Leap day - or a workers lament

February 29th is an interesting day.

In reality it only comes around once every four years and it is a demonstration how people are generally squeezed out of at least ten minutes of their lives each year and once every four years they are slugged with an extra day of work!

Who can we thank for all this extra work load? Who can we thank for depriving us of 10 minutes of salary every year and then to top that off an additional day of work at no extra charge!

Well big Julie started it all off (yeah you know the one, Julius Caesar the one who finally got his in the rotunda, the guy whose travel journals some of us had to translate from his original Latin into something meaningful like English, the guy who kept putting all his verbs at the end of an extremely long sentence!)

Big Julie had the bright idea of making a year 365.25 days as far back as 468 BC and you really have to remember the BC because it means BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ERA and not alas, before the Caesars.

By 1267, the monk, Roger Bacon, made an astonishing observation.

He was smart enough to notice that the calendar had slipped some nine days in 13 centuries and that people were celebrating Easter on the wrong day.

Now of course you begin to understand the reason I asked you to focus on the BC or Before the Christian Era.

Had there been no "Christian Era" we would not have had Bacon and his observations and we would all have had big Julie's calendar to this day!

Alas, being a monk Bacon appears to have had a lot of time on his hands (so to speak) and wanted to adjust big Julie's calendar.

It didn't really matter to him, that he had no idea WHEN the real final days of Christ (the days leading to Easter) took place, nor did it seem to matter that the pagan celebration of of the Northern Hemisphere Spring, with all the fertility symbols that rabbits and eggs represent were not a really Christian things. Both he and Big Julie knew and used MATHEMATICS - you know the things that are used by the people we really loved at school, especially when they tried to explain long division and other arcane things like 'cos' and the meaning of 'pi' and of course all those other 'wise men' who want to ensure that the working classes get their just deserts, simply because it's mathematically correct!

Thank goodness no one took notice of his finding until 1582.

This time the person who took note was a real force in the world. Pope Gregory XIII (that's the 13th for all of you who can't read Latin numbers - a number traditionally associated with bad luck) adjusted the calendar to the one we use today.

A calendar moreover that has some interesting quirks of its own. Did you know for example that every fourth year is a leap year UNLESS it it divisible by 100 and not 400?

This form of calculation still makes the year a little under 26 seconds too long, but what the hey, it's as close as we are going to get without having to adjust every watch, clock and digital time piece around the world. (Mind you there is a great marketing opportunity there somewhere for someone who is brave enough to face the consequences.

So now we, the working poor, not only give up ten minutes a year for four years, but once every four years we are slugged with an extra day of work as well!

It's darned unfair if you ask me - and all because of mathematicians and the rich and powerful.

What's in the News - a Reality Check

"Sixteen Palestinians - the four boys, three adult civilians and nine
militants - were killed in missile strikes on Thursday, the medical
workers said.

The father of two of the youths wept in a Gaza hospital, unable to speak.

Medical workers said the boys were playing soccer when an Israeli missile struck.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the missile targeted militants who had fired rockets at southern Israel."

This is the story I read from the ABC News here in Australia.

The question now is what to believe from this simple set of statements?

I suspect that those who are hostile to Israel and its actions will focus on the statement from the medical workers.

The words "the boys were playing soccer when an Israeli missile struck" will of course convey the message that the Israelis are brutal, immoral, non caring people who attack and kill innocent children just being children, out innocently playing soccer.

Those whose point of view is a little more aligned to the Israeli cause might suggest that targeting militants who had fired rockets at Southern Israel is not incompatible with the story of the medics.

Think about it from a time frame perspective:

1. rockets are fired and take some time to hit their targets
2. Israeli authorities take time to check the sites where the rockets have landed take more time to see if their systems can trace where these rockets had come from and then take more time to organise a missile strike in response.

What I am getting at is that quite a deal of time is likely to have passed before the Israelis respond to the rocket attacks.

If Shakespeare was right and people undertake multiple roles and wear 'manifold garb' in life then it's possible for young people to be firing rockets at one time frame and playing soccer at another time.

If you can understand and believe that many of the militants in Gaza (as elsewhere) are youths (indeed many soldiers in all wars, insurrections, rebellions, terrorist actions are young people)

If you can understand that often in Gaza it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between the multiple roles that people have to play in life.

Then, here is no doubt that at some point young people will play a sport or play the role of a child or a son. This does NOT prevent or preclude them from playing another role at another point in time including that of a militant who sets up and fires rockets into Israel.

One the one hand it's possible that the Israelis struck at militants and mistakenly killed some innocent children who were doing nothing more heinous than playing soccer.

On the other hand it's also possible that these youths who are described as children were in reality militants.

There is no doubt that another part of the news which refers to the death of a six month old child when a missile hit a militants house while he was there with members of his family is regrettable, but the Israelis will target militant commanders whenever they can find out where they are. If these militant commanders put their families at risk, that's just too bad.

Considering the response of one Hamas leader who suggested that their women will continue to bear children whose fathers will mourn them as martyrs when they are killed - suggests that perhaps at least some of the propaganda that hopes to horrify the world, with stories of nasty Israelis killing innocent civilian children in Gaza needs to be taken with several grains of disbelief.

Consumer Intelligence You can never have too much

It's interesting what you come across in your mail box. Here was a leaflet from CHOICE magazine

I thought great - here is a reliable source of information that is available to health consumers anywhere really since they are on the web so why not take advantage of it.

I have used the graphic which the proudly displayed in the pamphlet that was sent to my home so please allow me to acknowledge where it comes from. Personally I think it's a great graphic as it shows in great detail some of the elements that consumers need to be aware of:

1. Being cluey
2. Being value seeking
3. Having knowledge
4. Being scam aware and
   
5. Being discerning

It's not often that I feature something I can recommend on these pages, but I will this time.

They are great value - check them out!

Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think.

Apparently there is a book which is due for publication next month (not that far away really) entitled "Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think."

It's amazing what responses I have had when "discussing" the book - well really just the title and what little we know about it from the advertising on the BBC

Apparently, some 50,000 people who are of the Muslim faith in some 35 countries were surveyed by the Gallop organisation, on the instructions of its chairman Mr Jim Clifton way back in 2001, after President Bush asked "Why do they hate us?"

On the basis of the data obtained, an extrapolation has been made which claims to be able to, in effect, speak for Islam or at least adequately represent the points of view of some 1 billion of the faithful.

If you think this is a stretch you may be right - after all if you do your sums and see what 50,000 people mean statistically from a population of 1 billion and then ask how many were polled in each of the 35 countries and then make some sense of the relationships between the numbers polled and the total population in each of the countries then you will have sufficient data to begin to evaluate whether the poll and the book are useful or not.

Until then - all we have is the propaganda, by those who want to sell the book or more appropriately want us to buy it.

At least we can explore some of the more interesting 'leaks' that have been revealed about the contents of this book, so that we can determine whether it's worth spending money to find out more.

Apparently:

1. Those polled also said the most important thing the West could do to improve relations with Muslim societies was to change its negative views towards Muslims and respect Islam
2. the vast majority want Western democracy and freedoms, but do not want them to be imposed
3. many of the 7% classing themselves as "radical" - in fact admire the West for its democracy and freedoms. However, they do not want such things imposed on them.
4. most wanted the West to focus on changing its negative view of Muslims and Islam
5. most Muslims want guarantees of freedom of speech

As is usual with such leaks, any reader who is familiar with statistical analysis techniques would want to see the questions and actually ask how and where they were administered and how the choice of those surveyed was arrived at and loads of other questions about methodology and the population surveyed.

