To build or not to build a dam –that is the question

The proposed Traveston dam on the Mary River was always considered controversial. When the Rudd Government environment minister, Peter Garrett blocked the building of the dam, the people in the region were quite happy. The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh did not attempt to protest the blocking of the dam but instead she decided to take the route of building a desalinisation plant.  The question to be asked right now, though, is whether or not the blocking of the dam, in light of the floods experienced last year and again this year, made matters worse for the flooding of Brisbane.

First of all,  here is a little bit of perspective regarding the region under discussion and how it relates to Brisbane:

 

 

 

As you can see from the map, Maryborough is to the north of Brisbane, and below Rockhampton, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. Toowoomba is to the west of Brisbane.

During December the Fitzroy river, which flows through Rockhampton was in flood, and it was the same in early January.  From this map we should be able to trace the flow of the waters from the Fitzroy River, and into the Wivenhoe dam.  The rains in this region had been heavy since at least September 2010, which in effect explains why the Wivenhoe dam had reached capacity.

Now let us look at the reasons that Garrett rejected the building of a dam on the Mary River. Keep in mind that the residents were against the building of the dam (which is natural since they would have been displaced). However, the reason for the decision was based upon the fact that three endangered species that rely upon the Mary River would have been displaced. These species are: the Australian lung fish, the Mary River turtle, and the Mary River cod. The building of the dam would have destroyed the natural habitat of these species.  However, Garrett did not base his decision to ban the dam on the impact of these species, but he based it upon a report from the Centre for International Economics which came to the conclusion that the decision by the Queensland Government to go ahead and build the dam was based upon flawed data.

If the project had been given the go ahead, then the dam would have been able to supply 70,000 megalitres of water to the Brisbane population.  It might or might not helped in the mitigation of the flood damage that was experienced in the towns south of Maryborough.

Since this was a recent project, there is doubt that had the dam being given approval to go ahead that it would have been finished in time, or at least prior to the rains brought by the La Nina.  The point is that even if the building of this dam was blocked, the Queensland government then did nothing to seek out alternative spots to build a dam, and instead chose to go ahead and build 4 desalination plants that have now been mothballed.

On top of that, I suspect that decisions were being made based upon the belief that “climate change” meant that Queensland would never see again the floods of the past. The Wivenhoe dam was built after the floods of 1974, and it was supposed to stop a similar kind of devastating flood from happening again.  There are plenty of questions to be asked about how the operators of the Wivenhoe dam were releasing water in the week prior to the devastating floods.  It is not so much the banning of the Traveston dam on the Mary River that helped to cause the situation, but the operation of the Wivenhoe that needs to be examined in some detail. Also, what needs to be questioned is why did the Queensland government fail to seek other alternative sites for a dam, sites that would have been more viable than the proposed Traveston, and sites that did not involve damaging the habitat of endangered species.

Brisbane floods–could this flood have been mitigated?

There are genuine questions to be asked about why the Wivenhoe Dam failed to protect Brisbane from its worst flood since 1974.  The history here is that the Wivenhoe Dam was built in response to the 1974 flood and it was supposed to protect Brisbane from this kind of disastrous flood. What went wrong?

Andrew Bolt has been asking some serious questions about why the operators of the Wivenhoe Dam failed to release larger amounts of water in the days preceding the heavy rains that led to the floods.  The issue raised by Bolt is that the Wivenhoe Dam at the time of the deluge was too full,  that it was in fact at about 160% capacity prior to the rains, and that the dam was filling up fast to the point where the flood gates would have opened automatically.

Bolt takes up the case presented by senior engineer Michael O’Brien who claims that the Brisbane flood was avoidable. The issue seems to centre around the fact that the SEQ water failed to release sufficient water from the dam in the week prior to the heavy rains, leading to the release of 645,00 mega litres on the morning of the Brisbane flood. This release was due to the rather alarming increase in the dam storage levels to about 190% capacity.

You can read the whole thing here.

Like Andrew Bolt I am not familiar with the information that has been provided. On the other hand, I have experienced a flood that was due to the opening of the Warragamba Dam’s floodgates. The effect of that action was quite significant, leading to serious flooding in the Richmond-Windsor district.  There is some similarity in circumstances because the flood was preceded by a week of heavy rain and then came the rising of the rivers which cut off the townships of Richmond and Windsor. In the case of Brisbane, as pointed out by Germaine Greer, the Wivenhoe had been as low as 10% capacity at one point, meaning that the SEQ operators of the dam might have been reluctant to release greater quantities of water.

