My2c Worth

2006-06-24T09:24:00.000+10:00

Its all about them and their gun fetish.

Ok. So I don't write often. I dare say, there aren't as many things I want to comment on as I first thought. I'll most likely put this into DailyKos to get some actual readership.

This enrages me. Why? Because apparently, its all about getting a few miguided Americans with a gun fetish.
I'm part of the ROTW (Rest of the World) which, too often, the American citizen appears to be either: Completely unaware of, Pretty scared of, misguided in assuming we're here for their benefit, in strong belief we think nothing except aspiring to be Americans... or a mixture of all that, depending on how red-state you go.

However, back to the point. The UN is attempting to move the considerable mountain of illegal guns and the illegal gun trade. From a progressive point of view, an extremely noble task. There are simply too many cases of uprisings, sustained militia warfare and simple everyday murder. I'd have thought it was a no-brainer. The less illegal guns around, should equate to less deaths.

However, that ideal hasn't accounted for the NRA. The National Rifle Association, has taken umbrage at the idea sending 100,000 letters to the man responsible claiming the UN is doing nothing other than attemping to take away their member's guns.

Yes. Its aaaaalllll about the American gun owner.

One could stoop down to the levels of many right wingers who are capable of the most amazing binary thought coupled with gigantic leaps of logic and say that by opposing the UN program, the NRA are PRO-murder and PRO-illegal weaponry. But I won't.

Part of the key misunderstanding must be related to that weird word 'illicit'. Unless the NRA generally supports the ownership of illegal guns, and laws managing them, it really doesn't affect a single member of the NRA.

In my rage about the topic, questions filter up. Why does the NRA equate this program with taking their guns? Why do they believe that having gun laws in other countries will affect their ability to buy weapons?

Some of the miscommunication the NRA is propagating includes 'illicit' but tends to ignore its actual meaning. Examples here & here (Previous UN review). The NRA sponsored web site about the topic has this to say on its front page:

...These dictatorships, terrorist states and so-called “free” nations of the world plan to meet on our home soil to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection, and strip you of your rights under the Second Amendment.

How many people around the world should die as a result of a massive propaganda drive by the NRA deliberately misinforming its members before we say enough?

Jerry's Fal(l)

2006-04-19T11:41:00.000+10:00

Despite God, and the best lawyers money can buy, Jerry Falwell has failed to shut down a site using a mispelling of his name. The site is highly critical of Jerry's views on the world.
His defense is based around people accidently believing it to be his real site. This defense does have plausibility. Sure, normal people generally aren't that dumb, but then again, his flock is made up of mid-western christian fundies who are.

The Age: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Melbourne's leading newspaper.:

2006-03-23T12:24:00.000+11:00

The next presidency is a poisoned chalice.

Bush has managed to set up a scene in which the next presidency is simply a poisoned chalice that only the truly brave or foolhardy would want.

Obviously, they inherit a war. Bush only recently admitted that a pullout date would be determined by a future president. Even the costs of the war which were estimated to be as low as 1.7 billion are now a quarter of a trillion dollars!

Spending has been conducted in a reckless manner, the national debt has risen to a near unserviceable 8.3 trillion and rising.

The 'Patriot' act has been renewed, as laws banning assault weapons been allowed to lapse.

Tax cuts have been given to the wealthy, under the pretense of stimulating growth.

Job growth has consistently failed to meet expectations, and real incomes have gone down.

What about the political scenario the next president walks into?

It is argueable that a large percentage of the right has been, to a degree, radicalised. Sub-sections of the right, such as the christian right have become a significant force in politics.

Talk of the US officially becoming a christian state, and the 800 year old concept of a wall between church and state is being dismantled.

Acceptable public discourse now includes open talk of killing the opposition to whatever it is they are ranting about. (Coulter, Robertson).