I guess that at present all we have are the leaks and the views or should I say opinions of certain people mentioned in the article who appear to have been given access to the poll and its results.

The rest of us I am afraid will have to buy the book to be able to read all about the survey and then hopefully have sufficient information to enable us to reach some conclusions about the validity of both the survey and the way it was administered and also the analysis of the results and the conclusions that have been derived from it.

One thing that has been revealed though, I think is or at should be taken at face value and actually listened to by all. This is in the first item listed in the leaks I have gleaned from the publicity:- "Those polled also said the most important thing the West could do to improve relations with Muslim societies was to change its negative views towards Muslims and respect Islam."

I really have no problem with this conclusion, indeed I support it 100%, with one teensy weensy proviso and that is that those who want us (ie non Muslims) to change, need to understand that positive attitudes and mutual respect are what is required on their part as well and not a one way street.

If we could look forward to all the relevant leaders standing up and pledging mutual respect and positive attitudes and agreeing that while there are different religious beliefs with different requirements about and for behaviour, there is also to be tolerance of others and their views and acceptance that those others can practice their views in peace.

When we can have that form of tolerance and mutual understanding and respect, then we can finally have a world community that wants to and is capable of working collectively towards securing all of humanity from the colossal dangers that it faces from environmental changes brought about by the residue of our existence on the planet, and by the fact that as time passes and there are more and more human beings on the planet there needs to be some careful management of the finite resources we have on above and in this planet so that we can all continue to exist on its surface in a state of relative well being.

To my mind THAT should be the goal of all - but when I say that I realise that I merely stating the thoughts I had in a dream and that reality is unlikely to produce anything like this view while human beings do not realise that we are all living in a closed and finite environment. Further that unless we start to respect and manage our environment, some of us and more likely many of our children and grandchildren and their descendants will have to 'carry the can' for our short sightedness now!

Shades of the American Wild Wild West

If you grew up as I did, watching American cowboy movies at the cinema - in black and white, then you knew, without any fear of contradiction, that the genre identified the good guys from the baddies simply by their choice of head wear.

The good guys always wore white hats and the bad guys always wore black hats.

If you have a chance, review the footage you have been seeing on your TV sets over the last few years, set in some of the countries within which there are now terrorist groups or alleged terrorist organisations that have come under fire from during the American led "war on terror."

It's in the light of this interesting take on American history that I read the most recent news item concerning Barack Obama. There he is pictured while on a trip to Kenya the country where his father was born, wearing a white turban.

This appears to be considered by all and sundry as a low down dirty trick and is considered offensive by many in the Obama camp.

Don't know about anyone else - if it were me, I would relish the fact that my attempted detractors had managed to get the message so wrong! After all Obama is wearing a WHITE hat!

Now if someone comes and publishes a picture with Hillary Clinton wearing a black hat or a black turban, I will simply roll over in great guffaws of laughter at the level of politicking that is now happening in the USA.

There is already some evidence that this is likely to happen - perhaps in Texas. After all, check out this offering from You Decide 2008

Then of course I could be wrong and all the 'rules' that the USA seems to have set in the past may be being overturned in the environment of the present;

For example:
Black Hat and White hat

The 'Good' Samaritan

It was hard to escape hearing Bible stories when people were growing up in Australia in the 1950's. Try as you might to duck classes in which someone tried to assist you with your religious development there were numerous occasions when it was simply more politic to stay at your desk and simply simulate an intense meditative state.

This would allow the words of whoever happened to be providing the address to wash over you undetected. In reality you reached a dream state in which you could really be thinking about when you were going down to the beach or . . . well anything really as long as it had nothing to do with the subject at hand!

It was thus with some trepidation that I read a news story this morning from the ABC which referred to a new form of suicide bomber in Iraq. We have had apocryphal stories about terrorists using young women with Downs syndrome as part of their horrific activities but this is the first time I have read about using someone in a wheel chair as the bomber.

What got my attention was the fact that all this took place in the city of Samarr which if my childhood memories are correct has something to do with the fabled 'Good Samaritan' of biblical fame.

A quiz for the 21st Century

"When is a militant a civilian?" - Whenever a terrorist organisation says so and points the finger at a government organisation that has just violently killed someone.

"When is a civilian a militant?" Whenever a government, under threat from terrorists kills someone in the territory that houses terrorists.

What's the real truth? - There is often no distinction between civilians and militants!

It's quite 'normal' these days to find people who seem to live their lives as ordinary civilians, minding their own business, raising a family, going to work, doing the shopping, visiting their relatives who also double as terrorists hell bent on, building bombs, learning, trying or actually succeeding in destroying someone else's life - virtually "in their spare time".

The world is a dangerous place these days and it seems that anyone with a grudge against anyone else has or at least claims to have, the 'right' to do something about it.

Such views are not restricted to the lunatic fringe in interesting regions of the world like the middle east!

In Texas - as I understand it, the concept enshrined in the old saying, "a man's home is his castle," has been given effect in legislation.

Now, anyone can apparently 'defend' his home against intruders to the point of using 'deadly force'.

Indeed a man is on trial in that state for trying to extend this principle to his neighbour's house,

After ringing 911, the emergency services, to report a burglary in his neighbour's home and being told to do nothing and wait for the police, this man took his shotgun and after a brief warning or challenge with something like:- "move and you're dead" fired and killed two people.

It seems both were illegal immigrants AND apparently undertaking a burglary in the home of a neighbour.

Is this man a civilian or a militant? Is he a terrorist or just a good neighbour?

Some interesting questions for a nation which is currently engaged in a "War on Terror".

Don't know about you - but I for one would NOT like to live in the new "wild wild west" that seems to be Texas.

Then again, I am not sure I want to live in Sderot or Gaza or Iraq or northern Turkey - Aw hell is there anywhere that it's safe any more?

The Moral Imperative - again!

Ralph Nader has announced plans to run again for the US presidency. The anti-establishment consumer advocate made the announcement in a televised interview on Sunday.

He said most Americans were disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties - who were not discussing the urgent issues facing American voters

People, he said, felt "locked out, shut out, marginalised and disrespected".

He called Washington DC "corporate-occupied territory" that turns the government against the interest of its own people.

Referring to the three main contenders in the race so far, he questioned: "Do they have the moral courage, do they have the fortitude to stand up to corporate powers and get things done for the American people?"

"We have to shift the power from the few to the many."

Coincidentally, a site that is normally outside my range of browsing pleasure popped up in response to a query. It was "Ask Moses.com" at http://www.askmoses.com

On this site I found that Rabbi Naftali Silberberg has written:

"Our sages teach us that when G-d created Man, he was concerned that the angels would be jealous, for Man is the only creation like them who understands right from wrong. So G-d consulted with the angels before creating Man and said, "Let us make Man."

The lesson from this is that one should always seek advice, even from those who are inferior to you."

Apparently, even when you are the Almighty and can create and/or destroy the universe and all things in it, you stop, pause, think of all those lesser, inferior creatures around you, and seek their advice – before you get on and do what you wanted to do in the first place.

All this emphasised with the moral imperative "should."

The word 'should' is OK from the mouth of the Almighty - after all who has a greater claim to the moral imperative.

When uttered by lesser beings though, it could be a worry!

So here is a tip for all Americans:

Be careful who you vote for in your next election.

You can know with considerable certainty that you will NOT have the Almighty in power, regardless of who you vote for.

At least make sure that the person you elect consults with the lesser beings around them, preferably those whose lives and well being are likely to be put at risk by the decisions that they make.

