Who writes this rubbish in the Environment column of the SMH?

Pls read this - there will be a quiz afterwards.

Polar power: vast oil find in Arctic

(SMH website - 24 July 2008)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/polar-power-vast-oil-find-in-arctic/2008/07/24/1216492601519.html

Is it a new oil find?

Sounds like it, doesn't it?

---

"The resources account for about 22 per cent of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in the world," the USGS said, meaning the estimated volume is not added to the world's known recoverable resources"

Is that: "NOT ADDED TO THE WORLD'S KNOWN RECOVERABLE RESOURCES "???

or

Is that: "NOW ADDED TO THE WORLD'S KNOWN RECOVERABLE RESOURCES "???

If it is "NOT ADDED", then what is the point of the story? It ain't "new oil".

---

"The majority of the undiscovered 90 billion barrels of crude oil, USGS experts estimate, are lying in Alaska, where 30 billion are hiding, Russia's Barents Basins, East and West Greenland and East Canada."

(These must be the "know unknowns" Donald Rumsfeld told us about).

---

"By comparison, US oil reserves stand at 22 billion barrels, and its production level at 1.6 billion barrels a year. Around the world, proven oil reserves stand at a record 1.24 trillion barrels. Production is stable but consumption, 30 billion barrels a day, is on the rise".

---

If any of this means anything, America has a reserve of 13.75 years worth of production (unlikely in the extreme)

But America's reserves are less than one days worth of international consumption - 17.6 hours worth to be precise.

The "new find" will last 3 days (90 Billion/30 billion consumption per day).

---

Who writes this stuff (or supposedly "edits" it for the Herald, as it is sourced from AFP) ???

Pope's Secret meeting with victims insults the other victims

The Pope held a private mass attended by four victims of s*xual abuse. Trouble is these hand-picked people were all compliant, and had been appeased by the processes of the Church.
What does that say to the hundred and thousands of others, whose complaints have not been addressed by the Church, or worse, whose legal claims have been defended on narrow legalistic bases? What about them?

"The church's NSW director of professional standards, Michael Salmon, said he had chosen them after a request "a number of weeks ago" because they had been through the church's internal processes, had achieved a level of healing, and would be comfortable attending Mass.

None had pursued civil legal actions but one had pursued criminal charges. All were abused as minors - one by a lay person in a school context and the rest by priests."

Source: news.com.au

As Greg Barnes in crikey.com.au says today:

As Andrew Morrison SC, who acted for Ellis, told the High Court, in effect the Catholic Church "in New South Wales and the ACT has so structured itself as to be immune from suit other than in respect of strictly property matters for all claims of abuse, neglect or negligence, including claims against teachers in parochial schools at least prior to 1986. That immunity, they say, extends to the present day in respect of the parochial duties of priests. We say that such immunity would be an outrage to any reasonable sense of justice and we say it is wrong in law."

Barnes continues:

"But the issue here is should the Church and Cardinal Pell have played legal hardball with a s-x abuse victim in the first place, and having been successful in their legal strategy, will they do the same thing again?

"If Pope Benedict’s apology is to mean something more than platitudes, then Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church should stop hiding behind their expensive lawyers’ tactics and immediately apologise and compensate John Ellis for the abuse he suffered at the hands of the Church."

In the opinion of this blogger, the manner of the selection of appeased victims says it all - it is not designed to solve anything (for arguably the people who were invited have already been "healed" (supposedly). The problem for the Church is precisely with the people whose wounds have not been healed.

Clearly active, articulate persons like the Foster family were deliberately excluded, because the Church recognised it could not handle them. So, the mass, as a healing process, was a sham.

As the final act of World Youth Day, this act debases and demeans any achievements of the whole WYD process. It confirms WYD to be nothing more than a Tourist Promotion exercise for Sydney and a shallow and meaningless PR Stunt for the Catholic Church.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Vale, Vile Mark Vaile

Vale to the vile and valueless Mark Vaile MP, (former) Minister for Trade who delivered Australia into the waiting arms of American corporations. He has today declared that he will resign from the seat of Lyne, in NSW.When working on the campaign to oppose the pumping of the Kangaloon Aquifer, I have realised that there are no less than 4 multinational companies who have been swarming around this project, like blowflies around a road-killed Wombat. Why? It is a tiny borefield.

The answer is,. because Mark Vaile made it possible for them to do so.
Water is included in the Australia:America Free Trade Agreement.

Veolia/Vivendi already have their hooks into the Desal Plant in Sydney.
Parsons Brinkerhoff, have their own man positioned within the Sydney Catchment Authority, where he has had principal carriage of this proposal.
Coffey International did the early modelling for the proposed borefield.
URS have done the drilling log reading, and measured all the bores and springs of the local farmers.
And KBR have suddenly appeared at the end of the proposal, and put to together the Environment Assessment which has been submitted to Frank Sartor for approval.

The three largest of these companies could buy and sell the entire economy of NSW. And that is not to mention the generous donations to Party Funds which have already been made by some of them.