The respect of law from the government has been significantly eroded through illegal wiretaps, shooting individuals without proper reporting, authorising torture and imprisoning individuals without charge or trial

Civil liberties have been questioned, and in some cases rolled back in states (South Dakota)

Voter confidence in the legitimacy and openess of elections have been eroded.

The media has been beaten into submission and in some cases like Fox, nothing more than a defacto organ of the administration. The 'liberal bias' that the media allegedly has is touted by just about everyone in the media... about every one else in the media.

In the heirachy of nasty labels, being a 'liberal' is only a step above being a terrorist. Of course, anyone not kow-towing to the administration line is a liberal.

The right wing is no longer interested in conservative politics or truth, simply power.

I strongly believe that whoever actually gets into power will have a significant effect on the future of US politics for a generation to come.

If a Democrat actually manages to develop spine enough and win, the right wing will literally crucify the left every step it takes to correct the mess.The right-wing demonisation will continue,and probably even increase beyond what it was during the Clinton impeachment and the current level of antagonisation. The likely outcome that even the best intentions of the next presidency won't fix much of the endemic problems will simply be yet more fuel for the right wing.

If another Republican takes power, we can expect more of the same. The interia of the right wing is extremely strong, and it would be a brave republican to actually attempt to temper let alone reverse the tide. The path of least resisteance would be to continue the lies, the debt and the pretenses, leaving it for a yet further presidency to solve.

2006-02-24T13:16:00.000+11:00

Premium fuels aren't worth the price.

A new RACV study demonstrates that the price differential between normal (91) unleaded and the premium unleaded (95 & 98) brands doesn't not cover the additional economy/power provided.

At the moment, I do use as high a octane rating in both car & bike that i can find. I do feel the response increase. However, I didn't think it was a losing game.

My previous car was a hotted-up 31 year old sports car with an aftermarket turbo. It barely ran at all on normal unleaded and was really tuned for Optimax. The g/fs previous car was an LPG Falcon.
Our current car is a 1995 japanese Pulsar econo-box.

Will I not bother with premium fuels? The car probably doesn't justify getting the nicer fuels anynre. However, I will still use it in the bike. I don't ride the bike purely for transport, so I'm happy to pay for a bit extra for that little bit extra oomph.

=my2c

2006-02-24T13:09:00.000+11:00

I tend to agree with Costello.
The example Costello has brought up is a good one, in my view. Sharia law and Australian common law are pretty much incompatible. It isn't an unfair expectation from the host country to expect migrants to agree with & abide by the fundamentals of our society, even if the details & nuance differ.

If a potential migrant does have an issue with the fundamental nature of the society they wish to migrant to, then perhaps they are making the wrong choice.

PS. On a totally different topic - Is it just me or is Costello doing a far better job of being a reasonable oppostion leader than the opposition leader??

=my2c

2006-02-24T09:50:00.000+11:00

We are now seeing the beginning of the effects of isolating Hamas.

First was the Egyptians, now the Saudis rebuff the US's call to stop funding them.

Both states have a less than open attitude towards Israel. Hamas, being indebted to such states will have to accomodate the demands of that state.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and Prince Saud reportedly told Dr Rice that isolating Hamas would lead it to greater extremism and said they intended to continue giving aid to the Government. Hamas should be given more time, they said.

Goodbye Peace Process.

=my2c

2006-02-21T22:08:00.000+11:00

More on David Irving's imprisonment.

I've been reading a few posts from US blogs which express a bit of Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." philosophy.

Personally, I think there is a bit more to it than that. Free speech comes with a degree of responsibility. Jumping up and down proclaiming things that are simply not true is not exercising free speech, but simply jumping up and down proclaiming untruths.

In the US recently, mad cleric Pat Robertson suggested assasinating a legitimate head of state (Hugo Chavez). Should this be defended to the death?

David Irving hasn't exercised responsibility in his misguided beliefs. David has written approximately 30 books on the topic. They fly in the face of insurmountable evidence. David also spends a great deal of time on a public speaking circuit inciting hatred with some extremely questionable organisations.