The chances are that if you choose wisely then perhaps they will tend to exercise restraint when they are tempted to use the 'moral imperative.'

Just remember that Nader is a two time loser - he tried and failed in 2000 and again in 2004.

2% of Americans voted for him last time and had his votes gone elsewhere, especially in crucial states like Florida we may not have had to put up with "Dubya" for the last few years.

Help the world or missile defence test

My readers will know that among others, I have also been suspicious that the stated intent of the USA in shooting a missile at an errant spy satellite which (according to the statements from the USA) has been threatening parts of the world with possible toxic gasses being released from it's fuel tanks if it survived intact a plunge back to earth after something obviously went out of control on the spacecraft.

Bill Gates the US Defence Secretary has now added fuel to this fire with the latest announcement as reported by BBC News, to wit:

The US defence secretary has said that the shooting down of a disabled spy satellite with a missile shows the country's missile defence system works.

Robert Gates said the operation "speaks for itself", adding the US was prepared to share some technology with China.

The comments came after China said the missile strike could harm security in outer space.

The US is making much of it's very public statements about this whole event and stipulating that it was in the best interests of the world's population to "take the shot" so to speak. It is now even offering to share some of the technology with China.

I don't know what game is being played here but I have a feeling that the Russians who have been suspicious of this whole episode since its inception are not likely to be amused.

Just think of the recent sequence of events and make up your own mind.

Russia accuses US and it's allies of trying to surround it with Missile Defence Shield equipment in Poland and in the Czech republic, Russia in response withdraws from certain treaties that it previously had entered into stating that it feared for its security.

US allies equipped with Aegis cruisers and destroyers have been testing weapons systems in Japan and elsewhere.

Tensions are high in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world as issues about oil supplies., global warming, the economic impacts of climate change and more domestic issues confront the world with changes on a scale that are likely to require drastic changes in life style for most of the developed world countries.

Ethnic tensions closer to home in the Balkans and the reluctance of countries in Europe and elsewhere, staunch allies of the US to continue to support US efforts which are ostensibly aimed at "the war on terror" in Iraq and in Afghanistan are all placing the world community at risk.

Increasing the tensions are any acts which can 'demonstrate' that one country is capable of shielding itself from missiles aimed against it buy another nation as this sort of capacity would give that nation an advantage over others.

Shooting down satellites, a major feat of arms and technology is not likely to reduce tensions.

So when Bill Gates suggests that the missile defence test has taken place and that the world is a safer place as a result it's time to question the roles and functions that the US military is undertaking around the world and ask a deeper question which is - in whose interests is it to continue to support some of the policies which the current lame duck President has fostered around the world.

Rabbit proof fences are not enough!

Anywhere in the world anyone inciting racial hatred should be an anathema for people especially those who claim to have religious convictions.

Inciting such hatred in children, with a view of assisting one or more of them to take the road to 'martyrdom' (read terrorism) , at least in the view of this author, is totally unspeakable and unforgivable!

People who treat the younger generation in this way do not have any legitimate claims to being "freedom fighters" or people protecting the religious teachings of Islam, they are simply immoral criminals.

Reuters reports that:

"A man-sized talking rabbit appeared on television in Gaza on Friday to denounce Danish newspapers over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that offended Muslims.

The latest in a line of cartoon-inspired characters that take the message of the Hamas Islamist movement to Palestinian children, the actor in the Bugs Bunny-style outfit also railed against "Zionist filth" and Israel's control of Jerusalem.

The Friday show "Tomorrow's Pioneers" on Hamas's al-Aqsa channel has become a weekend fixture for pre-teens since shortly before the Islamists seized control of the Gaza Strip last year.

A Mickey Mouse-type creation provoked outcry in Israel and was condemned elsewhere as inciting hatred among the young. The mouse, eventually shown being beaten to death by an Israeli, was followed by a talking bee and, now, by Assud the rabbit.

"I want the West to hear this. I want the Danes who offended the great Prophet to hear it," the rabbit said, gesturing to viewers after the show's co-presenter, a girl of about 12 named Sarra, condemned Danish newspapers for reprinting the cartoons after police accused several men of plotting to kill the artist.

"Where are you Muslims? Where are you Arabs?" said Sarra, wearing a headscarf and speaking with precocious eloquence.

"We are all a sacrifice for the Prophet. The soldiers of Tomorrow's Pioneers will redeem the Prophet with all they have."

It's obvious that "rabbit proof fences" are not enough.

The entire civilized world should rail against this form of propaganda and against those who not only allow, but actively promote it.

If Palestinians are seeking to convince the world that they should be welcomed into the civilized world then this is surely NOT the way to do it!

New government, new rules, lower productivity or fiscal lunacy.

In recent times we have been hearing about one thing in Australia CHANGE - a theme that seems to also predominate in the US Election scene.

At present in Australia there is a nationwide shortage of skilled workers in a variety of sectors and of course there is an outbreak of the obesity epidemic that seems to have found its way here, most likely from the USA, via their many variations on the "fast food" franchises and lifestyle as well as their current obsession with reality TV that features a number of shows dealing with unbelievably fat people who are labelled (appropriately as it happens) as the "Biggest Loser"(s).

In Parliament, the current Opposition has been hammering the new government about it's plans to ensure that there are policies and practices in place to ensure that there is not a rise in inflation and of course a wages break out.

The new government, still in it's "honeymoon" period, has been responding with exactly what you would expect, namely, that it inherited the current horrific fiscal situation from the previous government and the five rounds of interest rises during its term in office, its complete lack of planned investment in everything from infrastructure to education and of course its horrific industrial legislation.

All of which the current government is set to change, of course.

Whether for the better or worse still remains to be seen.

The new Rudd government has pinned its hopes on wages restraint in part, by setting an example, announcing a freeze on wage rises for politicians.

They also exhorted CEOs around the country to follow their example. To which, in more diplomatic language of course, the CEOs are likely to respond "fat chance!"

Another message from government has been that it will do its best to increase productivity and so off-set any possible wage increases that are likely to be sought by unions for their members.

Unfortunately for the government one group of people closely associated with the work of government, Australia Post, or the people who deliver the mail, has announced that it is looking for fatter "posties."

This of course will deal with the labour shortage and the reality that there are more obese people in the country.

It may however have some unintended and possibly far reaching consequences.

A weight limit of 90 kgs (198 pounds) has been in place for "posties" for some time because the 110cc motorcycles which are used to deliver the mail to individual letter boxes were thought to have a safe working limit of 130kg (286 pounds) -- that's 40kg (88 pounds) for letters and up to 90 kgs for mail men and women fully clothed.

Apparently, after talks with motorcycle manufacturer Honda, it was agreed the bikes could safely carry a "postie" weighing 105 kgs (231 pounds)

Of course this will mean a lowering of productivity, because each "postie" will only be able to carry 25 kgs of mail if he or she is at the higher weight limit, or worse, it will mean more work for those with lower weight issues - surely an unfair workplace practice.

The union representing mail men and women said the 90 kg limit had caused recruitment headaches for Australia Post, but the company denied it had staffing problems.

"Testing found a rise in rider weight up to a maximum of 105 kgs would not have any significant effect on the stability, handling or safety of their 110 cc motorcycle," an Australia Post spokesman told the Daily Telegraph in Sydney.

"By raising it from 90 to 105 kilograms means there will be other people that can now apply," he said.

