Australians are different

February 19th, 2005

Prime Minister HoWARd wants us to believe that when Australians are in a war zone and they are involved with prisoners they only interview them. Others do the interrogating, not Australians.

Canberra scientist Rod Barton told the ABC Four Corners program he took part in an interrogation.

David Kay, a former head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), said there was no difference between an interrogation and an interview. Mr Kay, who led the search for Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, said Australians were involved in the questioning of prisoners.

Kevin Rudd weighs in demanding answers,

"So I’ve got to say after a few days in Parliament we’ve got a prime minister saying ‘no, none of this happened’, but we have Mr Barton, (a) respected official who even the prime minister refused to get stuck into in Parliament yesterday, saying exactly the reverse,"
"The key thing here … is simply whether Mr Howard is telling the truth to the Australian people."

Joe Hockey defends his leader,

"This is a semantic debate about what is an interrogation and what is an interview. The fundamental point is: were Australians there whilst Iraqis were allegedly being tortured? The answer is ‘no’."

in·ter·ro·gate
Pronunciation: in-‘ter-&-"gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing Etymology: Latin interrogatus, past participle of interrogare, from inter- + rogare to ask
1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response

in·ter·view
Pronunciation: ‘in-t&r-"vyü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French entrevue, from (s’) entrevoir to see one another, meet, from entre- inter- + voir to see
1 : a formal consultation usually to evaluate qualifications (as of a prospective student or employee)
2 a : a meeting at which information is obtained (as by a reporter, television commentator, or pollster) from a person b : a report or reproduction of information so obtained

Two thoughts John HoWARd.
Is the Australian Military poorly trained for the invasion of Iraq and can’t manage a decent interrogation?
Or, is the Australian Military prepared to do all things military except interrogation/interview.

Curious HoWARd, because under the Geneva convention, interrogation is allowed.

Interrogation: While POWs the detaining power may interrogate them, POWs are only required to provide their surname, first names, rank, date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. POWs, cannot be punished if they do not, but are not required to provide any additional information. "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Third Geneva, Art. 17).

John HoWARd, you have sent the Australian Military into an invasion of Iraq. We, as Australians are not naive. Stop sanitising war. Stop telling us Australians are different.
Stop patronising us, and them, and bring them home.

Minister of Defence says he wasn’t in the room at the time, then asks for a glass of water…

February 16th, 2005

When Australia joined the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, HoWARd said he was very conscious of the dangers for the civilian population. Almost two years later, a parliamentary committee has exposed that no one in the Australian Government knows how many Iraqis have died.

The Office of National Assessments’ (ONA) Director-General Peter Varghese has told Senator Faulkner he too doesn’t have any reliable (or unreliable) figures on civilian deaths in Iraq.

Questioning Robert Hill the Minister of Defence, John Faulkner asks: "What attempts has the Australian Government made to try and ascertain what these figures might be?"

Robert Hill answers: "Well, we’ve accepted that it’s not possible at this time to produce an accurate figure on civilian casualties."

JF: "So, the committee is to take that as no attempts have been made, none whatsoever – zero, blotto, nothing."

RH: "Well I don’t think there is reporting mechanism."

JF: "Obviously not."

RH: "That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you, because I don’t believe the Americans know and the implication of the briefing I received was to that effect."

If we suspend disbelief and accept that the invasion of Iraq is actually Operation Iraqi Freedom then the rhetoric of March 2003 still holds. Read a few more News Transcripts from our allies Minister.

Iraqis are human and value life. They mourn when life ends. Children die and families and communities are left shattered.

Count them Minister.
They matter.

This movie should be viewed by Tony, Ron & George. Take along HoWARd and leave him in his beloved 1950’s.

February 13th, 2005

Vera Drake is a portrait of a selfless woman who is totally dedicated to her loving working class family. Vera has a secret side, though. Unbeknownst to family and friends, she visits women and helps them to induce miscarriages for their unwanted pregnancies, a practice that is illegal in 1950’s England. While Vera believes she is simply helping women in need of assistance, the dichotomy of her idyllic home life and her illegal activities make for a fascinating study.

794043784125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Referees do it for the sex and voyeurism

February 12th, 2005

Referees are the latest group of men who gather in groups, near pubs, away from their homes and break rules regarding sex and women.

"When these guys aren’t in the top flight and they’re probably getting a can of Coke and a Mars Bar for their effort, of course it will discourage people from becoming a referee," – Players’ Association president Tony Butterfield said.

Having read this piece it seems that referees aren’t interested in their profession and only participate in refereeing for the chance to have sex, photograph sex or watch other men have sex with women.

"The big quest is to find the fattest or the ugliest woman, dance with her and see if you can get her back to your room," one referee told the Herald yesterday. "It is a boy thing. It is a laugh."

No, it’s not a boy thing and it’s not a laugh.
It is cruel and abusive and it can be defined as having an Antisocial Personality Disorder, displaying psychopathy or sociopathy.

A reverse fairytale where the mistress takes all…

February 11th, 2005

In my youth I completed an Apprenticeship as a Florist. It’s a Trade in Victoria, with all the usual low wages, poor conditions, long hours, indenture, and exploitation. The first year weekly wage was $72.50 (after tax).

Even with all this, I loved being an apprentice Florist and no days more than Saturdays when all the freshly-proposed-to would come into the little ‘Weddings a specialty’ flower shop with either their bossy mother or their bossy maid-of-honour to order wedding flowers.

Their rings would sparkle almost as much as they did, with what I thought was the true love of it all. Even then my nascent cynicism was evident as after an hour of discussing the relative benefits of a Cascade bouquet with Stephanotis or Frangipani I would think

"Shit make a decision! It’s just a wedding bouquet."

Then, usually at about six weeks before the wedding the mother or maid-of-honour would come in upset saying that it was just so sad the wedding is off, and can we refund the deposit on the flowers?

Older and more cynical, with one of my brothers married for 26 days, I see weddings differently. Now I see them as,

  1. validation of your union before your god
  2. a rite-of-passage that most women feel measures their ‘success’ in society
  3. a community sanctioned structure to raise children with everyone having the ease of the same surname

I once created a huge wedding bouquet for a girlfriend who before her 36th birthday believed that she was too old to marry. Because this made her sad, we as her friends organised a wedding-day-themed-dress-up 36th birthday party to cheer her up.

I’m not anti-love, and I’m not anti-let’s-give-it-a-go, but I am anti-dishonesty and Charles and Camilla have been profoundly mendacious. Unconditional, reciprocal love is so fundamental to a person’s wellness that it is not unreasonable to expect it from those you marry, as Princess Diana did.

"Bring him a virgin and make sure she’s fertile…"

…was what was overheard as Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mother discussed Charles’ future.

I’m not sure if I applaud Camilla and Charles for their love-above-all-antics or they make me wretch as I remember the emotional abuse story that Charles’ previous wife told of living in a relationship with he-who-will-be-King and the ‘other woman’.

They will not be married in a church and I doubt either of them will be wearing white.

Either way I want to stay far, far, away from them both and I hope it doesn’t turn out to be a shotgun wedding…eek.