Is this free speech in spirit or simply making a living out of abusing it and inciting hatred?

On the other side of the coin, we also need to understand the Austrians & Germans, who committed these atrocities. The jews themselves refer to the holocaust a great deal, and is now a significant part of their national identity. The holocaust is also a very large & recent black mark on a proud german people's history.

The laws that David has been charged with were enacted not long after WW2. These laws have helped the Germans come to terms with what really happened by disallowing such garbage to circulate legitimately.

Many say that to counter such crap is to merely debunk it. To show the effectiveness of that approach, I give you the continunce of the Bush administration.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. David Irving wasn't and isn't responsible with that freedom. He lost his for 3 years as a result.

=my2c
BC

2006-02-21T14:23:00.000+11:00

From the Land of the Free:

A federal employee with a anti-bush bumper sticker is harrassed

A nurse who wrote an ani-government letter to a newspaper is investigated here and here

=my2c
BC

2006-02-21T13:44:00.000+11:00

David Irving jailed.

Yaaay!

2006-02-21T13:21:00.000+11:00

Israel vows to stem flow of funds to Hamas

I think even Hamas are suprised to have gotten such a large percentage of the vote in the recent polls. The general consensus is that Fatah lost votes due more to being ineffective and corrupt than further radicalisation of Palestinians.

The idea that Hamas, a terrorist organisation with a political wing (like Ireland's Sien Fein) being financially supported by the very body it is chartered to wipe out is quite twisted.
However, the quandry is deeper than that. Hamas can gain financial support from other islamic groups & states that share the deep-rooted hatred of Israel. Right now, there are too many elements in the middle east (such as Iran or even bin Laden) who would quite happily fund Hamas. This would only serve to further distance Hamas from negotiaing meaningful peace with Israel.
By holding the purse-string, Israel may be able to apply more pressure to de-radicalise Hamas. Of course, the first step is to negotiate the removal of wiping Israel off the map from their charter. By accepting Hamas, Israel may lead to the development of Hamas as a legitimate, moderate political party that is well known for its efficient administration.

Which is the lesser of the evils? supporting Hamas and maintaining a dialogue, or marginalising Hamas forcing themto go source more radical financial support?

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

=my2c

BC

2006-02-21T12:00:00.000+11:00

In my return to actually writing, I'd like to start with a conspiracy theory.

If a state was going to re-introduce the death penalty after it having been abolished for (on average) about 35 years, how would it go about it?

The death penalty is right up there on the sensitivity scale along with abortion. How would a state, in a democracy, raise the issue in the the public consciousness without a crippling backlash?

Recently, there have been a spate of stories about Australians transporting drugs overseas & potentially facing the death penalty when caught. I cannot recall, in recent memory, the volume & degree of incidence of charges with the death penalty being greater. Shapelle Corby, Michelle Leslie, Van Nguyen & the Bali 9 have the incredible bandwidth. Sadly, Van Nguyen is no longer with us either. Right now, the death penalty is in the forefront of the Australian mind in a way it hasn't been since the hanging of Ronald Ryan, the last person to be excuted in Australia in 1967.

Recent polls conducted shows that more than 50% of the populace favour a re-introduction of the death penalty.

• Quantum Australia SCAN conducted a survey just after the Bali bombing, which showed for the first time in five years of polling that a majority of Australians favoured the death penalty. The figure of 51 per cent for, with 31 per cent against and 18 per cent saying don’t know, compared with an average over the previous five years of 44 per cent in favour, and 31 per cent against, and 25 per cent saying they had no opinion. The proportion in favour in both the United States and Britain is about 75 per cent.

• In a poll conducted in August 2003 by Newspoll, 56 per cent of respondents answered affirmatively the question: “Would you personally be in favour or against the introduction of the death penalty in Australia for those found guilty of committing major acts of terrorism?’’.

