Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s comments ‘slamming’ Qantas for the action it took shows that she is economically inept with no comprehension of how commercial enterprise functions and little understanding of the judicial functioning of Fair Work Australia.
If she is unable to understand these matters, is it any wonder that she is unable to comprehend the effect of the Carbon Tax legislation.
Qantas’s position was simple. The ‘uncertainty’ which she claims to want to end for business by introducing a Carbon Tax is the same ‘uncertainty’ faced by Qantas which was faced with increased loss of customers unwilling to risk booking with the company for fear of continuing threats and industrial disruption.
Alan Joyce was right in that Qantas had the choice of dying a death of a thousand cuts while the company slid deeper into losses and possible collapse at the hands of the totally irrational and irresponsible Tony Sheldon or to take a stand to end the dispute and force a resolution.
For Gillard to say that Qantas could have taken the same action that the Government belatedly took is a nonsense. Technically, yes, but in a practical sense that would not have resolved the issue, with the unions and Qantas arguing their case with FWA in isolation and with the likely outcome of only a suspension of the dispute, which would not have removed the uncertainty.
Qantas’s aggressive action ensured that the various governments were forced to intervene in support, which Gillard had shown she was incapable of doing.
With so many high profile ex Union heavyweights in the Labor cabinet and the possibilty of a cabinet backlash, it is little wonder that Gillard was paralysed be fear of taking responsible action to end the dispute without being forced to do so.
Loved Ali Moore’s Lateline interview with Wayne Swan yesterday.
Following our world esteemed super Treasurer’s advice on how to fix the EU financial crisis without any specific measures, Ali Moore asked for specifics and got nothing other than vague comments which any student doing HSC economics could have given, except that the student may have made more sense.
Here are Wayne Swan’s comments on how to specifically fix the EU problem. Full interview at this site:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3341922.htm (not linked – copy & paste)
ALI MOORE: Can you give us some detail on exactly what that package will look like or what it needs to look like, in your view?
WAYNE SWAN: Well that’s a matter entirely for European leaders, but I think what it does need to do is to instil confidence in markets. But it’s entirely a matter for the European ministers to talk about what they intend to do via their leaders this weekend.
Great answer Wayne! You certainly have you finger on the pulse. Incisive, direct and a great intellectual input. The EU leaders should know what to do from here on.
ALI MOORE: But when you were at this meeting surely if you were urging them to come up with a resolution, there was also a discussion about what that resolution would look like, because there’s been plenty of talk over a very long period.
WAYNE SWAN: Sure.
Another great answer Wayne! Very specific; right to the point; with that advice the EU leaders should be able to come up with a fix for the problems within days!
ALI MOORE: It’s the detail that counts. So in your mind, what does that detail need to be? What does this package need to include?
WAYNE SWAN: Well it needs to include a sizable facility to assist a European financial stability facility, so it needs more resources in that area. That is a – that’s on the public record and that view has been expressed by ministers.
There does need to be a resolution in terms of Greece. That is very much on the public record. These are short-term issues. There are long-term issues of fiscal consolidation, getting their finances in shape. All of these things are part of the architecture of a comprehensive response that people want to see from the Europeans this coming weekend.
Fantastic Wayne! Really gets to the heart of the problem and has laid out a comprehensive plan for success. No wonder you are the World’s best Treasurer – or did you get that title because of Australia’s natural resources, China’s booming economy and the financial state of the nation resulting from Costello’s work?
If only we had 10 Wayne Swan’s in the government.
With the leaks from Cabinet, PM Gillard is putting her foot down with a hard fist. She will pull them all into line. But wait, there is more!
If someone is intent on leaking, what can she or any of the other Cabinet Ministers do? Nothing really!
They can’t dismiss the Minister because that could lead to that person shifting to the cross benches or even quitting parliament and the Labour Government would lose it’s majority and lose its right to govern. All they can do is to say ‘naughty person’ and wear with it.