This is Kangaloon - a tiny district in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales.
And here we are, a tiny local lobby group, up against companies which by and sell countries (and if they don't like you, they will run a little war against you!
That is the contribution to Australian life delivered by one Mark Vaile MP.
Good riddance to him.

"no intelligible boundary" on what "causes annoyance".

One up for the "No to Pope" group. They have tested the law about which I drew attention last week - the regulations governing World Youth Day.

As the Fairfax Press website reports:

• Annoyance clause invalid

• The judges said that the interpretation of clause 7.1 of the act, which allowed regulation of conduct deemed to be a cause of "annoyance", was invalid because it "affects freedom of speech in a way that, in our opinion, is not supported by the statutory powers".

• There was "no intelligible boundary" on what "causes annoyance".

Amen to that!

It is yet another embarrassment to the Iemma Government, although, in truth John Watkins ought carry the can for this. Even I could see that you could have driven a truck through those stupidly worded Regulations. I am glad that the court has ruled against the "annoyance" provisions.

"Human rights – a privilege. Not guaranteed." - David Hicks

David Hicks appears to be a master of understatement.

 

In a report in the Sunday Mail, today (as quoted in news.com.au) David Hicks is quoted as saying:

"Human rights – a privilege. Not guaranteed."

Well, of all people, he is one of the best qualified to make that statement.

 

Fw: Papal visit - outrageous regulations

I decided a long time ago that I would not go to Sydney to see the Pope.
I am over Popes, to be truthful.

However, that was before these outrageous Regulations were promulgated, last week.

It is modelled on the APEC legislation - the laws which brought us the arrest of the Chaser team, and then the subsequent expensive and embarrassing dropping of charges against them.

---

Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made

the following Regulation under the World Youth Day Act 2006.

World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008

under the

World Youth Day Act 2006

JOHN WATKINS, M.P.,

Deputy Premier

25 June 2008

---

World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008

Explanatory note

(f) empowers police officers and authorised members of the State Emergency Service and

the Rural Fire Service to direct a person within a World Youth Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that is a risk to the safety of the person or others, causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event or obstructs

a World Youth Day event (proposed clause 7 (1)), and

(g) makes it an offence (carrying a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, currently $5,500) to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with such a direction (proposed clause 7 (2)), and

---

World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008

under the

World Youth Day Act 2006

7 Control of conduct within World Youth Day declared areas

(1) An authorised person may direct a person within a World Youth

Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that:

(a) is a risk to the safety of the person or others, or

(b) causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a

World Youth Day event, or

(c) obstructs a World Youth Day event.

(2) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply

with a direction given to the person under subclause (1).

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this clause unless it is

established that the authorised person warned the person that a

failure to comply with the direction is an offence.

WORLD YOUTH DAY ACT 2006

Order under Section 3A

(World Youth Day declared areas)

I, ROY WAKELIN-KING, Chief Executive Officer of the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority, in accordance with

the functions under section 3A of the World Youth Day Act 2006 ("the WYD Act") that the Deputy Premier and Minister

administering the WYD Act has delegated to me under section 51A of the WYD Act by Instrument of Delegation dated 29 May 2008, and having determined that certain areas are required for hosting a World Youth Day event, or for the provision

of services in relation to a World Youth Day event, hereby DESIGNATE each area specified in Schedule A hereunder to be

a "World Youth Day declared area".

WORLD YOUTH DAY ACT 2006

Order under Section 46

(Control of sale and distribution of articles in certain public places)

I, ROY WAKELIN-KING, Chief Executive Officer of the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority ("the Authority"),

in accordance with the functions under section 46 of the World Youth Day Act 2006 ("the WYD Act") that the Deputy

Premier and Minister administering the WYD Act has delegated to me under section 51A of the WYD Act by Instrument of Delegation dated 29 May 2008 and having consulted with the Council of the City of Sydney in respect of land within the City of Sydney to which this order applies hereby SPECIFY:

1. each area described in Part 1 of Schedule A hereunder, excluding any part of the area described in Part 3 of Schedule A hereunder, to be "an Authority controlled area" for the purposes of section 46 of the WYD Act; and

2. each public place, or any part of a public place, that is within 500 metres of a transport facility or interchange or a World Youth Day venue or facility, being a public place, or part of a public place, that is shown on a map referred to in Part 2 of Schedule A hereunder, excluding any part of the public place described in Part 3 of Schedule A

hereunder, to be an "Authority controlled area" for the purposes of section 46 of the WYD Act.

---

If I go I will wear a T-shirt with the following logo (on the front)

and photo (on the rear).

Surely a defence of truthfulness would get me over the narrow definition of "causing annoyance to participants in a World Youth Day event".

If not, I would love the opportunity to defend myself in court.

The photo is real, not faked up. Taken at Castel Gandolfo (Pope's Summer Residence) outside Rome, 8 September 1968.

It is a photo of me being introduced to Pope Paul VI, and about to kiss his ring.

---

Something to think about, eh?

Not many people could wear this T-shirt with it being "offensive", gratuitous or annoying to Pilgrims. It is almost too good an opportunity to resist.