In the case on Van Nguyen, the poll results are a little less clear.
Of course, silly Australians have been trying to smuggle drugs into countries with the death penalty for ages. The fact there have been 3 high profile cases is nothing in itself. What lends to something behind this is indications that in the 'Bali 9' case, the AFP could have caught the offenders in Australia.

Irrespective of any other issue, the AFP was in a morally dark area. To claim to want to catch a 'Mr. Big' still leaves 9 mules facing the death penalty, which in a legal sense, Australia is opposed to. The fact that no Mr. Big was caught or any real evidence gained about one should put the AFP in some serious hot water.

The AFP was also involved in denial of 11th hour attempts to have Van Nguyen extradited to Australia. To a non-lawyer such as myself, reports that this was not possible appear credible. However, Downer himself admitted to not putting forward to Singapore the idea of going to the international court. Downer has attacked some lawyers for a too little, too late approach. Personally, I think Mr. Downer also needs to take some of that flack.

Several high-profile cases, AFP misadventure & political influence has inadvertantly killed several Australian citizens.

Does all this imply that the Australian voter is being 'softened up' to the death penalty or is this simply a case of "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

=my2c

BC

2005-11-08T13:40:00.000+11:00

Its been a while....

I haven't written in the blog for a month, so it tells me.
Life has been extremely busy. I've found a new place to live in Elizabeth bay, overlooking the harbour. Its fully furnished and on a short-term lease. In the interim, the theory is to go off and look for something to buy.

Once again, i'm starting to feel settled enough to start writing and generally complaining about stupid people again.

Now all I have to do is work out how to generate a readership.

2005-10-22T14:00:00.000+10:00

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me. - Neimiller

I copied and pasted this on the 22/10 when Fuehrer Howard had announced his double-whammy attack on workers and terrorists (read: Muslims)
Typical wedging.

Whilst this attack on the workers has been playing out, I'm yet to hear one coherent & backed up argument on how the changes to the IR laws are actually going to improve things. I tend to agree with those about the 'Race to the bottom' in terms of wages. The market does not solve every problem.

What is the bigger picture here? What is Howard really trying to achieve?

Is the bigger picture designed to reduce wages for more competive exports?
Is the bigger picture to delineate further between employer/employee in the best tradition of conservative philosophy?
Is the bigger picture simply that Howard's biggest contributors ARE employers and he is simply looking after his 'base'?

Lets be honest, to try something that pisses off so many of the Nouveau Liberal voters like this can only be achieved with a weak opposition. History will show Howard as an excellent politician, but a poor leader. History will show Howard got through the things he really wanted. It will also show that there wasn't anyone of note to stop him either.

2005-10-11T18:44:00.000+10:00

Almost a near miss

Same intersection too. Its the corner of Stacey St, turning right into Rookwood Rd. Right near the Hume. Yagoona? Chullora? Some west suburb anyway.

This time, it was a truck. Straight through a red light. He saw me at least, not that it'd had made much difference. I was also further away. I reacted, but I didn't ever think I'd hit at all. Too far away. More a 'You're a stupid knob-end, aren't you truckie?' type of close.

2005-10-10T21:42:00.000+10:00

SMS Bible is here

Get your deep & meaningful message from God in 160 characters or less!

Isn't it tops? If the bible wasn't written in an ambigious enough manner, you can now read the SMS version.

While in Pennsylvania, US, Creationism (oops 'Intelligent Design') and Evolution go head-to-head, at least the Bible Society in Aus has a more apples and apples comparison:

"The idea is that the Bible can be used and be relevant and up-to-date, just like getting a verse of the day or reading a horoscope." - Michael Grant, The Bible Society

Read the whole article

2005-10-10T11:09:00.000+10:00

I'm no unionist but...

This article in the SMH this morning is a bit of a worry. The IR laws are being changed significantly. I understand this is a paraphrase by the reporter:

John Howard has promised conditions such as penalty rates and overtime will be protected unless specifically traded away under his overhaul of industrial relations.