You, dear reader, being smarter than our politicians, will already be starting to appreciate the number of unfortunate outcomes may arise from this news:

1. existing "posties" are likely to increase their consumption of fast foods, as they are no longer in fear of losing their jobs;
2. as they increase their weight, their productivity will decline as will their health;
3. while there will be no "wages break out" per se, the costs of delivering mail will increase substantially, as more obese mail persons are employed;
4. this will mean an increase in the rate of postage (that will be blamed on the rising cost of fuel etc so as to protect the jobs and bonuses of the people who made this decision in the first place);
5. it may of course also mean an increase in the number of people who make demands on an already stretched health services area;
   
6. this of course would increase the cost of living for "working families";
7. increase the odds of inflation;
8. increase the chances of the Reserve Bank raising interest rates yet again;
9. etcetera

Indeed the only good thing to emerge from all of this is that investors, aka "fat cats," who have been on a fiscal diet recently, losing money in the USA and elsewhere in the world thanks to some unwise notions about lending money to people who can't pay it back - with interest of course, will get on their bikes (no doubt motorized and possibly from Honda) and push their money into Australia where it can earn a decent rate of return.

This, in combination with the purchasing power of the Aussie dollar is likely to create the necessary climate where investment opportunities for people living off shore will increase while raising the cost of living for those who live here.

I don't know about you - but I am making preparations for a worst case scenario! Invest locally and migrate for the duration to the south of France where they don't need 'le fast food' as they have an abundance of healthy, nutritious and well cooked food.

With winter coming on in Canberra, it sounds like a plan to me!

"Don't let me be misunderstood!"

What a hoot!

Gen William Ward said Africom's intent had been misunderstood

The BBC reports that:

The US military has decided to keep the headquarters of its new Africa Command in Germany, after only one African nation, Liberia, offered to host it.

Most African countries have been wary of plans to base the command, Africom, on the continent.

Africom's commander, Gen William Ward, said there were no plans to create large US garrisons on the continent.

The military command was created last year to unite responsibilities shared by three other US regional commands.

No one in Africa wants to host the US Military, except for Liberia the country that was colonized by freed African American slaves in 1822 who, with the support of the United States founded the country in 1847.

What a surprise!

There has been concern that Africom is really an attempt to protect US oil and mineral interests in Africa, amid growing competition for resources from Asian economies, says the BBC's Alex Last in the Nigerian capital Abuja.

Then there are fears about the continent being drawn into the US war on terror, our correspondent ads.

Gen Ward said Africom was not about militarisation but consolidating existing operations under one single command, while helping Africans with military training and supporting peacekeeping and aid operations.

Does anyone out there actually believe this? Apparently not locally!

Now that the US is virtually persona non grata in it's own previous 'sphere of influence' namely Latin America, it's apparently looking further afield.

People are looking at Americans helping with their military training and support for peacekeeping and they immediately think about Korea, Vietnam, and more recently Afghanistan and Iraq, where there is now a chorus of a familiar refrain that sounds something like:

"Yankee Go Home!"

The Africans are chanting a different tune. This may refer to the "Yankee dollar", but without strings attached.

Nostalgia or morbid curiosity?

I was fascinated to read about the return to the stage of a 104 year old Dutch cabaret singer who is alleged to have performed for the Nazis including Adolf Hitler and visited Dachau.

Simple morbid curiosity requires me to ask what this man can possibly offer to an audience these days?

I take it that a rendition of "Shake Rattle and Roll" was not on the program!
He must have something!

Apparently Johannes Heesters, born Johan, began his career in Amsterdam in the 1920s and moved to Germany in 1935, where he enjoyed a successful career.

These days I wonder if the curiosity is to see someone of this age manage to perform at all.

Interestingly the Allies apparently allowed him to keep performing after the war in-spite of allegations like:

"He kept singing for the Nazi regime, for the Wehrmacht, and he earned millions," said Piet Schouten, representative of a committee formed to protest against Saturday's performance.

"We have a problem with that on behalf of all the victims," he told national broadcaster NOS.

The world is a strange place and filled with even stranger stories!

Competition - your days may be numbered

"Competition - your days may be numbered" seems an appropriate header when referring to the latest offering from the BBC.

Helen Briggs the BBC Science Reporter based in Boston reports that:

Machines will achieve human-level artificial intelligence by 2029, a leading US inventor has predicted.

Humanity is on the brink of advances that will see tiny robots implanted in people's brains to make them more intelligent said engineer Ray Kurzweil.

He said machines and humans would eventually merge through devices implanted in the body to boost intelligence and health.

"It's really part of our civilisation," Mr Kurzweil said.

"But that's not going to be an alien invasion of intelligent machines to displace us."

Machines were already doing hundreds of things humans used to do, at human levels of intelligence or better, in many different areas, he said.

I have to confess that I was not much taken by the possibility that natural intelligence could be supplemented by devices that would give the less gifted among us some real equality (or God forbid - superiority).

I mean where would that all leave things like competition?

Besides, if everyone was capable of intelligence beyond their current capacities where would it leave politicians?

Probably without a job!

Indeed the only part of this story that I liked was the bit that suggested that:

"We'll have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries and interact directly with our biological neurons".

If these nanobots can get into my system and interact with any cancer cells that may remain there or actually find and destroy the little beggars that may return to haunt my system, I am all for the human/machine hybrid that is being predicted indeed, I am saving up as we speak!

I am not sure I can wait until 2029 though, so can we have all this "soon as" please?

If that's possible, I may even survive long enough to become not only one of the oldest, but probably one of the smartest among all the generations of my family!

On the other hand, if the predicted revolution (it can't really be called evolution I suppose) does not come in time - then I may well end up being one of the youngest among the leaves that have fallen from the family tree.

"Sorry"

Canberra Saturday 16th February:

On Valentines Day, I wrote a hopeful piece that tried to look at the future of community relations in this country between the indigenous and non indigenous inhabitants.

I have taken the liberty of referring my readers to a cartoon by Moir, entitled "And now - moving right along" which in its own sardonic way, demonstrates the level of cynicism that no doubt still permeates at least some levels of Australian society about indigenous matters.

I sincerely hope that it is just that, a cynical look at what for me at least has been a very memorable and historic occasion.

During the late 1960's and 1970's when I was at University and my social conscience finally began to be educated, a time when Nelson Mandella was still incarcerated and South Africa was still a bastion for racist apartheid policies and behaviours, I have to admit that I was ashamed that many of the ideas that seemed to have taken hold in that country, according to the reading I was being shown, were most likely exported there from Queensland, an Australian State which created and implemented the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 in the last century.

The Queensland Parliament consistently presented Aboriginal families with oppressive legislation until the early 1970s, when it began to formally disband apartheid by means of new legislation, for example, the Aborigines Act 1971.

It took a Labor Federal Government under the leadership of Gough Whitlam to implement the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, through the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

An act that started the process that culminated the other day with the issue of an apology and the use of that now famous word "sorry" by the leader of yet another Labor Federal Government, ironically, a Queensland representative, the current Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd.

Whatever cynical remarks one might wish to make about the level of bi-partisan support for this apology, it is interesting to note that way back in the 1970's, Mr Whitlam's successor and possibly bitterest political enemy at the time, Malcolm Fraser, a man who has been been less than favourably presented to history for his methods of unseating the Whitlam government, can also be remembered for his achievements on race issues, ranging from passing Northern Territory lands rights legislation - still the most advantageous to Aborigines in the nation - to his commitment to abolishing apartheid in South Africa.

People who wish to read about Mr Fraser's actions in this regard could do worse than to read a review of a lecture he gave (the fifth annual Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture) by Margo Kingston in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 25, 2000.

