Sunday, 29 May 2011

Fwd: Can you believe this Pretentious Git?

Can you believe this Pretentious Git?

This was forwarded to me by the PR staff of Greg Combet.

Who gives a shit about Danny Morgan being "wired for sound".
I didn't email him.
I don't care what he thinks.

Who is trying to impress whom?

Greg Combet ought sack the staffer responsible for this stuff-up.

Denis Wilson

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <>
Date: Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Subject: [Climatepublic] I heard your email
To: read it to me.I will get back to you soon.
Sent from Danny's Blackberry
Kind Regards

Danny Morgan
Managing Director
Enact Energy Pty Limited
Suite 407, 15 Lime Street
King Street Wharf
Sydney NSW 2000

T: +61 (2) 8239 8861
M: +61 434 270 226
F: +61 (2) 9279 1378

IMPORTANT: This message, and any attachments to it, contains information
that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal professional or
other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you
must not review, copy, disseminate or disclose its contents to any other
party or take action in reliance of any material contained within it. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
return email informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of the
message from your computer system.

Denis Wilson
"The Nature of Robertson"

Thursday, 12 May 2011

chief executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Rob Freeman, has resigned.

Newsflash from ABC News

"The chief executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Rob Freeman, has resigned.

Federal Water Minister Tony Burke says Mr Freeman will finish in the job on June 1 and become commissioner of the National Water Commission.

He will be replaced at the authority by Rhondda Dickson, the current deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry."

My personal opinion is that:
  1. everyone who opposed Craig Knowles' "Crash through or crash" approach is getting the hell out of there.
  2. Looks more and more likely that there will be a Irrigator Appeasement Policy in the MDBA, following the massive publicity they attracted to the Draft Plan.
  3. Good bye Ramsar Wetlands, etc.
  4. Tony Burke will be happy, as at least he will have "A Plan" - the fact that it will probably return to just a trickle for the River Red Gums and Wetlands is not important to him, for River Red Gums and Wetlands do not burn books on Television.

I sent that notice out privately, and got a request from my Blogging collaborator, Miss Eagle that I post it here.

Her comment is as follows:
  1. Please put this on The Body Politic.
  2. I was surprised that Freeman had not gone earlier. Perhaps remained to provide continuity after Mike leaving. Perhaps because he is a public servant.
  3. Why is he going to the National Water Commission? Is this a backhanded exit, needed to do some good while at the same time allowing Knowles a personal appointment. It need not mean an actual clash with Knowles - it could just mean that Knowles wants his own person in there. So what is special then about Dickson?

Brigid aka "Miss Eagle"
The Network:

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Osama's execution illegal and bad policy

I have already stated my opinions on this troublesome issue - the manner of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and the disposal of the "corpse" (without verification of the true identity of the person killed).

Now some others have joined the chorus of disapproval.
Geoffrey Robertson, no less, has come out today to say much of the same, and far more eloquently than I managed.

"Bin Laden's summary execution maketh the man, martyr and myth"
Geoffrey Robertson
May 4, 2011
I urge you to read the full article.

Robertson says:
  • "The US resembles the land of the munchkins as it celebrates the death of the wicked witch of the East. The joy is understandable but, to many outsiders, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination ordered by a president who, as a former law professor, knows the absurdity of his statement that "justice was done".
  • "Amoral diplomats and triumphant politicians join in applauding the summary execution of Osama bin Laden because they claim that real justice - arrest, trial and sentence - would have been too difficult in the case of public enemy No. 1. But should it not at least have been attempted?"
Robertson argues:
  • "Bin Laden could not have been tried for the attacks on the twin towers at the International Criminal Court, since its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the United Nations Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict that would have convinced the Arab street of his guilt.
  • "This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature - never more to be remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man."
 and follows on with this interesting comment:
  • "When the time came to consider the fate of men more steeped in wickedness than bin Laden - the Nazi leaders - the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. The president Harry Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution "would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride … the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear".
  • "He insisted upon judgment at Nuremberg, which has confounded Holocaust-deniers ever since. Killing bin Laden instead of capturing him was a missed opportunity to prove this charismatic leader was a vicious criminal, who deserved to die in prison, not as a martyr to his inhuman cause."
Thanks to Brigid for pointing me to this article.

There were two links I added in yesterday to two sites, both American and both Christian, which expressed disgust at the way America was celebrating the death.
And even better is this one:
This story has a long way to run.
Already the Americans have contradicted early reports of cooperation of the Palkistan Government.
And what of the "wife" who was reported to have been present in the room?
She was supposedly used as a shield by the "coward Osama".
She was supposedly killed. Wrong.
If not killed, then was she captured? Where is she now - is she a prisoner of the Americans? If so, where?
She might not even have been a woman.

The longer the Americans take to "get their story straight" the worse this whole debacle looks for them.

And here is a Leunig cartoon which perfectly sums up the situation.
From circulation on Facebook. 
Not sure about Copyright issues - please forgive me, Michael.

Monday, 2 May 2011

Murder of Osama bin Laden

Lets not kid around with "soft words" - Osama bin Laden has apparently been murdered by the Americans.
Their President has said so.

While in no sense do I propose to "stick up for" (support) Osama bin Laden - was his murder justified?

I mean that in a legal sense - was it "just" - as in the meaning of the word "justice".

Firstly, it was a foreign intrusion into the sovereign territory of Pakistan.
Was that authorised? Probably not.
Do the Americans care about such niceties? Probably not.
How do we know for sure that the person killed was Osama bin Laden, not some tall bearded person of Arabian style and breeding?
Make no mistake the Americans are perfectly capable of killing a "look alike" person of Arabic features, to justify their actions - for their political advantage.
The Americans claim that he has been identified by DNA analysis, comparing the "victims" DNA with a sample of the blood of  a female relative of ObL apparenly living in the USA.

The body has apparently been buried at sea.
I can see lots of reasons for not holding him as  a prisoner, nor for holding his body, lest it become a reason for pilgrimage, or adulation.
However, a burial at sea, is awfully convenient - simply because the story is unverifiable.


Personally, I have believed for some time that ObL was very likely killed in the Tora Bora caves, years ago, in a huge American bombardment.

In my view it suited the Americans to keep the myth of ObL alive - to give them a reason to progress the "War on Terror".

Then the Americans discovered that Aljazeera was being used very successfully by the Islamists to perpetuate the "myth" of ObL's leadership.

Eventually the Americans had to get rid of him, and they have done so now (apparently) in a manner both illegal and immoral.
Worse it is unverifiable.


If we condemn Israel for unauthorised assassination of their enemies (as we do), how does this differ - in any legal sense?

If we condemn terrorism, how does this action differ, in any legal sense?

And, on a cultural basis, how does brutal hysterical rejoicing (on the streets of America) at the news of the killing differ from the kind of uncivilised behaviour people attribute to uncivilised societies?

Is the celebration of this murder going to convince any Islamists that everything they have been told about "The Great Satan" (America) is wrong?

In case you think that everybody is shouting and cheering, in America, I am pleased to say that not everybody there is totally mad.
And even better is this one:
Whose Death Does God Cheer?by Jimmy Spencer Jr. Monday, May 2nd, 2011

Thanks to Brigid for those links.