Basically, you've got them unless you don't.

I'm a contractor in IT. I live by their 'enterprise bargaining' and have no affiliation to any form of collective. It has its pros and cons. I earn a lot when I'm working, but there is little security to it. The market for the type of IT work i do can fluctuate heavily of which I have little say in.
Working this way for me, was a choice. Being without dependants & a mortgage, I chose to accept the volatility of the market in return for more money.
Not everyone is in the same boat. Not everyone can trade that security. Not everyone is in a niche market where the employee can stand up to the boss easily without simply being replaced.
I would not like to be in a trade or such and having the boss pressuring you into a new agreement where you forgo you're benefits. The employer has too much of an upper hand. I can't recall where it comes from, but there was someone quoted "If you don't accept this contract, there is a line of guys out there who will." That isn't accepting an agreement. That is coercion.

If nothing else, these changes actually give relevance to unionism again. Unions have been slipping out of sight to the mainstream, and haven't really cottoned on that the shape & demographic of the working class has changed a fair bit. Office workers, who were traditionally middle & upper middle class are now as much the working class as the plumber and sparky.

Unions can re-invent themselves if they so choose. These IR changes tip the balance a little too far in the favour of business, at the expense of labour, whatever type it is. Relevant unionism could help bring back that balance.

2005-10-05T13:07:00.000+10:00

Suicide Bombers: How do they get to that point?

No doubt, we all know what happened in Bali recently. More suicide bombers. Young men (primarily) who know they have explosives in their bags and aim to detonate it, with no plan to survive the attack.

How does one get to that point? How does one get to the point where that is an acceptable way to hit the perceived enemy?

I'm going to draw a local parallel. Give it a chance.

Our own history has Gallipoli. A landing site in WW1 where ANZACs were mowed down by Turkish gunners as they stormed the Turkish trenches.
Rows upon rows of young, healthy men were sent over the breach with the barest, slimmest chance of getting to the enemy's trench, let alone overrunning it.
Most of them must have known they were going to their certain deaths. Most saw what had happened to the previous row of soldiers, yet they still went.
The orders came from above, ultimately from the British who treated the ANZACs with a little less concern than our own. However, there was a chain of people in between, down to those who ordered the men over.

Why? Would we have done the same in their stead? Did many refuse? I don't know.

I assume the soldiers thought what they were doing was right, part of their duty in the greater fight.

Don't get me wrong. I do not in any way, shape or form equate the people who commited this act of terrorism with the ANZACs.
I hope I'm drawing a parallel in the mindset of those who could do such a thing to themselves.

How do the Bali bombers get to the same point? How do you reach out to the bombers themselves, and the ones who instruct them to commit such an act beforehand?

Personally, irrespective of who does it, religion is strongly involved. Religion, in its various forms, has been able to give some degree of comfort to us all in times of need, uncertainty and sacrifice. War is no exception.
Clearly, religion is being abused in the case of suicide bombers by giving the bombers a justification for the act, and a comfort that they will be heaven/paradise/etc sent when it's over and being one with their God.

=my2c

BC

2005-10-03T14:29:00.000+10:00

Family First

I won't lie. I don't like the Family First party. Its a very nicely wrapped far right religious crowd.

As mentioned before in previous posts, I believe that Australia has had an extremely good run for low cost fuel. Cutting the excise on petrol as FF's Fielding suggest here doesn't really stack up in the medium to long term.

I'm not yet sure why a comparison between Aus and Europe is unfair other than that Europe already pays far higher for it's fuel and it won't do FFs arguement much good to compare that way. Comparing Australia to the US isn't really apples-and-apples either. They have the lowest level of fuel excise in the developed world.

In many regards, petrol and diesel can be split down the line of voters and industry. Cutting petrol excise will be attractive to the voting public. However, inflation would be better kept in check by cutting the diesel excise. Diesel is far more prevalent as the fuel for driving industry than petrol is.