What a pity then to read from the ABC that:

The Central Land Council says the former Indigenous affairs minister, Mal Brough, should not be a member of the new bipartisan commission announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Wednesday.

Mr Rudd and Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson are co-chairing the commission, which will look at Indigenous housing in remote areas as its first task.

Dr Nelson has asked Mr Rudd to include Mr Brough on the commission because of his experience as Minister.

But the Central Land Council's director, David Ross, says that would be provocative and put the entire process in jeopardy.

"I don't think Aboriginal people would be too happy about having Mr Brough as a part of this committee, especially if they had to deal with him," he said.

"He's not the sort of man that would communicate with Aboriginal people.

"He was more interested in dictating to Aboriginal people about why they should and should not do rather than consulting with people."

I sincerely hope that Mr Moir is not correct and that his cartoon does NOT represent the future reality of either race relations or reconciliation in this country.

We really do NOT need another 30 + years of struggle and bitterness, what we need is resolution of that bitterness and a way of 'moving on' that does not run over Australians, whatever their colour, their ethnic background or creed.

Iranian President to visit Iraq

This is the picture that accompanies the story and this is the story in the press:

"The Iranian President will be visiting for two days from March 2. He will be meeting with President Jalal Talabani and with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki," Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

"He will be accompanied by a number of ministers."

Iran and Iraq fought a devastating war between 1980 and 1988 in which around 1 million people died."

Interestingly enough the picture of the President poses readers some interesting questions about what he is really saying, in Persian of course while conversing with journalists.

I would like to think that it's something like this:

"Yeah I know - you all think I have to be crazy to even contemplate visiting Iraq while the Americans, who have labelled me as being part of an "Axis of Evil" and hell bent on building nuclear weapons, so that I can start a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East, are there in force.

You would be wrong!

The Americans will actually protect me in the same way that they did at the UN recently, probably because of some misguided notions concerning diplomatic immunity.

You may think I am crazy to visit Iraq, where there are people who are letting off car bombs left right and centre killing people indiscriminately and where the regime I lead is remembered for having killed hundreds of thousands of those, whose relatives have been left behind.

You would be wrong!

The Americans will protect me from that too. Besides, since my lot supplies most of the material for the bombs, they would be crazy to eliminate their major source of supplies.

You may think that the Israelis, whom I have sworn to eliminate from the face of the earth, will let off a car bomb, just like the one in Syria the other day, that I, along with others allege, took out my dear friend and colleague, Imad Mughnieh.

Of course you know Imad, he's been on the most wanted terrorist list for ages. He's the guy alleged to have been involved with the terrorist bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the hijacking of a TWA flight in 1985 .

Don't believe what the Israelis are saying, denying responsibility or indeed involvement - that's just propaganda.

I can recognise that easily enough - after all I fabricate so much of the stuff myself, I would be crazy not to!

And of course you would be wrong again - the Americans will protect me from them too - generally they do what they are told when their actions would embarrass their major arms supplier.

My appearance? What's wrong with my appearance?

Oh that! That's due solely to the bad hair days I have been having recently and the fact that I have not been able to shave for at least a week or two.

Why not?

Well that's just a tad embarrassing.

You see my own hand is what I really worry about. It's unsteady when it holds a cut throat razor in the mornings!

Why not use a safety razor?

I can't afford to be seen with an American product like a safety razor!

Why not use an electric razor?

Well I have to admit, we have been having a few issues with the supply of electricity recently, in spite of the fact that we have quite a lot of the world's oil supplies - that's why we are building some nuclear reactors.

Don't be silly!

Why use our oil supplies to generate electricity?

It's far better to sell the stuff to you lot, at highly inflated prices. That is the policy of our brothers who form the OPEC oil cartel after all.

I guess I will just have to wait a while until those reactors are completed."

Freedom of the press under threat - again!

I was appalled to read the following information.

The BBC reports:

"At a meeting in Cairo called by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, a charter was adopted allowing authorities to withdraw permits from offending channels."

"At the meeting of information ministers from the 22-nation Arab League in Cairo, the charter was agreed by a vote.

The document calls on stations "not to offend the leaders or national and religious symbols" of Arab countries, news agency AFP reports.

They should not "damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values," the charter says.

Signatory countries may "withdraw, freeze or not renew the work permits of media which break the regulations".

The charter also calls on broadcasters to avoid erotic content, or content which promotes smoking or the consumption of alcohol, and to "protect Arab identity from the harmful effects of globalisation".

"Some satellite channels have strayed from the correct path," said Egyptian Information Minister Anas al-Fiqi.

He said it was time to confront those who propagated ignorant or reactionary ideas, and those who tried to score points by undermining governments and nations.

What worries me about this charter is that it appears that there are 22 regimes who wish to keep their people ignorant about what is going on in the world - perhaps to maintain their hold on power.

An information minister who can say that channels have "strayed from the correct path." really is a worry.

There is no 'correct path' in journalism except the truth or at least a point of view which an author is willing to stand behind!

If TV channels that wish to operate in the Arab League have now confirmed that they are nothing more than propaganda arms for the countries in which they are allowed to continue to function, then all people who are of the Muslim faith and all people who are interested in the freedom of the press need to be aware that it's not only bad taste that is in question from this decision, it is access to the truth!

People can turn off something which offends them if it is shown.

However, whenever a state or a religious institution censors what can and cannot be shown to people, then it becomes a repressive regime that does not trust it's own people. There is no guarantee that what the viewers are shown has any connection with either reality or the truth!

Arab League members need to consider what this move on their part will to do supporters or at least even handed commentators.

From now on, it is likely to be even more difficult than at present to tell what is or what is not really happening in Arab countries that are the members of the League.

From now on at least, all material needs to be vetted to ensure that it is not merely government approved propaganda!

I think the Arab League have done a great disservice to their communities and where there is some semblance of democracy, to their electorates.

They have once again encouraged those whose passion it is to argue that governments in Arab countries can't be trusted, because they fear the truth being told to their own people!

Censorship is not a great way to enable communication from any government!

It's also not a great way to encourage cooperation and collaboration with the rest of the world.

Valentines Day with a difference?

Dateline Canberra 13th February 2008

The current Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd finally says "Sorry" to indigenous people in Australia.

The parliament apologised today for breaking up families and for the pain, degradation and suffering inflicted on the Aboriginal people.

Part of the text reads:

"We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.''

"We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

"For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

"To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

"And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.''

"We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians,'' it says.

"A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

"A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity."

Given this motion, that Mr Rudd made in the Australian Parliament today, let's hope that indigenous peoples in this country will all accept the apology and accept that it demonstrates bi-partisan good will from both the government of this country, the opposition and also from the non indigenous people in Australia, those who have come here from all parts of the globe to settle and to enrich the cultural heritage of this country, by adding their contributions to the already rich tapestry woven by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, a tapestry that has become, in essence, Australia.

It is perhaps fitting that the apology is made on the day before Valentine's Day, a day now imbued with the tradition of lovers expressing their love for one another.

If the indigenous people of this country accept the apology, then tomorrow can bring a new dimension to Valentine's Day.

It can become for all Australians, a day not unlike the day that would follow what might happen in a family relationship in which at least one party has been able to say 'sorry' and is forgiven for past transgressions, so that the future of the relationship can be celebrated and then worked on jointly by all of those who are part and parcel of that family.

Let's try and bring to this next Valentine's Day, a new meaning of reconciliation and a peaceful, prosperous and harmonious future for all who live together in this country.

What's in the News Today?

Recently there have been somewhat disturbing news items - dismissed by the general media merely as President Putin flexing Russian muscles.