At least Anna Bligh has ordered a Royal Commission into the floods, and hopefully the Royal Commission will examine all of the data that will explain why the Brisbane floods happened in the first place.

This is a different issue from the floods in Ipswich, Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley.  The wall of water that came beating down on the residents of that region was also probably avoidable. 

 

 

Germaine Greer adds her two cents worth–Pt. 5 of a series

This is the second time that I have agreed with the gist of comments from Germaine Greer. This woman gets it!!  The first time that I agreed with Greer was about the causes of the devastating bush fires in Australia two years ago. In that instance Greer took the Greenies and the Globull warmists to task over their attempts to claim that the most devastating fire in Marysville and other areas in Victoria was due to Globull warming. On that occasion Greer made observations that I had also learned in the classroom.

This time Greer is refuting the attempts by Globull warmists to claim that the floods in Queensland have something to do with climate change (it does not).

Here is a part of what Greer had to say in her column:

 

What’s going on in Australia is rain… The ground is swollen with months of it. The new downpours have nowhere to go but sideways, across the vast floodplains of this ancient continent. We all learned the poem at school, about how ours is “a sunburnt country . . . of droughts and flooding rains"… And yet we still don’t get it. After 10 years of drought, we are having the inevitable flooding rains. The pattern is repeated regularly and yet Australians are still taken by surprise.

The meteorologists will tell you that the current deluge is a product of La Niña. At fairly regular intervals, atmospheric pressure on the western side of the Pacific falls; the trade winds blow from the cooler east side towards the trough, pushing warm surface water westwards towards the bordering land masses. As the water-laden air is driven over the land it cools and drops its load. In June last year the bureau of meteorology issued a warning that La Niña was about “to dump buckets” on Australia. In 1989-90 La Niña brought flooding to New South Wales and Victoria, in 1998 to New South Wales and Queensland… In Brisbane the benchmark was the flood of 1974; most Queenslanders are unaware that the worst flood in Brisbane’s history happened in 1893. Six months ago the meteorologists thought it was worthwhile to warn people to “get ready for a wet, late winter and a soaked spring and summer”. So what did the people do? Nothing. They said, “She’ll be right, mate”. She wasn’t.

It takes La Niña to bring rain to the inland, in such quantities that it can hardly be managed. Manage it Australians must. The Wivenhoe Dam on the Brisbane river was built to protect the city of Brisbane from another flood like the one of 1974. For years it has been at 10% of capacity [er, that’s a gross exaggeration, actually, but, yet, it was alarmingly low for a while], so when it filled this year nobody wanted to let any of the precious water out. It eventually became clear that the dam had filled to 190% of its capacity, and the authorities realised with sinking hearts not only that the floodgates would have to be opened [even wider, actually], but that the opening would coincide with a king tide in Moreton Bay. The question nobody [pardon?] has been heard to ask is whether or not the level of water in the dam should have been reduced gradually, beginning weeks ago…

 

Hat tip: Andrew Bolt

 

The poem that Greer mentions is “My Country” by Dorothea Mackellar. We all had to learn that poem by rote. We had to recite it perfectly when we were in school. Here is the full poem:

The love of field and coppice,
Of green and shaded lanes.
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins,
Strong love of grey-blue distance
Brown streams and soft dim skies
I know but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

A stark white ring-barked forest
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.

Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die -
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.

Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the Rainbow Gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold -
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze.

An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land -
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand -
Though earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.

I have changed the colour of the relevant stanzas of the poem because Dorothea Mackellar in her poem has encapsulated the truth about the Australian landscape. The droughts and the floods are a normal part of this country. This is why Governor Lachlan Macquarie designated the five Macquarie towns for settlements. He picked areas on high ground so that people would not be impacted by those floods.

Yet Australians today seem to not understand the very nature of the Australian weather patterns. This is yet another reason why these rains seem to have caught many people unawares. They should have been prepared, but they believed the big lie about Globull warming, and they believed the lie that the days of soaking rain were finished. They failed to understand the nature of La Nina.