Howard is also aware that any cut in the fuel excise for short term voter pain relief is going to be bloody hard to put back when(if?) the crisis is over. Howard knows that giving that cutting the excise now, that'd be kissing that $3.8 billion away, politically, forever.

2005-09-30T09:07:00.000+10:00

Near miss.

A beautiful day today. Must be about 22c, not a cloud in the sky and a cool, light breeze blowing. The ride to work was joyful.
However, just past the hume hwy in Yagoona (I think) I rode through an intersection. The light turned orange as I did. Some dumb-arse in a silver Commodore stationwagon didn't see me coming (the metallic blue bike with its headlight on and the guy with the fluoro yellow jacket riding it must blend into the scenery) and turned right. Turned right right in front of me. I was doing about 70-80klm/h and I pulled up less than a foot away from his rear passenger door.
During this, he didn't speed up to get out of the way, he didn't slow down. After the event, he didn't stop. I genuinely don't think he knew the event happened at all.

2005-09-28T20:10:00.000+10:00

Wow! Sex on a stick.

The new Triumph Daytona 675

I;ve not been a rider for very long. It will be a year in November. However, because I've a NSW license and over 30, i've been able to get whatever I damned well want for about 9 months.

At present, i'm riding the rather wonderful little Suzuki GS500. A Melbourne mate has a Daytona 600, and for a supersports, its pretty damned liveable from day-to-day. The riding position isn't severe as, say, a Honda CBR600.

One thing i've noticed is that I'm not so keen on 4 cylinder bikes. They are too smooth, too sewing machine. Twins are great, but they don't produce the power like a 4. A triple.... a perfect compromise?

Lets look at the Daytona 675. Its all new. Its quite narrow, being 11cms narrower than the Daytona 600/650. Its small even by Honda & Kawasaki supersports standards.

125ps @ 12,500
72Nm @ 11,750

Good numbers. The other good number is better when its small: weight. Dry, Triumph claim 165kgs. A fair bit lighter than its predecessor.
Suzuki's GSX-600R holds 120ps
Kawasaki Ninja 600 ZX-6R (i'm not including the ZX-6RR cos that doesn't comply with supersports sizes being a 636cc 4 cylinder)
123ps @ 14,000
67Nm @ 14,000

Basically, the new Daytona is right up there in terms of outright power and torque. What you'd naturally expect, and what some of the early reports back up is that torque thoughtout the powerband is a revelation for supersports class bikes.

Looks are always going to be subjective. I reckon the new Daytona looks the business front-on, loosing some of the wonderful shapes and lines on the tank from the last model. Frankly, I liked most of the previous Daytona look except for the whole smiling bumble-bee thang it had up front.
Many claim the new Daytona looks a lot like the Kawasaki, and i agree to a point. There are only so many bits of plastic to play with on a bike to set it out from the crowd. It would be rather difficult NOT to have some styling queues from of the 4 Jap manufacturers.

Ok, figures... looks. What about the ride?

Early rides in MotorCycle USA and Aussie Motorcycle News(not online) suggest that it's pretty damned good by any measure. So far, so good. Sadly, I'll have to wait til proper testing is done on the bike itself, and back-to-back with the competition.

Basically, if Triumph can manage the ease-of-use that the previous Daytona 600/650 had with the mumbo and handling to keep up with the Jap 4, then i'm down for one.
The worst this is having to wait til March '06.

2005-09-22T12:52:00.000+10:00

To the Sydney Morning Herald, 22/9/05

letters@smh.com.au

Subject: Attract young to Trades with reduced wages
Dear Editor,

Situation:A trade skills shortage
Goal: Attract more people to the trades.

Howard solution: Reduce wages in trades.

In the alternate universe Howard lives in, this makes perfect sense.
In the real world, apprentice wages are pretty close to the bone already. The first few years are that of financial hardships and long hours both at work and at TAFE. It takes a committed and mature individual to look past this period. The tempation for a young adult to take a higher paying McJob that doesn't require hours at TAFE must be extremely strong. The trades already have a high dropout rate as it is, reducing their incomes isn't going to help.