These items concern the expansion of the US military into such things as defence shields and weapons systems in space and also so called defensive missile systems installed in countries that just happen to place a ring around Russia and to some extent China.

Russia has responded somewhat aggressively by (among other things) re-commencing long range bomber flights in August of last year, in a move that has been most commonly regarded as 'flexing of military muscles.'

The latest example of this was just the other day when the BBC reported that:

"Two Russian bombers approached a US aircraft carrier in the Pacific and were intercepted by American fighter jets."

The incident comes amid renewed tensions between Moscow and Washington over American plans for a missile defence system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Mr Putin has complained about these developments before and has suggested that there is a new arms race that is in train.

Today he also suggested that while Russia does not have the power to stop its neighbours joining NATO it does have both the power and the responsibility to safeguard Russia by targeting both Poland and the Czech Republic if they permit such weapons systems on their soil.

China is also concerned about the development of American weapons systems - especially in space, and recently demonstrated its ability to shoot down a satellite in orbit.

It is also concerned by the fact that the latest military missile defence systems have been permitted on board Aegis class ships purchased by the Japanese Navy.

Both Russia and China appear to be so concerned about these developments - ostensibly to protect Europe and the continental United States from attack by 'rogue states' that they have proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft at the recent Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Meanwhile the Russians are also expanding their trade relations with India by concluding a deal to supply and build four nuclear power stations in that country. Once again this is ostensibly to enable India to meet its nuclear power requirements by 2020. Of course at the same time it was announced that India and Russia would be expanding the extent of their defence, engineering and energy cooperation.

At present Russia has supplied well over 70% of India's defence requirements - however this has had to be supplemented from other arms suppliers including Britain France Israel and the USA because there have been issues with deliveries from Russia for a variety of reasons.

It's ironic to note that the Russians and the Indians hope that their trade will increase to some 10 billion dollars a year from it's current level of around $5 billion per annum.

This is ironic, because with the recent meltdown in the US economy there is one obvious way for the USA to revitalise its fortunes, this being to ensure that military contracts can be found for firms most notably those that are currently difficulties, contracts that are funded from outside the USA.

Today's announcement, for example, that General Motors has suffered the biggest annual loss in the history of car making, a loss that has far exceeded analysts predictions, coming in at a staggering $38.73 billion, is a case in point.

If one then expands one's look at the businesses that comprise what in former times would have been called the "US military industrial complex" then one will realise that for the USA there is a major imperative, from a whole variety of perspectives, to once again try and create or at least capitalise on the international situations in which it's capacity to make and market weapons systems and ancillary support systems - be they electronic or not, are utilised by others as one way of "buying" their way out of their current fiscal difficulties.

Of course the greater the threat to world peace and the more unstable things become, the "better" it is for those firms that make or support the manufacture of armaments and/or related products.

At present, the dangers posed by the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq cause the USA a problem.

On the one hand, the USA is using high tech (read expensive) weaponry to combat these forces and to create levels of intelligence and security systems for the USA. These come at a cost - a very high cost.

On the other hand the terrorists are able to achieve their aims with very low cost solutions - for example the use of suicide bombers and IUDs.

The costs of maintaining these "wars" as well as maintaining and enhancing military operations around the world are hurting the US. This is not just in propaganda terms and in the loss of human lives, but also in terms of the cost of hiring, training, arming, deploying and then losing their military personnel and their equipment.

The reality is that, unless someone else, other than US taxpayers, pays for the weapons and allied systems that the USA is deploying and expending on the battlefields where it is and has been deployed at least since 9/11, it risks losing not only the battles, but also its ability to fund such battles in the future.

At least one "solution" to this problem might be to take advantage of situations in which other economies are required to invest in the purchase of military goods made by the USA for their security, protection or conduct of operations against insurgents or others hostile to their governments.

Certainly the purchase by other economies of goods made in the USA would not hurt the economy of the United States.

Recent sales of military hardware to countries such as Saudi Arabia are cases in point where the money coming in from such sales can not only offset the trade imbalance caused by oil but can positively advantage American companies that make the products that have been purchased and through taxation also bring some revenue to the US government.

Alas the levels of instability in international relations and within nations is surely hurting the well being of the people who live in those unstable circumstances and does very little to allay the fears of those who do NOT dismiss the Russian and Chinese activities as mere "muscle flexing."

I do not know about anyone else who was born after 1945 - but I for one do NOT want to see another world war or another cold war, especially if the potential combatants are all in possession of nuclear weapons systems!

How many cows for Nicole?

It's not often that I have the opportunity to ask some really cynical questions - but today appears to be the exception.

When human beings started to domesticate and herd animals instead of hunting them, a custom seems to have appeared that was unique to that time - the so called "bride price".

For the privilege of gaining a woman as a wife - the "gaining" family would actually pay the "losing" family for the loss of this valuable "asset".

Women were defined as "assets", in those days, valuable assets; that had the children, looked after the house, cooked, cleaned, washed, made the clothes, grew the vegetables and were of course great companions as well.

In more recent times, it was common to have the "losing" family actually have to find some goods to go along with the woman so that the 'gaining' family would take the woman (someone whose value seems to have slipped by that time) off their hands. This was usually referred to as a "Dowry"

In any event, the point of this story is that women have, it seems, over the centuries, always had a 'price.'

Like the stock-market, this price has fluctuated and has waxed and waned.

The news from today of course is that a swimming costume, belonging to Australian film star Nicole Kidman was sold at auction for enough to buy more than nine cows for the poor in India.

Apparently Kidman, a keen swimmer, forgot the suit at a pool she had reserved for her personal use in the south-western town of Vaenersborg during a 2002 stay in Sweden to shoot Lars von Trier's "Dogville".

Pool staff found it and handed it over to a local radio station.

Mr Zlatko Nedanovski, 32 then bought the swimsuit for 5,500 kronor and promptly put it on display at his second hand store.

Mr Nedanovski says bids for the swimsuit had come from all over the world, but it finally went to 49-year-old Bengt Olsen from Sweden's film town Trollheattan, just south of Vaenersborg for 16,200 kronor ($3,270) which is more than Mr Nedanovski said he had hoped to raise to buy five cows, or around 9,000 kronor, as part of a project run by the Swedish aid organisation Erikshjaelpen.

Now here is where my cynical mind asks the next question:-

"If the swimsuit WITHOUT Nicole in it currently worth 16,200 kronor (more than the price of nine cows) nearly a 300% increase in the price paid for it by Mr Nedanovski in 2002 then how many cows will you be able to buy with the suit in five years time?

More to the point what's Nicole worth? With or without the suit?

The world's an interesting place!

Are there double standards or is it just my reading of the news?

On the 5th of February 2008 the Australian Government (through the offices of the Foreign Affairs Minister) The Hon Stephen Smith MP said:

"The Australian Government strongly condemns the suicide bombing in Dimona in Southern Israel on 4 February, in which three people have been reported killed and 11 wounded. Australia condemns such violence against innocent civilians."

I have not really seen much about this terrorist act in the Australian press, however I have seen some reports from the Palestinian Authority, including the official Al-Hayat al-Jadida which is apparently controlled by PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Of course Hamas, the organisation that was elected in Gaza as the government of that territory, has claimed responsibility for the operation which apparently was launched from Hebron.

"The perpetrators of the operation died as shahids ... an Israeli was killed and eleven were wounded in the Dimona operation."

The Palestinian dailies Al-Iyam and Al-Quds also defined the bombers as glorious martyrs, or shahids.