The Macquarie Towns–Pt. 3 of a series

When I was first married I lived in the Richmond-Windsor district of NSW. These two towns were a part of the 5 towns designated by Governor Macquarie because they were on high ground. A summary of the life of Governor Lachlan Macquarie can be found here.

The Governor, his wife and a few others set about doing a survey along what is now known as the Hawkesbury River, which is a part of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. Macquarie designated Richmond, Windsor, Castlereagh, Pitt Town and Wilberforce for the purpose of settlements because they were on high ground and people would be safe from floods.

Now fast forward to the late 1900s where the NSW government began to release new land for sale in those same districts. The problem is that this land was in the flood plains, and was not a part of the designated area. When I lived in the area, I lived in Cox Street, at the top end near the railway line. The parallel street is George Street. The newly released land is at the other end of George Street. In the 1978 floods that land was under water.

I see this as a potential for a real disaster in the future. The Warragamba Dam which releases water that feeds into the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, has not been at full capacity for a very long time. This is because a lot of the rainfall was not over the catchment area, yet we had flash floods in Sydney, and in some parts of the Castle Hill district we even had tornados from time to time. However, last year, in 2010, NSW had heavy rains, and this means that the Warragamba Dam is closer to full capacity.

If, as predicted, there is more rain in NSW and if that rain causes the Warragamba Dam to reach full capacity to the point where the flood gates are opened and the spill is released, then there is in my mind no doubt that there will be a big flood once again in the Richmond-Windsor district, and with a lot of new housing estates being flooded. This is because these housing estates have been built on the flood plains. The surveyors, and those responsible for town planning have ignored the possibility of floods in the area.

Whilst I cannot prove my statements, that there will be a big flood in that region, this brings me to looking at the situation of Queensland, where Brisbane has seen flooding at the same level as that of 1974, which was also quite devastating. Some of the issues that I have raised here about the designation of the Macquarie Towns also apply to regions in Queensland where the town planners have ignored the floods of the past, and in my view they have become sloppy because they believed the big Globull Warming lie.

 

Richmond-Windsor District flood March 1978–(pt. 2 of a series)

I grew up in Melbourne, and not once during my growing years did I ever encounter the devastation of a flood. This is despite the fact that Victoria had her share of floods during that same period. Places such as Echuca, Horsham and Shepparton were known to be flood prone. Even in my family tree, there is the death of a boy aged about 14 that was probably a drowning due to floods in Horsham (I need to verify that point).

However, things changed when I married and relocated to the Richmond-Windsor district. First of all, in 1977, when I was living in a unit in Richmond, there was a minor flood. This happened when I was away visiting my in-laws who were living at Port Macquarie at the time. Our top floor unit was flooded due to the debris on the roof. However, it was the following year that I ended up in the middle of a flood.

It was in March 1978 that we had a week of non-stop rains. I had a newborn son (my oldest) and we had arranged that he would be baptized at the Easter Vigil at our local church, St. Matthews, Windsor. Since my husband was in the RAAF at the time, we were expecting our relatives to arrive from both Melbourne and Newcastle in time for the Baptism. What happened though, is that the region became flooded because of the heavy rains.

My memory of the whole thing has faded over time, but I do remember that there had been several deaths. Two of those deaths were a couple whose vehicle had been washed away in Toongabbie. The one that I remember most, though, was in Windsor, where a teenage boy was electrocuted when his boat touched overhead electricity wires as he was attempting to rescue people. This accident happened somewhere near a tavern known as the Jolly Green Frog which is located close to McGrath’s Hill.

This flood occurred because Warragamba dam had been full to capacity due to the rains that NSW had that year. As a result of the heavy rain the flood gates were opened and there was a spill that flowed into the Hawkesbury River. The twin towns of Richmond-Windsor are located on the Hawkesbury River.  There are several other river tributaries including the Colo River. Windsor gets cut off at one end (heading towards Colo) and South Windsor also gets cut off. Richmond was also cut off from North Richmond (the other end of the town heading towards the Blue Mountains).  South Windsor has flood plains, and even though we were on high ground we were surrounded by flood waters. There were houses at the other end of Cox Street that were flooded. Behind our street there was a golf course, and it was flooded. At our end, of Cox Street the railway line had been cut off because of the flood waters. We were cut off from Blacktown, yet we could get to Penrith via one road that had not been cut off.