Live with it Julia. What goes around, comes around.
Don’t you just love the highly paid executives of business and especially power companies.
Today they are claiming that Abbott’s threat to dismantle the carbon tax legislation when elected will increase power costs. Why and how will this occur? Because of uncertainty!
These highly paid executives claim that uncertainty will delay future investment and this will be reflected in increases in the cost of power.
Of course these same executives don’t care if there is a carbon tax, because they will pay the tax but will simply add the increased costs to the price the consumers will pay for power. A carbon tax has no effect on them. All it does is to increase the cost to the consumer.
Uncertainty may affect deliberations of investment if they were required to pay a tax but not increase in selling price, but that is not the case. They have lived with uncertainty for a number of years while the Labour party has laboured over Rudd and Gillard’s ‘to tax or not to tax- that was the question’ but there is no uncertainty.
If they have to pay a carbon tax they add the cost to the selling price price – cost neutral to the power companies.
If the carbon tax is repealed there is no added cost. Again, cost neutral to the power companies.
Why would the ‘uncertainty’ cause a delay in investment if it is cost neutral?
The highly paid executives have no interest in the general public. Their sole objective is to make the highest profits possible regardless of its effect on ordinary Australians. Increased power charges will have little impact on these executives but will impact heavily on lower income families.
September 14th, 2011 · No Comments
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 we are being bombarded in the media with regurgitation of events and are encouraged to participate in America’s pre-occupation with the tragedy, as if it was the only mass killing of people and the only terrorist event in history.
Whilst we feel sorry for the death of the innocent and the pain and anguish of those who lost family and friends, why are we not having the same commemorative intensity for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and needlessly killed by the American war machine in pursuit of world dominance under the name of democracy?
Under CIA direction, the USA mercilessly bombed the innocent peasants of Laos and Cambodia and kept it secret from the world. It has fought wars against the uprising of suppressed people and financed and supported corrupt dictators in the name of democracy.
2977 innocent people died on 9/11. More US soldiers have died in the war on terror since 9/11 than died on 9/11. As at today, 4442 US soldiers have die in Iraq and 1584 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died as ‘collateral damage’ in Iraq & Afghanistan in the name of ‘war on terror’.
The US has fared badly in post WW II wars including a 50/50 draw in Korea; the secret war in Laos, where the US got belted and pushed out; in the ignominious defeat in Vietnam, and they were beaten back in Somalia by tribes armed with sticks and stones. Is it any wonder that some have at best, a dislike’ and at worst, a hatred of the USA?
The USA has become pre-occupied with George W Bush’s “war on terror”. It is as if terror is the latest fad which has never happened before. In the US psyche, terror didn’t exist before 9/11. The US appears not to have known about terror before 9/11, but then that is not surprising because American politicians and Americans generally are largely insular, isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world. They elected and re-elected a President with a low IQ who had never travelled outside the US.
Terrorist attacks, by any definition, have existed since the existence of tribes. In modern times we have seen the Jewish terrorists in Palestine, Arafat’s Palestinian army, Gaddafi’s killers, the IRA terrorists in Ireland and Britain, Black September, Red Army etc.. Aircraft were hijacked all around the world, but because they largely did not affect the USA, they didn’t happen.
The USA has underestimated the growing disapproval and fringe hatred that it has caused throughout the world by it’s actions and its support of oppressive regimes and dictatorships.
The attack on Iraq was not about 9/11 but about finishing the war that George Bush snr didn’t end.
The pre-occupation with the ‘war on terror’ also had much to do with the almost unimaginable embarrassment of a country with the most sophisticated law enforcement and surveillance organisations in the world being outsmarted by a few ill equipped persons working in caves and operating in primitive conditions, with cell phones, laptops and USB sticks.
The hype generated around 9/11 serves to deflect the anger toward the Muslims and away from the negligence and ineptitude of the Administration and the authorities.
Instead of running commemorative services and memorials for 9/11, we should focus on solemn remembrance days for all of those innocent people who have been killed or murdered by the US whether under the name of war on terror, whether by US support for corrupt dictators, or under the comforting US description as ‘collateral damage’.
In 2010 the US is reported to have spent US $698 billion on defence spending vs China US $ 119 billion & Russia US $58 billion of the total $1630 billion spent world wide. The US is the largest exporter of war, reportedly selling US $8 billion per annum to other countries.
Members of Congress fight each other to get Defence contracts allocated to their State and it is reported, that to achieve this, Congress voted to build more Stealth bombers than the Defence force wanted and against the objections of the Military chiefs who maintained they could not use them.
Wouldn’t it be a much better world and wouldn’t the US be less hated if Congress had the mental capacity to use more of the resources of the US to help the poorer nations rather than to kill them.
China is quietly doing this, and as it replaces the US as the number one economy in the world over the next 5 years, the US will be left with fewer friends and an even greater reliance on its military might.
In orders handed down on 4 August 2011, VCAT Members Rachael Naylor & Chris Harty have determined that ‘no permit should issue for this subdivision.’
In REASONS FOR DECISION it is stated ‘the need to avoid development on low lying land, the impacts of future projected sea level rise and storm tides on coastal inundation, and the need to provide protection of the coastal wetlands associated with Point Fullarton.’
The orders stated that although the Members agreed with the residents that there were ample residential lots already available ‘we do not agree that this fact should mean there can be no further lots approved at this time.’ The reasons for the decision went on to state that ‘Ultimately, it is up to the market to determine whether there is a need for the approved land use and development.’
The decision focused on concern expressed by The Gippsland Coastal Board of the projected rise in sea level by 2100 due to climate change combined with a 1:100 year flood together with a storm surge and the suggestion that the subdivision be re-designed to ensure that no land below 2.8 metres AHD is included within the lots.
It was also mildly critical of the applicant’s proposal to fill some of the land to raise it above the 2.8 metre AHD, suggesting that was modifying the natural environment to fit the development.
The Members found that there should be no development below 2.8 metre AHD and that lots 8 and 31-47 are not appropriate and lots 6 & 7 would need modification. The report added that to overcome this the subdivision would require the deletion of up to 20 lots, the width of the proposed open space would need to be increased and lots at the western end may require redesign.
In addition to the decision that there should be no development below 2.8 metre AHD, the Members go on to conclude that there should be an additional buffer that extends above 2.8 metre AHD – however, they cannot say what buffer would be appropriate because ‘it was not discussed during the hearing’. No doubt because no one other than the Members ever thought of a buffer and the Members chose not to raise the issue.
This begs the question of what would have happened if they decided to grant the permit and they hadn’t ‘discussed’ the issue during the hearing? Would they have made a decision even though it hadn’t been ‘discussed’ during the hearing? Would they have called another hearing day to ‘discuss’ the issue? Or had they made up their minds before the hearings had concluded?
In addressing the objectors concerns, the Members were not persuaded that there should be a general building height limitation. They suggested that a future application should consider lot orientation and size coupled with three dimensional building envelopes to provide some reasonable opportunity for view sharing for the existing development in Fullarton Drive and Eagle Bay Terrace.
Objections regarding Traffic Generation, Pedestrian Safety and Garbage Access had already been satisfactorily dealt with or could be dealt with in any future planning application for this subdivision.
In CONCLUSION the Members stated that ‘the land can be subdivided but the proposed layout and design is not appropriate for the reasons we have already explained.’
From the decision it is clear that subject to meeting requirements in relation to the AHD and some minor issues, the Members expect that the development could go ahead.
From the plans submitted by the developer, it appears that most of the requirements will be easily accommodated by reducing the length of the long lots to the south (those adjoining the dwellings on the north side of Fullarton Road), shifting the proposed road up the slope closer to Fullarton Road and moving the lower northern lots further up the slope away from the lake and relocating the existing sewer. This would be accomplished with no loss or minimal loss of lots.
It is understood that a new planning application will be submitted to Council, addressing the issues outlined in the VCAT decision.
In the decision, the Members again raised ‘the precautionary principle’.
In this context, basically it is used by taking the projection that the sea level will rise not less that 0.8 metres by 2100 and concluding that if it will rise not less than 0.8 metres it is necessary to build in a buffer to allow for it rising higher. However, the Members in this and earlier cases are not able to determine how much of a buffer because ‘it will depend upon the circumstances of the particular site (whether it is near the beach or in Central Australia) the nature of the proposal (handwritten or typed) and the scientific information (the scientists who reflect your view) available at the time.
What is interesting in the recent VCAT decisions impacting coastal towns with decisions applying project 2100 sea levels 89 years ahead is:
Lakes Entrance decision – East Gippsland Shire – Member Ian Potts
Printz decision – Glenelg Shire – Rachael Naylor Presiding Member & Ian Potts Member
Fullarton Road decision – East Gippsland Shire – Rachael Naylor Presiding Member & Chris Harty Member
Guess what? In Clause 35 of the Fullarton Road decision the Members state ‘ We have come to this view having regard to the reference under policy to plan for a sea level rise of not less that 0.8 metres by 2100 and to apply the precautionary principle, which is supported by the findings in the Printz case .. ‘
Guess what? Rachael Naylor was the Presiding Member in the Printz case and and jointly made the decision and she now cites that decision as supporting her decision in this case!
It is good to be able to use one of your previous decisions to support your current decision. Presiding Member Naylor has created a legal precedent for herself!
She obviously agrees with herself. Amazing!
Dear Mr Courtney
I was listening to ABC Local Radio here in South Australia this morning and caught the end of a gentleman describing a Planning issue in, I think, the East Gippsland Local Government area.
Rosedale, Golden Beach and Seaspray were names mentioned, as was Willmore and Randall.
You no doubt are well aware of this issue, I believe commencing in the 1960´s with a sub- division, and being concluded in the 1990´s and 2000´s with significant rezoning regarding allotment sizes and removal of development status etc. This rectification of a poor Planning decision has I believe resulted in compensation.
I live and own land in the small town of Mintaro in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys council area of South Australia. In its last Development Plan Review, on dubious advice from its Consultant conducting the review, Council recommended changing the minimum size allotments for building approval from 0.4 hectares (1 acre) to 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres). This was subsequently rubber stamped by the State´s Planning Minister. This has effectively made 9 of 0.4 hectare building blocks in the Residential Zones of Mintaro worthless (although still valued at $85,000 each and rated by Council as such). I own two of the blocks.
Obviously I would therefore like to read as much as I can on this saga of your Council´s history, as I believe there may be significant precedents here. I would be most appreciative of any information that you could provide to me by direction to websites, press stories, council minutes etc.
John (surname supplied)
Rosedale, Golden Beach and Seaspray are within the adjoining Wellington Shire. I was Councillor in the East Gippsland Shire from 2000 – 2003 and we had to deal with two old Willmore & Randall subdivisions which are probably mirror images of those subdivisions in the Wellington Shire.
With Newlands Arm where the lots were quite small in a residential zone and probably worth about $20,000 each, without sewerage and too small for septic, was to prohibit the construction of a home on one lot and require that two lots be consolidated into one title. After a period, people started to sell to each other or buyers came and bought two adjoining lots.
Newlands Arm was characterised by shanty town structures and some a lot worse than that. We then required a Planning Permit be issued by the Council for any new buildings and required elevated standards.
Newlands Arm, although still slightly remote, now has many high quality homes, some water front land at asking prices around $400,000 and some homes on the better lots adjacent to
the water have asking prices of around $650,000 and the land would probably sell at around $80,000.
The whole area has improved considerably and the residents are very much happier with the result.
The other Willmore and Randall property was at Tambo Bluff and that was a much more complex problem, without any services at all including no sealed roads and those there not maintained by the Council. This was dealt with the by subsequent Councils. The process was much the same as for Newlands Arm but with a controversial Special Charge Scheme oneach Lot to pay for the infrastructure along with consolidation. When the infrastructure has been completed, the land values should increase, but I suspect not to the extent of Newlands Arm
Hope this helps. I know some planners and some of the Councillors at Wellington Shire and if I am talking to them and they give me information which I think may be of assistance, I will forward it to you.
In East Gippsland Shire our minutes go onto the Shire web site and stay there for about 6 months. Wellington may be the same and you may be able to go onto its web site and read or download all of the documents in relation to to the above properties.
They also have a further problem with what is called ‘Climate Change’ and the previous State Government imposed minimum floor height restrictions and other conditions to save us from ourselves and cast us further into the hands of the do-good bureaucrats.
Councils were required to follow the restrictions.
The present State Government has or is about to relax these conditions along the coast and deal with the supposed issue of rising oceans in a more practical and common sense manner. The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common – especially with bureaucrats. Why would you impose restrictions based on a level which may or may not occur by 2100 when the dwellings being built probably will be falling down in half that time?
You wouldn’t of course – unless you were dumb – and that says it all!
Bairnsdale has two large competing hardware & building suppliers in Dahlsens & Bunnings. As competition is fierce you would expect that both would be totally committed to customer service and attention to detail – well trained staff and competent display & layout of product.
Wanted to buy a Dremel model 8200 rotary tool so I went one of the above. Found the tool I wanted. It was on display and I checked out the available accessories. All the time I was there, maybe 8 – 10 minutes, not one sales person came near me as I wandered into the aisles to find someone who could show me where to find a carton with the Dremel tool. All were too busy behind the counters talking to each other or chatting to friends who happened by. An employee who I know passed on his way home and asked how I was and I told him I was bowled over by people wanting to serve me. He called one who was chatting and told him I was waiting for service.
“I want to buy this Dremel tool” I said.
“I don’t think we have it in stock. I’ll check” was the response.
“No. None in stock”.
“Do you have any on order?”
Check computer “No none on order” was the reply. But wait “There is a box up there I’ll check it”.
“No it doesn’t have a tool in it, only the accessories”. That seemed reasonable because to ‘missing’ tool was probably the one on display.
I thought, will he realise that he can put the tool in the box and sell it to me? No such luck.
Will I tell him? Can’t be bothered, he won’t be able to grasp the concept.
Half way out of the store, customer service came to the fore – almost. “Traralgon office has 3 in stock”.
“OK! I’ll drop in when I am passing”.
Off to the opposition. There is one on display. Have a look and sure enough there are a row Dremel cartons on the top shelf. Reach up, take the first one in the row and off to the checkout for another successful purchase.
Now it is evening at home. Think I’ll take out the tool and charge the battery.
Why are the ends sealed with clear tape? Has this been opened? For what purpose, I thought.
Opened it up and it was complete with accessories, operating manual but no Dremel rotary tool. Bugger! Where is the tool? Probably the one on display.
Ah well, it will only waste another hour or so of my time and cost me more for fuel etc, maybe an argument about whether or not I took the tool and sold it to a friend (or enemy) for a profit.
Obviously we can’t go to the one that gives the best service because neither do.
Osama Bean Laden - is he still alive?
When the body of Bin Laden was reportedly disposed of within 24 hours, my first comment was, ‘Here we go again. More lies, deceit and deception’. Supposedly get rid of the body so there is no evidence. That’s what all criminals hope to do. Looks like George W Bush revisited.
We then got different versions of the same action. Different statements as to what took place, who was involved, how long it took etc.. First we had fierce and ferocious gun battles and strong resistance. Then we were told of Osama Bin Laden resisting capture. Later we were given information that he was unarmed; and later again we were told that he may have lurched toward a weapon. At first we were told he shielded himself using a woman, then it was his wife who threw herself in front of him and then we were told he didn’t shield himself at all.
Perhaps we can put this confusion and misleading information down to the media doing what the media does best. Take a small piece of information and embellish, distort, deliberately lie or maybe just get it wrong as they all to often do. But get it to the public to be first with the news, no matter how flawed or wrong it is.
So what happened?
The select few, including President Obama, planned and practiced this event for some weeks or months, reportedly using mock-up buildings and practicing for all conceivable possibilities.
Now if the aim was, as stated, to capture Bin Laden alive and to kill him was the second option, why would you want to capture him?
The obvious reason is that if you want the most detailed and comprehensive information about the Al Qaeda network, its chain of command and its various cells and operatives, you capture the founder and architect of Al Qaeda, render him like those before him to some secret location and torture him as anyone would do – if you are an American – along with the innocent and guilty alike. That way you are likely to get the maximum information and be able to to totally decapitate the organisation.
We are now told that there were only a couple of persons who resisted the SEALs and only one who fired back. Whatever, the resistance was obviously minimal and only on the floors lower than that on which Bin Baden was found. The US had a good idea, if not exactly, how many were in the compound and had a good idea of the probable light resistance.
Given the above and given the highly technical and sophisticated military equipment available to the US, why wouldn’t they simply go in with stun grenades and similar debilitating weapons, kill those they don’t want and just take Bin Laden alive? Seems to be pretty simple. They actually did that up to the point they marched into Bin Laden’s bedroom. Clearly, Bin Laden knew the fight was going on below and didn’t have his AK 47 trained on the door and clearly he didn’t resist with any weapons. So if they really wanted Bin Laden alive and had him there for the taking why didn’t they just put a bag over his head and march him off to a deep dungeon and years of beatings, water-boarding and torture.
But they didn’t.
Or did they?
Pretty convenient to dump his body in the ocean where it can never be found. Of course if he is stuck in deep in a dungeon the result is the same. He can never be found. The same result either way so the world at large doesn’t know the truth. If he dies in prison, they then bury him at sea, feed him to the alligators or put him through a meat grinder and sell him for cat food.
Amazingly, there was a DNA match within a couple of hours – I saw Obama say that. What did they match his DNA with? Had Bin Laden given them a small sample some years ago just in case the US needed one. Or did they rush to Saudi Arabia and get sample from his family, race it back to Afghanistan, test the samples and compare them within a couple of hours and ‘prove’ it was Bin Laden? Sounds like a lot of codswallop to me. Maybe they found a pair of his sweaty, smelly underpants in an abandoned cave, but how did they know that it was his underpants?
The US is getting pretty excited about finding some computers, some USBs, $700 in his clothes plus 2 phone numbers – maybe for the local massage parlour in Islamabad. Give the owners of the phones a call and tell them to surrender immediately or the US will come and get you within the next 10 years, just like we did with Bin Laden. What a threat. The US is ecstatic about the find. How much more ecstatic would they be if they actually captured him alive; but with all that planning and practice, it is likely that no one thought of it.
Or did they?
If Bin Laden’s mates in Al Qaeda think he has been killed then there is little they can do about it. They could launch reprisal attacks but they would have been doing that anyway, if they had the capability. They don’t have the capability to launch a massive offensive. With him ‘dead’ they will be forced to disperse and leave their existing locations for fear something might turn up on a computer.
OK! So either they had decided to kill (assassinate) him regardless or they took him prisoner and he is being questioned.
Now if the US took him prisoner and whisked him of to be tortured and then told the world they had him, what would happen? Al Qaeda knows they have had little bargaining power in the past by kidnapping. However if Bin Laden was a prisoner, things would change. Al Qaeda operatives would be out to take as many high profile people as possible and would demand Bin Laden’s release. Probably wouldn’t get anywhere with it but it would certainly put severe pressure on Governments. They would go on a rampage, taking hostage and killing as many high profile people as possible to hopefully force a trade. Bin Laden dead, no possible trades, go back to suicide bombing.
The US can’t take him prisoner so they had to kill him or at least say they did.
Why bother to take his body if his head was blown to pulp? Just cut off a finger or get a cup of blood. Take a lock of his flowing hair, cut off part of his beard and use that to do a DNA. Leave the body for the Pakistanis to clean up along with the others killed in the raid. They took the body so that there could be no protests in the street! Get real! There will be protests in the streets from the fanatics and Al Qaeda supporters, regardless.
So now we may have Bin Laden in a dark deep dungeon being tortured to death to reveal the secrets of Al Qaeda. Everyone thinks he is dead. But if he reveals all over the next 5-10 years the Administration can then come out an say “Yes we deceived you, but it was in your interest. We let Al Qaeda think he was dead, to give them a false sense of security and in the meantime we got all this information which we used to save you. Aren’t we good guys”.
Look how easy it is to fool people. Three US Congressional politicians were shown fake photos. These three dills were so convinced that they declared that there was no doubt Bin Laden was dead – they had seen unmistakable proof. They later had to say they were fooled. They should have said “We are fools” but then again that probably goes without saying.
Now what about Leon Panetta, head of the CIA. President to Leon. “Hey Leon, you’ve ‘seen’ the photos. Go out and tell the stupid public that you agree that they are of Bin Laden and the public should see them”. The public will think, well the head of the CIA has seen them and he thinks we should see them. That’s pretty strong evidence that they exist and that there is nothing to hide. (Let’s face it, the CIA have always been honest, truthful and upfront with the public). Then I, The President will say “Ok! Maybe you should see them but I think it would be insensitive because he is a bit of a mess and we don’t want to upset his supporters. In addition we in the US dignify people in death so we are not that sort of people”. A really strong argument. Al Qaeda won’t care that we ‘killed’ him; they will only be upset if we showed the photos!
Steve Kroft interviews Barack Obama for US 60 minutes on next Sunday. When it is played, watch Obama’s eyes when he is asked about the killing of Obama. He turns quickly away from looking at Kroft and avoids looking at him for quite a while, whilst saying “we know it is him because of his DNA and his clothes”.
But then again, if you have him in a deep, dark dungeon and you take some blood from him then you know it is his DNA – of course!
Twelve hours after Bin Laden was ‘killed’ it had a faint aroma. Five days later the aroma has become a stench.
He probably is dead. Maybe his daughter and wife are certain he is dead and have given testimony to that.
If so, that’s fine. Let us just put it down as an ‘assassination’. Most people won’t care whether it was an assassination or not, but the US has consistently declared assassinations are illegal. OK! Bin Laden didn’t resist but let’s tell the stupid public that he did. They are stupid and not entitled to know the truth. If that is what we do then it is no longer an assassination.
Regardless, this is just another case of our servants, the politicians – fairly ordinary people and some much less than ordinary – deciding that having been elected or appointed to public office have suddenly become superior to us and now choose to rule rather than serve. They decide what we should see and what we shouldn’t see; what we should do and what we shouldn’t do, regardless of what we want. This is another perfect example of why we need Wikileaks and similar organisations who are not manipulated by the government as is the media.
Democracy has become a form of dictatorship controlled by competing political groups, rather than by individuals.
March 22nd, 2011 · 1 Comment
I am uploading this with little comment, other than to that I met Ron Schrader when I was elected as a Councillor of the East Gippsland Shire Council in 2000. Ron Schrader was a person who was honest, loyal, of the highest integrity and a man who sought to serve and to improve the lives of the people of East Gippsland, for which he never sought praise or reward. Ron Schrader was my friend.
I apologise that some of the images are crooked and not the finest reproductions. They are not perfect, but then again, neither am I nor was Ron. If I get time I will try to improve them.
Click on images to enlarge
Tags: East Gippsland Councillors · East Gippsland Shire Council