Apparently, according to Islam, a shahid is a person who dies a "holy death" for Allah and is conceived of as a hero and role model in Palestinian society, specifically for Palestinian youths.

The Israeli who was killed in the "operation," as it is referred to in some media reports I have seen, appears to have been Lyubov Razdolskaya, 73. She was shopping with her husband Eduard Gedalin, 74, who is in critical condition due to injuries suffered in the attack.

What a glorious outcome for this "operation."

Two elderly people who had survived the second world war and the fanatical hatred of all things Jewish under the Nazi regime, as well as all of the constraints and ravages of living under the Soviet regime, finally murdered as they shopped.

Apparently there is not the same sense of outrage for these "innocent civilians" as there appears to be for the people in Gaza who seem to support those who have claimed responsibility for this horrific attack.

I made some comments on this blog about similar issues in relation to the restrictions of electricity supply to the Palestinians in Gaza being condemned, while nothing is said about the denial of electricity to the whole of Mozambique and Zambia and Zimbabwe by the South African electricity supplier or the 25% reduction of electricity to the people in the Ukraine by the Russian supplier.

No condemnation is made of those who with to maintain the profits of their shareholders, but there is always criticism of a government that is seeking to maintain the security and well being of its citizens.

At what point will some of these double standards become obvious to people?

Or am I simply missing something in my reading of the news?

Sharia Law in the UK? Whatever next?

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

I agree with Dr Williams - up to a point.

Consenting adults should be able to access more culturally appropriate provisions for the management of marital disputes, property settlements, custody arrangements and the like if they wish to do so.

These permissions should not become part of English, law but something where decisions made by the parties, when entered into by consenting adults, are recognised by English law.

Consenting adults moreover, where both parties have been afforded the opportunity to provide informed consent.

Dr Rowan goes on to say:

Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

I think that the phrase "as long as both sides agree to the process' is one key to this proposition, together with two other propositions (unstated):

1. that both parties are well enough informed to be able to make an informed choice and
   
2. that the jurisdiction of the religious court is clearly and unambiguously delineated.
   

In essence this would mean that the laws of the land always take precedence over all other forms of justice that exist in the community. However, in recognition of the sensitivities and rights of people from other cultures:

1. if both the parties to a potential dispute agree to abide by another form of judicial process and
   
2. they are both provided with expert advice and information that enables them to make an informed choice and
3. the jurisdiction of the courts are limited to certain agreed matters

then the people, the other religious groups and the government and the courts of the country should support them.

Some of my readers in Australia will obviously think I have suddenly lost my senses and become demented!

The first reaction I expect will be something like:

"It's not coming here, whatever the Archbishop is saying!

They can do what they like in the UK!

This is Australia, mate, if all these people want to come here then they can bloody well accept that there is ONE LAW for all in this country and if they don't like it, they can bugger off and go back to where they came from."

This expected reaction is what has in essence already been said by representatives from both sides of politics in this country. Put more politely - of course!

Yet I wonder.

People who have chosen to go anywhere from other lands and cultures, usually because they are refugees, are none the less expected to have made an informed choice about going to that country.

Part of that informed choice is to recognise that the culture is different, the mainstream religion is different and the way that the laws work where the end up, is different.

So why hold out an opportunity to people to have access to some other form of justice even if it is only for a small range of matters?

I guess my answer to that is that if this suggestion had been made in Australia then I would have expected Australians to react differently than they have to date, as Australia appears to be, for the most part at least, a tolerant society and one that positively welcomes differences.

It is a country in which people from well over a hundred different nationalities, many with different cultures and religions have come and settled.

They have all made a wonderful contribution to the development of this country and added to the Australia we now have, from their own unique cultures and belief systems.

So if the issue had been raised here, then perhaps it's past time to ensure that we, the Australians who live here and benefit from these contributions recognise that it's OK to permit others if they choose to do so, to remain close to their religious and cultural heritage and have at least some aspects of their lives governed by the laws of behaviour that have governed their lives in the past.

At all times, the proviso that parts of these non Australian justice systems can come into play is if and only if, both the parties to the dispute agree to it.

If not then the matter cannot be brought to any religious court.

Furthermore, in most jurisdictions where such provisions already apply, the range of disputes that are permitted to come before an alternate justice system are usually limited to some civil matters and do not and cannot be used in cases of criminal justice or indeed for any other decision making outside those very limited situations.

The establishment of any religious court, MUST also be accompanied by a clear definition of the extent of its jurisdiction and have some provision within the system that ensures that before either party is permitted to make a choice to use a religious court system, both parties are provided with information and advice about the system and its provisions.

Then each of the parties needs to be able to get advice about what making a choice like this means for them.

I raise the issue of informed consent simply because another argument that is likely from those whose visceral reactions to such a proposal are almost guaranteed, is that at least one of the parties (my guess is that in most of the arguments women will feature heavily as the party in question) will not have the opportunity to make a free choice or to exercise informed consent.

The argument is likely to run that in some cultures women are discouraged, if not prevented from having access to education. If women arrive from a country where this is common place, into the UK, (or anywhere else for that matter) then how will they know their rights and what opportunity will there really be for them to make an informed choice about whether or not to agree to participate?

My obvious suggestion to remedy such questions is that any legal provision that permits Sharia or other religious courts to function, needs to ensure that both parties are not only able to obtain, but are provided with expert advice and information as a matter of course, before they are permitted to make any choices.

This question has not come to Australia, yet, but I suspect it will.

I wonder what the reaction will be in the UK

I suspect it will be both as hostile as it has been in Australia and in the case of a similar attempt in Ontario in Canada where: (as reported by BBC news)

A report by Ontario's former attorney general Marion Boyd had recommended the use of Islamic law to settle issues such as divorce and child custody.

Premier Dalton McGuinty ruled against the move, saying there should be "one law for all Ontarians".

Protests were held against the Sharia law proposal in major Canadian cities, as well as in Paris, London and Vienna. Critics said allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women."

HRW needs to look at its biased commentary

Israel's move to cut energy supplies to the Gaza Strip violates the laws of war, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a report published on Thursday 7th February 2007

"Israel's cuts of fuel and electricity to Gaza, set to escalate today, amount to collective punishment of the civilian population, and violate Israel's obligations under the laws of war," the New York-based group said.

Israel began reducing the amount of fuel it supplied to Gaza in late October after declaring the coastal strip a "hostile entity" following its takeover by Hamas, an Islamist movement pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.

"Israel views restricting fuel and electricity to Gaza as a way to pressure Palestinian armed groups to stop their rocket and suicide attacks," HRW's Middle East director Joe Stork said in the statement.

"But the cuts are seriously affecting civilians who have nothing to do with these armed groups, and that violates a fundamental principle of the laws of war," he said."

Whenever I read stories like this one I have an immediate and visceral reaction to the hypocrisy of the groups that make such comments and their lack of focus on the rest of the world where similar acts take place, but because they are are not in the Middle East; they do not involve Palestinians and Israelis, they are ignored and pass without any comment at all.

Recently the South African electricity producer cut off supplies to the whole of Zambia and Mozambique, because those countries did not pay their bills.

While not an 'act of war' perhaps, is this action by a private company less deserving of criticism?

Is such an act not going to provide "collective punishment" of the civilian population because the governments of those countries are simply not paying their bills?

Is this act any less deserving of comment from organisations such as Human Rights Watch?

Are ordinary people, their hospitals etc not affected by all this?

