Death of Democracy - Indeed - but the Murderers were the ones who were disrupting Parliament

Today  - the protestors in Parliament were protesting the so-called "death of democracy".

Indeed.

But the Murderers of Democracy were the very people proclaiming the Death of Democracy -  themselves!

They were the ones who were disrupting Parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-12/protesters-disrupt-question-time/3553864

Is that too harsh?

Just ask yourself, what would the Conservative side of politics and the Far Right supporters of the Nationals and Tony Abbot and the Climate-Change Deniers say if the Parliament had been disrupted by so-called "long-haired hippies", OR Lesbians and Gays protesting inaction on Gay Marriage, or any other Left Wing cause?

Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and other demagogues would probably be screaming "Shame, Shame, Shame", from their microphones.

But will they denounce these disruptive practices in the Media tonight and tomorrow? We shall hear, tomorrow morning.

• Is that the sound of silence I hear?

I note the involvement of the previous "Convoy of No Confidence" organiser (which rally had the support of Alan Jones).

This is part of what The Australian's website tells us:

• "About 80 protesters chanted 'democracy is dead' and 'no mandate'.
• "They included Peter Madden, who helped organise the anti-carbon tax Convoy of No Confidence in August.There were two teams of protesters, seated on each side of the lower house chamber.They stood up one group at a time to disrupt Ms Gillard as she attempted to answer a question from a Liberal MP.
• The protesters were escorted from the chamber by security guards but could still be heard as they left the public area."

My only comment to the protestors today - look in your own mirror!

You and only you distrupted the Parliament of Australia.

Comments authorised by Denis Wilson

Robertson NSW 2577

Enrolled voter in the electorate of Throsby.

I am posting a link to this page on Stephen Jones's Facebook page. He is the Member for Throsby.

Poking holes in the Pokies bullshit Debate.

Personal declaration:
I HATE POKER MACHINES AND THE GAMBLING ADDICTION THEY FOSTER.

Consequently, I gagged when Virginia Trioli failed to interrogate Helen Coonan last night on QandA, when she weighed in to the Poker Machine Debate without declaring her obvious conflict of interest - as a person who has accepted a recent offer to join the Board of James Packer's Crown Ltd, owners of the Melbourne's Crown Casino.

I do hope Jonathan Holmes takes Virginia Trioli to task for that screamingly obvious lapse of standards - next week on Media Watch

Today I am pleased to note that Crikey has put together a list of many more such omissions of declarations of conflict of interest. In honour of Stephen Mayne's excellent work on this subject, I am quoting it, our of respect.

1. The conflicts of interest muddying the anti-pokies campaign

Stephen Mayne writes:

Jenny Macklin, the federal minister responsible for implementing the pokies deal with Andrew Wilkie, is complaining that the industry is refusing to offer up any venues that will trial a mandatory pre-commitment system with $1 maximum bets. Jenny, ask your own party in Canberra. The Canberra Labor Club operates about 500 machines in the ACT and it represents the single largest investment asset owned directly by an ALP branch. Labor’s role as the only major political party in the world that fundraises through operating gambling venues is just one of many conflicts of interest which dominate the pokies reform debate. Here are a few other favourites: Jeff Kennett: As The Australian reported today, the outgoing Hawthorn president is obviously conflicted in defending AFL clubs operating several thousand machines given his chairmanship of Beyond Blue and the known connection between depression and problem gambling. Kennett is further conflicted by his paid gig as chairman of Amtek, a private company aiming to becoming one of the biggest service providers to Victorian pokies venues after Tabcorp and Tattersall’s are kicked out of the system in August next year. Colin Carter: The Geelong president has come out supporting the Wilkie reform package, even though he is seemingly conflicted as a Wesfarmers director given the retailing giant operates close to 2000 machines across Australia. Richard Goyder: The Wesfarmers CEO is in a similar position after it was announced yesterday he would join the AFL Commission in November just as Andrew Demetriou was inaccurately claiming the proposed federal reforms would see AFL club gaming revenue fall by between 20% and 40%. This excludes the windfall gains Colin Carter has pointed to courtesy of many clubs picking up 10 years entitlements for a pittance in the Brumby’s government’s botched pokies auction. News Ltd: Heavily conflicted given that it relies on pokies at NRL club venues to try and stem future losses on its 50% investment in the NRL which has so far cost it more than $500 million with little prospect of any recovery, save for the profits enjoyed on the NRL broadcasting side of the equation through Fox Sports and Foxtel. Eddie McGuire: Conflicted through his brother Frank being a Victorian Labor MP and also from his history as the man who took Collingwood heavily into the pokies. Eddie also has a history as a gambling entrepreneur through a failed footy tipping joint venture with Tattersall’s 10 years ago which was sanctioned by the Bracks Labor government in Victoria. Also paid millions each year by Channel Nine, which is the rights holder for the NRL and open to pressure from Clubs Australia. Roger Corbett: The Fairfax Media chairman is conflicted as it was his controversial decision to take Australia's biggest retailer into the joint venture with Bruce Mathieson which made it the biggest pokies operator in Australia with about 12,000 machines. It is also the biggest manager of venues for AFL clubs through secret management agreements . Corbett is involved in other non-pokies ventures with Mathieson and retains an interest in Woolworths shares. However, anyone who read The Australian Financial Review’s strong editorial endorsement of pokies reform today should be comforted that the Fairfax tradition of directors not influencing editorial remains in place. Andrew Bolt: News Ltd’s most widely read and powerful columnist was the man who kicked off the bogus line about the AFL joining the anti-pokies campaign in this September 21 column in the Herald Sun. He is clearly conflicted courtesy of being on the payroll of MTR owner John Singleton, the pokies venue owner who came up with the "licence to punt" advertising campaign for Clubs Australia as we explained here and here. Helen Coonan: The recently retired Liberal Senator Helen Coonan was conflicted on Q&A last night as she expressed doubts over whether mandatory pre-commitment would work while failing to state that she last month accepted an offer to join the board of James Packer’s Crown Ltd on a package worth more than $100,000 a year. This will involve attending seven board meetings a year, plus some additional committee work. Karl Bitar: Coonan’s colleague at Crown was appointed head of government relations in May on a generous six figure salary sanctioned directly by billionaire James Packer. Bitar is calling in favours from various NSW federal Labor MPs that he supported through pre-selection in his previous roles at the top of the NSW and federal ALP machines. Bitar showed off his pulling power with various right wing Labor heavyweights in a piece published by The AFR in June. Daryl Melham: The federal Labor MP for Banks is chairman of the Revesby Workers Club which operates more than 500 pokies and has bankrolled and provided resources for numerous Labor candidates across all tiers of government, according to The Australian today. As with any public debate, the challenge here will be getting participants to put all their cards on the table and declare these conflicts as they arise. So far, such declarations have been few and far between. ****** Right on, Stephen. Denis Wilson

Babcock and Brown - SOME WINNERS - most are losers

This post is in honour of the nameless Robertson resident who was once a Director of Babcock and Brown.

• There will be a few happy faces this morning after the settlement of liquidator Deloitte's $160 million damages action against the directors and auditor of Babcock & Brown, the whizz-bang financier that collapsed in 2008, wiping out $12 billion of creditors' and shareholders' funds. 
• Happiest of all will be B&B's co-founder Phil Green, who won't have to dig into his pocket to pay any of the estimated $25 million to $30 million damages awarded in the confidential settlement.

Read more of that story here.

In case you cannot be induced to visit that site - here are the punch line(s)

• Those who have less reason to be cheerful include B&B's noteholders, the key remaining creditors, who are still owed $620 million. They'll be lucky to get 2 cents in the dollar, if our calculations are right.

• And there's still the small matter of the other $11.38 billion that B&B managed to vaporize. Plus, whatever happened to ASIC's investigation?

Ain't it marvellous how some people can keep on tip-toeing all the way, just ahead of the disaster and pain they cause to others?

Thanks to Paul Barry and his new e-publication The Power Index.

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.
Why?

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: <climatepublic@climatechange.gov.au>
Date: Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Subject: [Climatepublic] I heard your email
To: climatepublic@climatechange.gov.au

www.DriveSafe.ly 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

www.enactenergy.com.au

______________________________________________________________________
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"
www.peonyden.blogspot.com

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."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/12/3215027.htm

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: http://misseaglesnetwork.blogspot.com

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.

• http://interruptingthesilence.com/2011/05/02/the-works-of-my-hands-thoughts-on-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

And even better is this one:

• Whose Death Does God Cheer?by Jimmy Spencer Jr. Monday, May 2nd, 2011

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".
Wrong.
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.

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?

Edit

In case you think that everybody is shouting and cheering, in America, I am pleased to say that not everybody there is totally mad.

http://interruptingthesilence.com/2011/05/02/the-works-of-my-hands-thoughts-on-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden/

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.