During this period my husband’s squadron at the RAAF base Richmond, had been detailed to help evacuate people from their flooded houses. They worked to help these people, yet those rescued were not exactly grateful for the help that they received.

What did I learn from being almost cut off because of the floods? I learned about the wisdom of Governor Macquarie who had designated what are known as the five Macquarie Towns.  What I learned is that the NSW government had released land in an area that was a known flood plain, and that the house that had been built on the flood plain were the ones affected. For the rest of us, we were safe from the effects of the floods. This is because our homes had been built according to the plan set out by Governor Macquarie.  In other words, in 1978 some of the devastation from that particular flood in the Richmond-Windsor district was avoidable.

What was seared in my memory, however, is that the flood was in part caused by the opening of the floodgates at Warragamba dam. In other words if the dam is too full when there is heavy rain then the floods themselves are inevitable.

The floods in Queensland prove that Globull Warmists talk rubbish pt. 1

Here in Australia we have several climate zones – in the north, which includes Queensland we have the tropical zone, in the middle of Australia such as in Sydney we have the temperate zone, and in Victoria and Tasmania for example we have a colder zone.   What is important about these zones is the fact that in the tropical zone, there are wet and dry seasons, rather than summer, autumn, winter and spring. 

Australia has just undergone yet another period of drought, but thanks to the rains that we have had since winter 2010 the drought has been broken. This is due to the El Nina effect which has hit Australia. It is nothing new, and it is a part of the normal weather cycle.

The Globull Warmists, or Watermelons love to peddle their scenarios about climate change, and now we have further proof that these Watermelons are nothing but scam artists. For example, Senator Bob Brown the leader of the Watermelon Party aka the Green Party, is attempting to lay blame for the devastating floods on the Queensland miners. The problem with that theory is that it is way off the mark.

The last time there were devastating floods in Brisbane was in 1974. As a result of these floods the Wivenhoe Dam was built. The building of this dam was supposed to mitigate the effects of a severe flood, but it did not – why? I will cover that in a later article.

The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has announced that there will be a Royal Commission into the devastating floods. This is good news, because there is a real need to examine how the devastation happened.

I have some of my own theories about why this year has been so bad. My theories are based upon what I believe to be a lack of real judgment in decision-making, including the failure of the SEQ water authority to release water from Wivenhoe Dam in a timely fashion. Since the flooding was so vast, there are many stories and articles that need to be followed up.

In the meantime, here is a video that shows the ferocity of the floods:

check out the ferocity of the flow of water as cars are left swirling in the water.

Guess who might be considering profiling at airports despite cries from the usual suspects.

Here is yet another informative article in Der Spiegel regarding airport security. This one is quite surprising, yet it shows that at least some Germans do get it: that lining up innocent people, making them remove shoes for no good reason, and to place their laptops in a separate container is nothing more than a waste of time which clogs up the security checks as people head towards their flights.

Der Spiegel writes:

German airports are considering assigning passengers to risk categories based on their age and ethnicity, and checking them accordingly, under a proposal by the designated head of the country's airports federation. Critics say the move would foment racism, breach anti-discrimination laws and fail to boost security.

The article goes on to state that the system under consideration is profiling as implemented by the Israelis. It also points out the Britain looks like adopting the same procedure….. interesting… did you hear that Janet and TSA?  Looks like you are out of step with the rest of the world.

Here is the money quote from Blume as to why he is considering this move:

"Every new incident leads to further checks and security measures. This creates a security spiral in terms of new technical equipment which at some point will reach its technical and operational limits."

Do people really think that there will be another shoe bomber? Will a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Presbyterian decide to use a bit of PETN in his or her shoes in order to cause an explosion? Personally, I would expect such behaviour from an Anarchist, but I would not expect a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Sikh, or a Jew to be involved in a plot to blow up an aircraft.

Being realistic, the threats have come from one source, but different countries. Even when they talk of British nationals, or French and German nationals, one has to look a bit deeper to see that these are naturalized citizens who have migrated from countries that are dominated by the religion of Peas.

How many men and women who like to knit, crochet, tat or do embroidery, are likely to use their knitting needles, embroidery or wool needles, embroidery scissors, or crochet hooks, or heaven forbid a tatting shuttle for such nefarious purposes as the hijack of an aircraft. If such a crime ever eventuates then I will eat my words, but until then, I think that those restrictions are not necessary.

The German proposal is that the passengers be profiled according to their background and their travel habits. The intending passengers will be directed down three security entrances. Obviously, some passengers will end up being checked more thoroughly, and I would expect that any naturalized German with the obvious profile would be checked more thoroughly. Most will be innocent of any wrong-doing but if there are any with suspicious contacts then yes, they should get the full treatment. In that way those members of the religion of Peas who are not involved in Jihad activity will be free to travel without suspicion being cast upon them, and the rest of the travellers will not have to put up with the inconvenience of unnecessary and reactive measures.

Denmark spoils the fun of some intending terrorists.

The group of terrorists arrested in Copenhagen had plans to seek revenge for the publishing of the Mo the Paedophile cartoons.  It seems that they are denying that they had any intention of doing such a thing. However, the special forces involved with counter-terrorism would not have swooped upon these Muslim Jihadist fanatics if they did not suspect that their plans were about to be put in motion.

 

Der Spiegel has an interesting article on the alleged terrorists, as well as their probable links to David Headley who was involved in the planning of the Mumbai massacre.

 

Danish and Swedish authorities are currently investigating links to the attempted plot by David Headley. Der Spiegel relates:

 

“What is known is that authorities in Sweden and Denmark are currently investigating whether there are any connections to the so-called "Mickey Mouse Project." That terror plot, which was also cantered on Jyllands-Posten, was foiled with the arrest of David Headley, a United States citizen of Pakistani origin, at an airport in Chicago in October 2009.

There is a likelihood that the plan foiled on Wednesday was at least inspired by Headley's plot. Indeed, both apparent plots bear strong similarities.

For his part, Headley was operating on behalf of top terrorist Ilyas Kashmiri. The Pakistani is the head of his own terror group, Harakat ul-Jihad Islami. In addition, he has close and very explosive connections to the terror groups Lashkar-e-Taiba (LiT) and al-Qaida. Initially, Headley also served on behalf of LiT and scouted targets for them that would eventually be attacked in the terror strikes in Mumbai in November 2008. Headley had also filmed the site of an attack in the Indian city of Pune before a bomb exploded there -- in front of a German bakery. Kashmiri later claimed responsibility for the attack”

 

You can read more here

Thwarting Terrorism the English way–Proactive vs. Reactive pt. 3

In the UK twelve people from different ethnic backgrounds were arrested on the grounds that they were planning a terrorist strike. You can read about the story here. The potential targets included:

• the American Embassy;
• Big Ben;
• Westminster Abbey;
• the London Eye;
• the Church of Scientology;
• Boris Johnson’s London Mayoral Office;
• the British Stock Exchange;
• the house of the Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral;
• two synagogues

It looks like the group were planning something on the scale of the Mumbai massacre, targeting well-known sites and slipping in their possible real targets – the synagogues. Their intention was obviously to cause mayhem and to kill as many people as possible.

The special terrorism unit had uncovered written evidence of possible sites, as well as observing the group on their reconnaissance missions around London.

The 9 defendants, of Bangladeshi origin have been charged with conspiracy to cause an explosion.

Police involved in rounding up the group uncovered copies of the extremist Al Qaeda magazine “Inspire” which included instructions on how to make a pipe bomb and what to expect in Jihad.

It is said that the extremist American-Yemeni Anwar Al-Awlaki was the inspiration for the plot. The men were said to have downloaded information from the Internet, discussed acts of terrorism and tested explosives while “unlawfully and maliciously conspiring to endanger life or cause serious injury with one or more explosions”.

A few months ago I remember hearing of the warning that someone was plotting a major terrorism act. Amongst the listed targets was the Tower of London, and Buckingham Palace, and I believe from memory that either Prince William or Prince Harry were listed as possible targets at that time. I am assuming that those warnings are related to the arrests and arraignment of the 9 suspects that has now taken place.

What we see here is the results of a proactive terrorism squad. The squad does its work through surveillance. Once the plotters are identified they are watched and observed as they plan their attacks. In this case the surveillance included following the “target” suspects as the suspects were seen observing various locations for their plot.

The reactive responses to previous terror attempts do not work. There is no point to many of the measures that have been implemented when it comes to travel. If the plot has been thwarted there is no point in banning liquids being taken on board, and there is no point to banning such articles as: embroidery scissors, blunt ended wool needles, knitting needles, or even nail clippers, let alone umbrellas. Ordinary travellers are not going to use any of these items as an offensive weapon. The response to the use of the box-cutters by the 9/11 hijackers and jihadists is irrational. It is the same with the irrational requirement that passengers travelling inside of the USA must remove their shoes to go through the metal detector.

The worst of the reactive responses is the latest assault on the American travelling public namely the full TSA grope. It is not necessary to pat down those passengers. Little old men and women are not carrying bombs. Women who have had a breast removed are not going to be wearing a breast implant with a bomb inside. Neither are those men and women who have had colostomies and other similar operations. There is no need to pat down people with knee and hip replacements. If they have a letter proving that they have had these operations then they should not be molested by the TSA.

If the USA is serious about countering terrorists then they need to change their tactics and they need to stick with counter-terrorist surveillance. More terrorists have been caught via the counter-terrorist surveillance than all of the stupid restrictions at airports. Several groups of would be terrorists have been caught because of their purchase of “parts” from the ACME explosives company. The last group to have been caught purchasing ACME equipment came from Maryland. 

The increased surveillance should include security cameras in vulnerable areas such as the railway stations, but it should not include the stupid bag and body searches that are now the in thing at the airports. 

 

Responding to The Threat of Terrorism–Reactive or Proactive Pt. 2

In the first part of this article I dealt with the manner in which the USA has been reactive to the threat of terrorism, rather than being proactive. The end result of being reactive has been a series of measures, such as forcing people who are not likely to be terrorists to take off their shoes prior to entering the metal detector, as well as forcing many to undergo the indignity of searches that are akin to sexual assault.

In this part I will deal with the current threat being made against Germany, and how the German government has been proactive in dealing with a unknown but real threat of terror prior to the end of November. The details of this outline can be found in the following Der Spiegel article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,727970-2,00.html

As a response to the intelligence received that there is an imminent threat in Germany, the security people there have done the following:

1. heavily armed police are to be seen at the Brandenburg gate;

2. increased security at airports;

3. bomb-sniffing dogs at the railway stations.

It should be noted here that the Germans successfully stopped a previous plot to blow up either railway stations or trains. It should also be noted that they have seen no reason to introduce measures that inconvenience their citizens that use trains on a daily basis. This is a direct contrast to the reactive restrictions and rules that have been introduced into the USA. However, I note that Germany uses the pornographic x-ray machines.

Der Spiegel notes the following:

The signs that Germany has increased security in light of a recent warning that terrorists may be planning an attack on the country are everywhere.

And it could stay that way for some time. Rainer Wendt, head of a major German police union, told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung on Friday that the "state of emergency" is likely to be maintained until the end of the year. He also said that, with hundreds of traditional Christmas markets, which could be potential targets, set to open soon, police in many German cities have had their vacations cancelled.

"All security agencies are in agreement," Matthias Seeger, head of Germany's federal police force, told the mass-circulation tabloid Bild on Friday. "On a scale of one to 10, with one representing no danger and 10 standing for acute risk of attack, we are currently at nine."

The drastic intensification of security measures comes following German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière's statement on Wednesday in which he said that the German government had "concrete indications" that Islamists were planning an attack and that Germany could be a target.

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes, in reference to Körting's comments and demands to intensify German law:

"The demands (to strengthen German law and keep an eye on your neighbours) are akin to robbing ourselves of that which terrorists would like to take from us. It's like destroying our free and democratic societies to prevent their destruction from terrorist bombs."

"Terrorists won't have won if they turn the world into a crime scene and a train station, Christmas market or subway into a battlefield. Rather, they will have triumphed if they occupy our heads, control our thoughts and write our laws. The security which we demand from the state is a valuable commodity, but it isn't the state's primary purpose. It is a condition for freedom: We need security in order to be able to live in freedom. But those who want to live in freedom must accept that freedom can never be had without a certain amount of risk."

and

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"For anyone who had hoped to maintain calm in light of the allegedly heightened terror threat in Germany, there are apparently several others who are countering that effort."

"One German politician, however, cannot be blamed: Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière. During his term in office so far, he has acted with restraint, has not stoked fear unnecessarily and has avoided sounding alarmist. And he has declined to use the apparent threat to push through tougher laws. His behaviour makes both him and the warning he delivered more credible."

"Politicians, security personnel and investigators must do everything in their power to prevent an attack. A public warning is part of that effort. Such warnings can work as signals to potential attackers -- at best they can delay or even prevent an attack. Such a warning should serve public safety -- and should not be politically abused."

Rather than doing nothing when there is an uptick in the chatter, the Germans have put the nation on alert.

When the terrorists in Yemen attempted to send some bombs via air cargo, these parcels moved through Germany without being spotted. One of the packages was picked up by UAE and the other was nearly missed in the Midlands Airport in England. If it had not been for the co-operation between the various Secret Services, and that the English were told to have another look, there might have already been an air disaster once again over England.

As a result of that particular threat, packages being sent from Yemen and Somalia have been stopped. However, what is the point of putting into place a restriction that packages more than 1lb will not be flown by air from Japan? This is yet another silly policy that has been implemented because Al Qaeda attempted to send some bombs via UPS and FedEx in Yemen through to an address in Chicago. What gets me about this case is that there had been a dry run in September. U.S. intelligence must have known about the dry run, so why did they not put in place restrictions upon sending parcels from Yemen and Somalia prior to that attempt? Instead they have been reactive because the bombs were placed in toner cartridges, thus the restriction upon the size of the package.

The kinds of restrictions that have been put in place are unnecessary because they are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Let’s face it:

• Richard Reid was caught before he could ignite his shoe bomb. You could say that the shoe bomb was a failure.
• The Underwear bomber managed to singe his balls with his underwear bomb. That bomb attempt was also a failure.
• The Times Square bomber was interrupted by the vigilance of a street vendor. Quick thinking saved everyone in Times Square at the time.
• The plotters in the U.K. who were planning to use their children to place bombs in baby drink bottles were discovered prior to carrying out the plan. No one else has wanted to imitated them.  There is no need to restrict liquids being carried in flight.
• People with prosthetic limbs are unlikely to be bombers.
• People with small children, and the children themselves are not likely to be bombers.
• Young attractive women are unlikely to be suicide bombers. It might be true if they are wearing a burqa.

One thing should be noted here: the Arabs and Somalis and other bombers have been dressed in the same way as westerners. Richard Reid had fair hair but he also had a Muslim alias. 

Once an unsuccessful bombing attempt has been made it is unlikely that it will be repeated. These Islamists will try to find other ways to carry out their plans, just like they did with the World Trade Centre. The first bombing attempt failed. However, taking over aircraft and then sending the aircraft into the twin towers worked: they succeeded in bringing down the WTC.  There must be a lesson that can be learned from this fact. So far everybody has failed to learn from the lessons regarding the first and second attacks on the WTC.

The German stoicism in face of a terrorist threat

Intelligence has been received by Germany that there is a very real possibility that Al Qaeda is planning a terrorist strike. I have already blogged about how the Germans are reacting to this threat, that is they are responding in what I consider to be a proactive way. They have tightened security around the airports, the railway stations and at such places as the Brandenburg Gate. These are of course, necessary measures due to the nature of the threat involved.

What I admire most about the German response is the outright stoicism of the people, regardless of being on the left or right of politics. Der Spiegel online has been running a few articles regarding the response to this current threat. Here is an extract from those articles:

Commenting on the new terror warning in their Thursday editions, Germany's main newspapers reiterate de Maizière's exhortations for ordinary Germans to keep calm and carry on, with one newspaper suggesting that Germans seek inspiration in London's famous "Blitz spirit" during World War II.

The centre-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"Every individual, irrespective of the degree to which they -- rightly -- trust in the state (to protect them), can respond to terror, not only by being vigilant but continuing to live their life as they please. The minister said there was no reason for hysteria. That also applies even in the event of an emergency."

The centre-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"What should citizens do (in response to the terror alert)? Should they not fly any more and not go to the opera or the movies? