8th January 2005
certainly a top source, my main complaint is that mostly the stories
carried have to do with Muslim matters, and usually to the detriment of
non-Muslims. Still, even when the headline reads negatively on
Israel, the facts reported do sometimes reflect positively on the
Jewish state, such as the story on Israeli contributions to Sri-Lankar
One thing that I could not help concluding from one story was that Bin
Laden is a liar. Just after 9/11 he was reported as having stated
that he had no involvement with it (9/11). At the time I assume
he was trying to protect his host, the Taliban in Afghanistan, from a
US invasion. However in Bin Laden's speech just before the US
election (the speech which opponent Kerry credited as the crucial event
that turned the election) he is reported by Al-Jazeera in the following
terms: "In October, bin Laden
released a videotape in which he took
responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and
criticized Bush’s foreign policy".
I have no doubt that true believers will have explanations to show that
no lie was told. We cynics in the "Democratic" West know
all about those explanations - like the now famous "I did not have sex
with that woman".
has complained to me about China, saying "do not buy Chinese goods
because of what they are doing to the Tibetans". I asked her if
she had seen the "South Park" episode about Wal-Mart?
People buy what is cheapest, and the Chinese government has no doubt
calculated that most people are more concerned about
cost than about morality.
Of course what the Chinese mandarins might not have calculated is the
effect on their Taiwan policy. The Taiwanese could use the
Tibetan example to explain to the world (and the USA) why they do not
want to rejoin
China. I would buy their argument. What the Chinese are
doing sounds like genocide to me. I also expect that most
Americans would buy their (properly presented) argument.
So unless the Chinese expect to so far surpass the US technologically
that they will be able to render ineffective the sale of Hi-Tech
Taiwan, I would expect that their policy is counter productive to their
ambition to absorb their recalcitrant offshore province.
26th December Gaia
gave the world a 9 Richter scale earthquake a few hundred Km west of
the northern tip of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. This
produced a "tidal wave" that has been responsible, indirectly and
directly, for 150,000 fatalities and still counting.
The people of the world have responded generously. Private
Australian (population 20 million) contributions amounted to some
AU$140 Million. The peoples of other countries were similarly
Our stalwart leader, John Howard, never one to miss an opportunity to
disburse our money for any cause that does not include giving
Australians greater say in their own governance, promised AU$1 billion.
(=US$760 Million.) The Saturday headline in "The Australian" was
sickening - "They will never forget us". It is demeaning to give
a gift with that thought in mind.
Even with that $1 billion, the radical journalists of Australia and the
world still want their pound
of flesh. On the ABC on 7th January one Shirley Gordon (speaking
on the BBC) stated that Australians contributed "less than $4 per
head". Well unless Australia has a population of 200 million
people, her maths are slightly out. I suppose one could say,
"what else can you expect except sloppy research from a liberal
journalist?" (thinking "Dan Rather etc.") Even more incredibly,
there was a retraction at the end of the rebroadcast. I suppose
the ABC is so hopelessly "liberal" that they thought it was an
unimportant point that a speaker who was attempting to demonstrate that
left wing governments were more generous had got their facts arse
about. (Don't look for her on Google, she is not in the first few
pages of entries, although there is a Nurse and a hairdresser by that
Alberto Gonzales has been proposed by GWB as US Attorney General, and
the Senate has cross examined his suitability in light of his advice to
the CIA and other organizations that Al Quaida and other terrorist
organization prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva convention was established as a gentleman's agreement
between warring parties concerning the conduct of war and the treatment
of each other's occupied civilian populations and military prisoners.
For instance, to be treated as a prisoner of war as specified in the
convention, a combatant when captured should have been in uniform, and
had to carry at all times some form of ID (the "dog tag").
Otherwise he was considered to be a spy. Prisoners of war only
had to supply their Name, Rank and Serial number. Spies were
not covered by the convention, & could be tortured or executed out
of hand in an effort to force them to disgorge information.
The Red cross was an impartial body that confirmed to each
side during WWII- that the other side was holding
to the convention. If the arbiter could not confirm that the
convention was being obeyed, then the convention would have broken
down, and each side would have mistreated prisoners of the other
side. The Convention was never envisioned except as a gentleman's
agreement between warring parties on the mutual treatment of
Al Quaida and Hamas and other terrorist organizations do not abide by
the Geneva Convention. They have no POW camps available for
demonstration of humane treatment of prisoners to international
observers. Their fighters do not wear uniforms or carry
identification. The various organizations of those terrorist
organizations seem to make war on and torture and execute civilian and
military personnel in an opportunistic manner. In short,
terrorist organizations are not abiding by the Geneva Convention, so
their combatants are not covered by the convention.
a convocation of the worlds top economists have determined that the
most remunerative investments for the world are treating Aids, treating
Malaria and reducing trade barriers. Reducing carbon in the
atmosphere was so low that it was counter productive. In other
words, it would cost more to curtail carbon gases than any potential
Those who have seen Hollywood disaster films might not understand this
rather simple point. The cost of not burning fossil fuels is
quiote staggering. Mass starvation, thousands dead from freezing
weather, the list goes on.
Perhaps those who argue for reduction of fossil fuel should consider
one simple fact. Population is growing so rapidly, that there are
more people alive today than have died since humans evolved from
My advice is, give up sex except for procreation, move away from
geographic areas where the Anopholese mosquito is endemic, and vote for
the political party that promises to liberalize trade.
Oh, and for those worrying about global warming. Thirty years ago
the then greenies were worried that a new ice age was starting.
They even suggested spreading soot over the north pole, to help melt
the polar icecap. In another thirty years I expect they will
again be complaining that a new ice age is starting. When you get
down to it, Greenies are
just another type of politician, they make a living out of
sensationalizing fears and emotions.