Is there a lack of criticism because the people who make up the Human Rights Watch simply have different views about the actions of companies that protect their shareholders interests and about governments that take action to try and protect the safety and security of their citizens from rocket attacks and bombings by terrorist groups that are pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Taking heart it seems from such commentary, other companies elsewhere in the world are now putting their commercial profits (and/or the interests of their shareholders) above the interests of the civilian population.

This from the BBC today:

"Russian gas monopoly Gazprom has warned Ukraine it will reduce its gas supplies from next Monday if a $1.5bn (£772m) gas debt is not paid off.

Gazprom said only gas piped from Russia would be affected which would make up around 25% of Ukraine's total supply."

Gazprom spokesman Ilya Kochevrin said:

"We're a commercial company: our investors won't understand if our profits fall."

And this in the middle of winter!

Is such an act not going to provide 'collective punishment of the civilian population' because the governments of those countries are simply not paying their bills?

Is this act any less deserving of comment from organisations such as Human Rights Watch?

Are ordinary people, their hospitals etc. not affected by all this?

Is there a lack of criticism because the people who make up the Human Rights Watch simply have different views about the actions of companies that protect their shareholders interests and about governments that take action to try and protect the safety and security of their citizens from rocket attacks and bombings by terrorist groups that are "pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state"?

At what point is the Human Rights Watch going to make some comment about actions like this?

Or is it all different?

The rights of shareholders to their profits is obviously more "deserving" than the right of the citizens of Israel to simply live their lives in peace without being continually attacked by terrorist rockets and suicide bombers from a pseudo government that is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Wake up HRW, your bias appears to be showing, as does your lack of concern for the 'civilians'; who have nothing to do with these things that are happening in THEIR countries.

Fiction or Fantasy?

London to Cannes in just a few hours or would you prefer Europe to Australia in under 5 hours?
Heck, why not do BOTH?

Two news stories really got my interest this morning:

France Unveils Super Fast Train

and New British Jet could reach Australia in under 5 hours

I am unlikely to be alive to see these two stories come to fruition, but what stories they are.

They now make science fiction reality.

Can you believe the possibility of travelling from Europe to Australia and back in under 10 hours?

I can't.

However if I happen to be alive in 25 years time when this new service is expected to be available I will be among the first to try it!

In fact I think I will start saving NOW - just in case!

While I may not be able to benefit - my partner, who has friends in the UK would no doubt LOVE the idea of being able to see them for a quick visit on a weekend.

I mean, imagine the surprise:

"Hello darlings! Just passing, thought I would drop in for a quick hello!"

Staggers the imagination!

Alas, she would have to overfly Singapore and so sacrifice a favourite stopover on the current journey.

Singapore, a great place for food, shopping and visiting friends.

This would of course not stop her - it would merely mean a change of venue!

She would in all probability, use the new AVG, or it's successor to substitute, by taking in a quick shopping trip in Paris, and an opportunity to sample the cooking in the Dordogne and Provence while she was at it.

Perhaps, she could even squeeze in some genealogical research; take a quick stroll along the Mediterranean; attend at least one of the films at the Cannes Film Festival; or take a punt in the Casino at Monte Carlo.

Nah, that would have to be a long weekend at least!

Minke Whales

Way back in November 2007 (it was a slow news day) I ran a story about a Minke Whale that seemed to have gotten lost and ended up some 1600 kilometres up a river in the Amazon basin.

Somewhat with tongue in cheek, I asked at the time whether this animal was a scout for the rest of the herd, looking for a refuge from the Japanese whalers that had now virtually given up the pretence of 'scientific whaling' and were a lot more aggressive about hunting not only Minke whales, but also some other species, all to satisfy the tradition of killing and eating whales.

Today I received a comment from someone calling him or herself Daisk5 to the effect that:

Japanese whale fishing is completely lawful.
And is completely scientific.
In addition, it is a Japanese gastronomic culture to eat whales.
You should refrain from the act of denying the culture of another country.

This diatribe was accompanied by some URLs which then led to other sites where this nonsense was further perpetrated.

Initially I allowed the comment to be published on my site. Then I went to look for some indication of who this person is.

The profile was BLANK.

This tends to indicate, to me at least, that this person or agency has no intention of being identifiable and is just sending witless comments after an Internet search for the word "Minke" led him or her to my site some three months after I posted my comment.

Having looked that this, and some of the URLs, I decided that I would NOT participate in someone's "campaign" by publishing the post with it's attached URLs.

I went back and deleted the comment sent to me.

It was at this point and in all fairness that I decided that my readers needed some critique from me.

I do not think that having a "gastronomic culture to eat whales" is any reason why I should "refrain from the act of denying the culture of another country."

Without meaning to be offensive in any way, I am afraid that I would also comment negatively on people who have a "gastronomic culture" of eating other human beings.

Furthermore, I would do everything in my power to suggest through commentary that I find this sort of behaviour offensive not to say threatening!

As to the legality of the whaling, and the outrageous comment that these activities are in fact "completely scientific," I am afraid that I need to point out that the whaling fleet in the Antarctic waters are, or at least were, in an area designated by Australia as a whale sanctuary.

Nothing useful appears to have come from the 'science' that is conducted by the Japanese whalers to help protect and enhance the prospects of this whale species - apart from the (forgive the phrase) bleeding obvious - which of course is to gather data about the movements and habits of this whale species to ensure that the next year's hunt is even more successful.

I really can't see the value of the program for science - but of course I can see the value for those in the business of putting whale meat on the tables of those Japanese and tourists who can afford to eat it.

I did not start out being an advocate of the "Stop the Whaling" movement, but after this incident I am afraid I am taking more of an interest.

One other question I have posed elsewhere is whether millions of people around the planet can actually eat whale meat and still comply with their own dietary laws?

I would imagine that this would be difficult for Jews and Moslems, given their dietary laws. Then again I do not know after all whales are mammals and not fish.

Mammals that swim were not really on the menu in the Middle East. I suppose I should ask my readers if it is Kosher or Halal?

Then of course there is the Indian sub-continent and all those who are of the Hindu faith! What's their position on whale meat?

Propaganda or Truth (according to the authorities)

I am somewhat amazed by the headlines in the world's press concerning the most recent bombing that took place in Iraq.

The first reports I heard were about "two mentally disabled women" who were said to have been the bombers.

I was disgusted and horrified.

Then I thought about it and wondered how people knew that the bombers were "two mentally disabled women"? I mean if two bombs had exploded and there were only parts of the bombers left scattered around the scene along with the remains of those killed and wounded what was the evidence that enabled the reporters to use the phrase "two mentally disabled women"? Without meaning to be offensive it's hard enough to distinguish gender from body parts much less their mental state.

I decided to wait a little for the events of the day to percolate past the headlines until some more quotable quotes appeared and lo and behold the following finally came from the BBC

Brig Qassem Ata al-Moussawi, Iraq's chief military spokesman in Baghdad, told the BBC:

"The operation was carried out by two booby-trapped mentally disabled women. [The bombs] were detonated remotely". Police said the women were wearing belts carrying 15kg (33lb) of explosives and may have been unwittingly sent on the suicide missions.

The Iraqi prime minister said: "The terrorists used disabled women in this crime. This shows the moral degradation of these criminal gangs and how much they hate mankind."

It was at this point that I wondered whether I was being exposed to truth or propaganda!

If, in the final analysis, there is an inquiry into this horrific bombing, and it is found that the Iraqi authorities have used this story as a means of garnering support for their regime, against those who oppose them, then much as I hate to say it, those that have spread the story are even more morally bankrupt than the terrorists and support for them from the US military and others around the world, becomes equally morally bankrupt.

Let's investigate this news story and let's then have a little chat about those who authenticated it!