations were made in a document which was to have been presented to an appeal in London against the British Government's refusal to grant him citizenship.
In this he says he had been repeatedly hit on the back of a head with a rifle, slapped on the head, spat on, kicked, stepped on by troops and punched in the temple. He also claims that a piece of plastic had been forced into his rectum "for no apparent reason".
Hicks's Australian lawyer, David McLeod, made the torture allegation when asked about further interrogations that Hicks has agreed to undergo before he left Guantanamo Bay.
As part of his plea bargain, Hicks signed a document saying he would co-operate "fully, completely and truthfully in post-trial briefings and interviews".
Asked on Sunday about these interviews, Mr McLeod said: "Steps were taken this morning to introduce David to the interrogators here at Guantanamo and there will be a process which will unfold before he leaves. He will be asked to co-operate in a number of issues, but we don't see any problems."
When asked if this would take the same format as his previous interrogations, Mr McLeod said: "Well, hopefully without the torture this time."
His statement was provocative, given that Hicks is still waiting to be transferred to Australia.
Mr McLeod was able to speak more freely than Hicks's American lawyers because he was not a signatory to the plea bargain. Only US lawyers are allowed to represent the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
End quote
Sort of makes a total mockery of what he agreed to in the plea bargain doesn't it? But, do they really want to charge him with perjury, knowing what could come out? I think not!!!!!
And of course, The Shrub's Supreme Court stacking is now showing too...
Poor America... Land of the free and the home of the brave... Well, you were. Now, the guardians of your constitution, seem willing to allow it to be walked all over, in the name of the war on terror.
Time to start a War on Western Govt's that have lost their way I think...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-inmates-left-in-limbo/2007/04/03/1175366190344.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Guantanamo inmates left in limbo
April 3, 2007 - 6:12AM
The US Supreme Court has decided dozens of Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no right to challenge their detention in a US federal court, handing the Bush administration a major victory for its "war on terror" legal strategy.
Only three of the nine judges on the court said they would be prepared to examine the case, one short of the number required for it to be taken up by justices under their rules of procedure.
The petition was filed on behalf of inmates of the Guantanamo camp in Cuba, who have little prospect of facing formal charges, a tribunal or a return to their home countries.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case left intact a ruling by the Federal Appeals Court for the Washington DC Circuit in February that the inmates had no constitutional right to challenge their detention before federal courts because they were not US citizens or on US soil.
That ruling upheld a law passed last year barring designated "enemy combatants" from challenging their detention in the US court system.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy wrote in a statement that the court should not hear the appeal because other legal options for the detainees had not been exhausted.
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed.
"I believe these questions deserve this court's immediate attention," he wrote.
"If petitioners are right about the law, immediate review may avoid an additional year or more of imprisonment. If they are wrong, our review is nevertheless appropriate to help establish constitutional boundaries."
The decision was greeted with regret by lawyers for inmates at Guantanamo Bay.
"It's tremendously disappointing," said David Cynamon, who represents Kuwaiti detainees.
"It would be my hope that Congress would now recognise that the ball is back in their court to give the detainees some basic rule of law here."
Vincent Warren, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents other detainees, said Bush administration policies on the issue were a "sham".
"The Supreme Court has once more delayed the resolution of the fate of these detainees - three quarters of whom the military admits it will never charge - who have languished without any meaningful way to challenge their detention for more than five years."
The decision was the latest dramatic legal chapter in a fiery debate over the treatment of Guantanamo inmates that brought the "war on terror" into conflict with civil liberties provisions of the US constitution.
Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who is pushing new legislation that would restore basic rights to detainees, said the Supreme Court decision to decline the appeals was "extremely regrettable".
"It would have helped restore America's international credibility with respect to adherence to the rule of law," he said in a statement.
President George W. Bush has designated hundreds of suspected terrorists as "enemy combatants" and the United States has held them in Guantanamo for years without charge, pending appearances before military tribunals.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the tribunals were illegal because they were not authorised by Congress - an omission the then Republican-controlled legislature remedied with legislation passed four months later.
The US government has said it plans to charge around 60 to 80 of those remaining at the camp, including the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks in 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
It has said it plans to send a further 80 back home, leaving more than 200 inmates in legal limbo.
But the remaining detainees held at the US naval base in Guantanamo, which currently has around 385 inmates, argue they were not covered by provisions of the Military Commission Act that barred all suspects from challenging their detention in civilian courts.
The appeals court ruling rebuffed as "nonsense" the detainees' contention that the law had a loophole that allowed them to file so-called habeas corpus petitions that contest detention without formal charges or proof.
The appeals court also rejected the detainees' right to claim that the act violated the US constitution that said habeas corpus could be suspended only in times of rebellion or other extraordinary circumstances.
Time to start a War on Western Govt's that have lost their way I think...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-inmates-left-in-limbo/2007/04/03/1175366190344.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Guantanamo inmates left in limbo
April 3, 2007 - 6:12AM
The US Supreme Court has decided dozens of Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no right to challenge their detention in a US federal court, handing the Bush administration a major victory for its "war on terror" legal strategy.
Only three of the nine judges on the court said they would be prepared to examine the case, one short of the number required for it to be taken up by justices under their rules of procedure.
The petition was filed on behalf of inmates of the Guantanamo camp in Cuba, who have little prospect of facing formal charges, a tribunal or a return to their home countries.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case left intact a ruling by the Federal Appeals Court for the Washington DC Circuit in February that the inmates had no constitutional right to challenge their detention before federal courts because they were not US citizens or on US soil.
That ruling upheld a law passed last year barring designated "enemy combatants" from challenging their detention in the US court system.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy wrote in a statement that the court should not hear the appeal because other legal options for the detainees had not been exhausted.
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed.
"I believe these questions deserve this court's immediate attention," he wrote.
"If petitioners are right about the law, immediate review may avoid an additional year or more of imprisonment. If they are wrong, our review is nevertheless appropriate to help establish constitutional boundaries."
The decision was greeted with regret by lawyers for inmates at Guantanamo Bay.
"It's tremendously disappointing," said David Cynamon, who represents Kuwaiti detainees.
"It would be my hope that Congress would now recognise that the ball is back in their court to give the detainees some basic rule of law here."
Vincent Warren, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents other detainees, said Bush administration policies on the issue were a "sham".
"The Supreme Court has once more delayed the resolution of the fate of these detainees - three quarters of whom the military admits it will never charge - who have languished without any meaningful way to challenge their detention for more than five years."
The decision was the latest dramatic legal chapter in a fiery debate over the treatment of Guantanamo inmates that brought the "war on terror" into conflict with civil liberties provisions of the US constitution.
Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who is pushing new legislation that would restore basic rights to detainees, said the Supreme Court decision to decline the appeals was "extremely regrettable".
"It would have helped restore America's international credibility with respect to adherence to the rule of law," he said in a statement.
President George W. Bush has designated hundreds of suspected terrorists as "enemy combatants" and the United States has held them in Guantanamo for years without charge, pending appearances before military tribunals.
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the tribunals were illegal because they were not authorised by Congress - an omission the then Republican-controlled legislature remedied with legislation passed four months later.
The US government has said it plans to charge around 60 to 80 of those remaining at the camp, including the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks in 2001, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
It has said it plans to send a further 80 back home, leaving more than 200 inmates in legal limbo.
But the remaining detainees held at the US naval base in Guantanamo, which currently has around 385 inmates, argue they were not covered by provisions of the Military Commission Act that barred all suspects from challenging their detention in civilian courts.
The appeals court ruling rebuffed as "nonsense" the detainees' contention that the law had a loophole that allowed them to file so-called habeas corpus petitions that contest detention without formal charges or proof.
The appeals court also rejected the detainees' right to claim that the act violated the US constitution that said habeas corpus could be suspended only in times of rebellion or other extraordinary circumstances.
Does anyone else think the David Hicks deal stinks?
Well, yes, quite a few it seems....
I have been watching this unfold with something like open jawed disbelief. Fortunately I am not alone. Even conservative commentators in America are getting concerned...
Here is what Andrew Sullivan had to say....
"Hicks, Cheney, Howard"
01 Apr 2007 03:41 pm
So Cheney goes to Australia and meets with John Howard who tells him that the Hicks case is killing him in Australia, and he may lose the next election because of it. Hicks's case is then railroaded to the front of the Gitmo kangaro court line, and put through a "legal" process almost ludicrously inept, with two of Hicks' three lawyers thrown out on one day, then an abrupt plea-bargain, with a transparently insincere confession. Hicks is then given a mere nine months in jail in Australia, before being set free. Who negotiated the plea-bargain? Hicks' lawyer. Who did he negotiate with? Not the prosecutors, as would be normal, but Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official. Who is Susan J. Crawford? She served as Dick Cheney's Inspector General while he was Defense Secretary. Money quote:
As the deal developed in recent weeks, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the lead prosecutor for military commissions, and his team on the Hicks case were not in the loop. Davis said he learned about the plea agreement Monday morning when the plea papers were presented to him, and he said the prosecution team was unaware that discussions had been taking place.
"We got it before lunchtime, before the first session," Davis said at a news conference Friday night. In an interview later, he said the approved sentence of nine months shocked him. "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits," he said, referring to a sentence of at least 10 years.
If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is. For good measure, Hicks has a gag-order imposed so that he will not be able to speak of his alleged torture and abuse until after Howard faces re-election. Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn't a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice.
End quote
Now, Andrew may not be the most conservative commentator around, he is moving to the left on a regular basis now it seems. But, he still writes in some right wing publications, and is very well connected in the Republican Party. He was at the love fest where Ann Coulter did that really bad Edwards is a faggot joke that got her in trouble. When he writes what he wrote above, you know it is true, and more importantly, something stinks to high heaven in the land of Gitmo....
Having said that, I love his last paragraph!!!! "If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for." Indeed. Makes you wonder about J Ho and Downer and friends really, doesn't it???
I have been watching this unfold with something like open jawed disbelief. Fortunately I am not alone. Even conservative commentators in America are getting concerned...
Here is what Andrew Sullivan had to say....
"Hicks, Cheney, Howard"
01 Apr 2007 03:41 pm
So Cheney goes to Australia and meets with John Howard who tells him that the Hicks case is killing him in Australia, and he may lose the next election because of it. Hicks's case is then railroaded to the front of the Gitmo kangaro court line, and put through a "legal" process almost ludicrously inept, with two of Hicks' three lawyers thrown out on one day, then an abrupt plea-bargain, with a transparently insincere confession. Hicks is then given a mere nine months in jail in Australia, before being set free. Who negotiated the plea-bargain? Hicks' lawyer. Who did he negotiate with? Not the prosecutors, as would be normal, but Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official. Who is Susan J. Crawford? She served as Dick Cheney's Inspector General while he was Defense Secretary. Money quote:
As the deal developed in recent weeks, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the lead prosecutor for military commissions, and his team on the Hicks case were not in the loop. Davis said he learned about the plea agreement Monday morning when the plea papers were presented to him, and he said the prosecution team was unaware that discussions had been taking place.
"We got it before lunchtime, before the first session," Davis said at a news conference Friday night. In an interview later, he said the approved sentence of nine months shocked him. "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits," he said, referring to a sentence of at least 10 years.
If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is. For good measure, Hicks has a gag-order imposed so that he will not be able to speak of his alleged torture and abuse until after Howard faces re-election. Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn't a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice.
End quote
Now, Andrew may not be the most conservative commentator around, he is moving to the left on a regular basis now it seems. But, he still writes in some right wing publications, and is very well connected in the Republican Party. He was at the love fest where Ann Coulter did that really bad Edwards is a faggot joke that got her in trouble. When he writes what he wrote above, you know it is true, and more importantly, something stinks to high heaven in the land of Gitmo....
Having said that, I love his last paragraph!!!! "If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for." Indeed. Makes you wonder about J Ho and Downer and friends really, doesn't it???
Saturday, March 10, 2007
As if we needed proof that family values are a load of crap...
One of the strongest campaigners in the recent past in the USA, Newt Gingrich, has been caught with his pants down... Literally...
From the Sydney Morning Herald...
Clinton foe Gingrich admits to affair
March 10, 2007 - 8:35AM
Republican Newt Gingrich, who led the US House of Representatives as it prepared to impeach US President Bill Clinton in a sex-and-perjury scandal, acknowledged in an interview that he was having an affair at the time.
Gingrich, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, was asked by James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family whether he was engaged in an extramarital affair when former President Clinton was involved with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"The honest answer is 'yes'," Gingrich said in an interview released on the group's website. "But it's not related to what happened."
The affair has been widely reported previously.
Referring to his efforts as House speaker to oust Clinton, a Democrat, Gingrich said he was not judging the president personally.
"I drew a line in my mind that said even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept felonies and you cannot accept perjury in your highest officials," Gingrich said.
Gingrich stepped down as speaker and quit Congress in 1998 amid ethics allegations and Republican losses in mid-term elections.
Although the House impeached Clinton in December of that year for perjury and obstruction of justice, he was acquitted two months later in a Senate trial.
Gingrich has been married three times. In an often-told story, he discussed divorce details with his first wife, Jacqueline, while she was recovering from cancer surgery.
In 1981, he married Marianne Ginther, and they were divorced in 2000. Later that year he married a young congressional aide, Callista Bisek.
Sometimes, the hypocrisy is just breathtaking!!!!
From the Sydney Morning Herald...
Clinton foe Gingrich admits to affair
March 10, 2007 - 8:35AM
Republican Newt Gingrich, who led the US House of Representatives as it prepared to impeach US President Bill Clinton in a sex-and-perjury scandal, acknowledged in an interview that he was having an affair at the time.
Gingrich, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, was asked by James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family whether he was engaged in an extramarital affair when former President Clinton was involved with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"The honest answer is 'yes'," Gingrich said in an interview released on the group's website. "But it's not related to what happened."
The affair has been widely reported previously.
Referring to his efforts as House speaker to oust Clinton, a Democrat, Gingrich said he was not judging the president personally.
"I drew a line in my mind that said even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept felonies and you cannot accept perjury in your highest officials," Gingrich said.
Gingrich stepped down as speaker and quit Congress in 1998 amid ethics allegations and Republican losses in mid-term elections.
Although the House impeached Clinton in December of that year for perjury and obstruction of justice, he was acquitted two months later in a Senate trial.
Gingrich has been married three times. In an often-told story, he discussed divorce details with his first wife, Jacqueline, while she was recovering from cancer surgery.
In 1981, he married Marianne Ginther, and they were divorced in 2000. Later that year he married a young congressional aide, Callista Bisek.
Sometimes, the hypocrisy is just breathtaking!!!!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
New opera...
Well, I survived the audition I had on Saturday for a professional production of a new opera. It was an interesting experience. They asked us to prepare two pieces, one in English, then only allocate 3 minutes per performer, and warn those of us auditioning at the door that we will probably only get to sing 16 bars of music. Which I sang. And it was not in English... No criticism, no comments, just "thank you, that will be enough". Now, when exactly will you let us know we do or don't have anything? Um... Would have been nice to be told what will happen next?
Apparently I am dreaming to expect such. Seems professional companies tell you less than amateurs. WTF? Mind you, I suspect I will only get a PFO (Please F*** off) but, it would be nice to be told what the next level will be, or when you will hear something from them...
On the same style, I did an interview yesterday for a job. Second round, this time with the company not an agency. Again, no comment as to when to expect to hear, or anything, or if I was going to hear....
Please people!!! Stop leaving supplicants hanging on... It is bad enough waiting, without knowing when you are even going to hear, or if you are going to hear. Telling people what will happen next and an approximate timeline, is just common courtesy I thought... Oh yeah, courtesy... not something common anymore!!!
Apparently I am dreaming to expect such. Seems professional companies tell you less than amateurs. WTF? Mind you, I suspect I will only get a PFO (Please F*** off) but, it would be nice to be told what the next level will be, or when you will hear something from them...
On the same style, I did an interview yesterday for a job. Second round, this time with the company not an agency. Again, no comment as to when to expect to hear, or anything, or if I was going to hear....
Please people!!! Stop leaving supplicants hanging on... It is bad enough waiting, without knowing when you are even going to hear, or if you are going to hear. Telling people what will happen next and an approximate timeline, is just common courtesy I thought... Oh yeah, courtesy... not something common anymore!!!
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Well!!!!!
Talk about coming out of left field!!!!
The Gorgeous One proposed to me last night over a romantic dinner!!! On his knee!!! In a restaurant!!!!
Before I go any further, let me just say.... Would I be posting this if I had not given him a positive answer?
Anyway, no details determined yet. No dates, no site, no idea on ceremony, no rocks purchased, nada... Just had question popped and answer given... Oh, and much imbibing of adult beverages, including a glass on the house from the Restaurant (thank you The Razor's Edge!) and then popping of Cheesemaking Country's quality bubbles. YUM!!!
The best bit? The waitress coming up as The Gorgeous One was still on one knee and asking if he was proposing. Only in Sydney, as they say!!!
Anyway... going off to eat shortly, but, had to put it out there, everywhere!!!
The Gorgeous One proposed to me last night over a romantic dinner!!! On his knee!!! In a restaurant!!!!
Before I go any further, let me just say.... Would I be posting this if I had not given him a positive answer?
Anyway, no details determined yet. No dates, no site, no idea on ceremony, no rocks purchased, nada... Just had question popped and answer given... Oh, and much imbibing of adult beverages, including a glass on the house from the Restaurant (thank you The Razor's Edge!) and then popping of Cheesemaking Country's quality bubbles. YUM!!!
The best bit? The waitress coming up as The Gorgeous One was still on one knee and asking if he was proposing. Only in Sydney, as they say!!!
Anyway... going off to eat shortly, but, had to put it out there, everywhere!!!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Proof (if ir were needed) that J Ho is not serious about going green.....
Some of the Pacific Island countries are losing ground at a rate of knots. No surprise there, they are only just above sea level, and as the climate gets warmer, the polar ice melts, and the sea rises....
So... how does one respond to this? (direct from the Sydney Morning Herald)
Australia refused talks on sea levels, island nation says
Richard Baker
February 20, 2007
THE Prime Minister of a Pacific island nation in danger of being submerged if sea levels rise, Tuvalu, was rejected by his Australian counterpart when he sought a meeting on the topic, senior Tuvalu officials said.
An adviser to the Tuvalu Government's environment department, Ian Fry, said the Tuvalu Prime Minister, Maatia Toafa, requested a meeting with John Howard at the Pacific Islands Forum in Fiji in October to discuss the climate change crisis facing the country, but was denied.
Mr Fry, an environmental law expert at the Australian National University, said: "It's unfathomable to me as to why they don't want to discuss it."
A senior Tuvalu Government source said it was the second time in six years that Australia had refused such requests. "Tuvalu has been seeking bilateral dialogue at prime ministerial level with Australia but more than twice now we have been turned away," he said.
Neither Mr Howard's office nor the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade yesterday responded to questions on the claims. In November a senior foreign affairs official told a Senate estimates hearing that Australia had never been approached by any Pacific island government to make arrangements for its people to come to Australia due to rising sea levels.
A high-ranking official from another vulnerable island nation, Kiribati, said his country had also considered approaching Australia to discuss population relocation but decided such action would be futile because the Howard Government was "not sympathetic to the issue".
Pacific nations such as Tuvalu and Kiribati could become uninhabitable within decades due to rising sea levels, reduced rainfall and more extreme weather events.
Tuvalu and Kiribati government officials, who wished to remain anonymous, said Australia had a record of softening the language used on the issue of climate change in recent regional communiques.
"Australia either effectively blocks discussion on the issue those times where it can and plays a deaf partner in the circumstances that it can't," the Kiribati official said.
Documents from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet state that although Australia would assist its Pacific neighbours, there was no such thing as an "environmental refugee" because it is not a category under the Refugee Convention.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/australia-refused-talks-on-sea-levels-island-nation-says/2007/02/19/1171733684529.html
So... how does one respond to this? (direct from the Sydney Morning Herald)
Australia refused talks on sea levels, island nation says
Richard Baker
February 20, 2007
THE Prime Minister of a Pacific island nation in danger of being submerged if sea levels rise, Tuvalu, was rejected by his Australian counterpart when he sought a meeting on the topic, senior Tuvalu officials said.
An adviser to the Tuvalu Government's environment department, Ian Fry, said the Tuvalu Prime Minister, Maatia Toafa, requested a meeting with John Howard at the Pacific Islands Forum in Fiji in October to discuss the climate change crisis facing the country, but was denied.
Mr Fry, an environmental law expert at the Australian National University, said: "It's unfathomable to me as to why they don't want to discuss it."
A senior Tuvalu Government source said it was the second time in six years that Australia had refused such requests. "Tuvalu has been seeking bilateral dialogue at prime ministerial level with Australia but more than twice now we have been turned away," he said.
Neither Mr Howard's office nor the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade yesterday responded to questions on the claims. In November a senior foreign affairs official told a Senate estimates hearing that Australia had never been approached by any Pacific island government to make arrangements for its people to come to Australia due to rising sea levels.
A high-ranking official from another vulnerable island nation, Kiribati, said his country had also considered approaching Australia to discuss population relocation but decided such action would be futile because the Howard Government was "not sympathetic to the issue".
Pacific nations such as Tuvalu and Kiribati could become uninhabitable within decades due to rising sea levels, reduced rainfall and more extreme weather events.
Tuvalu and Kiribati government officials, who wished to remain anonymous, said Australia had a record of softening the language used on the issue of climate change in recent regional communiques.
"Australia either effectively blocks discussion on the issue those times where it can and plays a deaf partner in the circumstances that it can't," the Kiribati official said.
Documents from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet state that although Australia would assist its Pacific neighbours, there was no such thing as an "environmental refugee" because it is not a category under the Refugee Convention.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/australia-refused-talks-on-sea-levels-island-nation-says/2007/02/19/1171733684529.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)