In Howard's alternate universe where the market solves every policy ineptitude, consumer prices for trade services will be lower and Australia will be more competitive on the global market.
In the real world, less supply of a necessary service pushes the price up. If a trade isn't attractive to enter, who will do the electrics? Who will repair the car? Who will engineer our next product to export overseas?

Irrespective of these logical arguements, do we want an Australia that encourages such a gap in wealth? Do we really want to pay that little bit less for a service knowing the individual providing that service cannot afford to buy a home or give their children a decent education? I don't.

(My sig removed)

2005-09-21T18:28:00.000+10:00

State-Sponsored Terrorism, yet again

From news.com.au:

"Four tanks invaded the area. A tank cannon struck a room where a policeman was praying," said policeman Abbas Hassan, standing next to mangled cars outside the police station and jail that he said were crushed by British military vehicles.

"This is terrorism. All we had was rifles."

'nuff said.

2005-09-21T17:32:00.000+10:00

More details on 'State-Sponsored Terrorism'

CNN says:

The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.

So... it wasn't just opening fire on police. It was opening fire on civilians.

Yet, ironically, British Defense Ministry Secretary John Reid says:

He said British forces "remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security.

Reid appears to imply that British forces will help the Iraqi govt against... British forces.

2005-09-21T12:57:00.000+10:00

State-sponsored Terrorism

British soldiers being arrested by Iraqi police have been freed in a ram-raid by British forces.
Here is a link to Yahoo News

So.. let me get this straight:

Iraqi Police, the representatives of the law in the now freedom-enjoying sovereign state of Iraq approached 2 suspects who then open fire on the police.

The suspects opened fire on police (and based on some other reports, civilians) who, once detained, admitted to being British soldiers, despite their civilian, arab dress.

The suspects refused to offer information about their mission and were detailed in an Iraqi jail.

Whilst, one presumes, 'enquiries' were being made, up to 6 tanks basically ram-raided the jail freeing the suspects. During this raid, riots occurred between the local civilian population and the British force. Apparently dozens of Iraqi prisoners escaped during the raid and susequent confusion.

Let us remove the fact that 'British soldiers' were involved:

We have a couple of possible terrorist suspects who have initiated violence against police. Depending on sources, they may have been caught in the act of actually firing into a civilian population.
These terrorist suspects were clearly not being open about who they were.
These terrorist suspects refused to offer information about their mission, and which organisation initiated it, which may have been mitigating.
They have been detained, from what i can gather, legally.
Armed militant supporters have actually attacked the prison, destroying property and freeing the detainees.
Armed militant supporters have rioted with local civilians, creating a massive disturbance.
Armed militant supporters have (inadvertantly) freed dozens of potentially dangerous criminals.

In any state, under just about any laws excluding those of the jungle, this is nothing but a terrorist act. It is nothing but a militant act against the state.

The only difference between Hamas, the IRA, Basque militants, Tamil Tigers or any other organisation which does commit terrorist acts against the rule of law is this is state-sponsored by the British Govt and British army.

So... are we any better?

BC

2005-09-20T12:48:00.000+10:00

I've been reading a number of posts on one of my favourite American blogs, DailyKos here and here and they are discussing a great deal about Bush's falling poll numbers.

My understanding of the American political system is at best vague. However, I do understand that there is a 2 term limit on a presidency. Bush is in his 2nd term, and irrespective of how good or bad he is, he can't run for a 3rd term (I bet Costello wishes Australia had such a system right now...).

From now on in, Bush shouldn't really need to give a damn about polls at all. Who cares? If he leaves office with a 30% approval rate, will it affect his ability to continue to be President? No. It won't. Whether he leaves with an approval rating of 99% or 10% won't make one whiff of difference.

I dare say no-one but the most vehement Repug could say that Bush is a good president. Now, he doesn't even NEED to be a good president. He can be as inarticulate, ignorant and vacationing as he wants. In fact, the more of a clown Bush looks, the more acceptable Dick 'Fuck off' Cheney looks....

Bush now has a mandate to fuck up whatever he wants and the next govt will have to clean it up, or ignore it hoping the subsequent govt will have to clean it up.

BC

2005-09-20T12:45:00.000+10:00

Well, i've been shunting between Melbourne and Sydney of late and seem to have missed much of the Latham spill-your-guts extravaganza.... So until I have a clue what i'm talking about, i won't comment.

2005-09-09T09:49:00.000+10:00

To be filed in "Only in America"

These eleven congressmen, Republican conservatives all, just voted against the $51 billion package ( H. R. 3673) for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Horrible human beings, all.

Signing off on the $80-odd billion for Iraq? No Problemo!
Look after you're own after one of the world's worst disasters? pfffft! as if.

The full article lists each of the 11 Repug congressmen

Read the Dailykos article here.

2005-09-08T21:00:00.000+10:00

Prices for petrol in Aus have hit as high as $1.48 a litre. The average is about $1.40. Whilst it all sounds very scary, in some regards I think its time that we caught up with the rest of the world.
We have some of the cheapest petrol on the planet.
Our national fleet, on average, is one of the largest in terms of engine capacity, and one of the least economical. In fact, our fleet economy in 2003 is identical to that in 1963.
Many other countries have additional taxes and tariffs on larger capacity vehicles. We do not. In fact, it could be argued that we have a reverse scenario: Large 4wds do not attract as much tax as a family sedan.

Germany's tax components increase with engine capacity
UK has a tax reduction for cars under 1200cc
Italy has a threshold at 2000cc
Japan has the 'kei-jidosha' class of up to 660cc

There are numerous other nations with similar rules.

In the 70's, the average Holden Kingswood 3.3l 6 cylinder had a paltry 100kW (140hp) and it was considered a 'staple'. People pulled caravans and travelled the continent with them. Even the high-performance V8s of the day had less power than the current Commodore's 190kWs.
Most 2-2.5 litre-class cars such as Camrys, Sonatas, Accords, Mazda 6s all have more power than an early 1980s Commodore 6, which was similar in size.
If a car of a certain size and power is considered a 'norm' why is the modern equivalent not considered that norm?
The 'norm' appears to more revolve around the number of cylinders, than its size.

While the 'family six' is still considered a staple driving diet, it has in fact increased in dimensions and power significantly.

So whats happening here? Are we simply consuming cheap petrol and hang the consequences? Do we have an addiction to horsepower?

Most likely the answer is yes. Increases in the efficiency of cars has not lead to a smaller capacitied, fuel efficient 'norm', it has allowed the 'norm' to increase in size and horsepower instead.

Personally, I'd like to see a capacity-based tax applied. It would have to be introduced over a span of a decade, slowly reducing the average capacity from near 4.0litres down to 3.0litres.
Perhaps some relief for small cars under 1.5 litres instead of relief for large 4wds...

2005-09-08T12:36:00.000+10:00

Well, this is my very first entry into, what i hope will be, a regular way to discuss what is going on in the world.
Initially, i wanted to try and keep the range of topics down, but stuff it. Its my blog and i'll say what i want to.

A bit about me: I'm (seemingly) a freelance IT consultant. I'm bouncing between Sydney at Melbourne, Australia and i have a wonderful girlfriend, laptop and a motorbike. I also have a 31 year old sports car, but I think i've actually passed that phase in life.

My politics are left-leaning centrist. I've got a theory which needs a bit more evidence that right-wing conservatives (in particular the 'neocon') are unevolved, but more of that particular idea later.

Another one of my theories is that the US empire is on a cusp of either being a sole superpower in a Roman empire kinda way or in its twilight, and about to fall in a generation like the Roman empire. Again, more of this later.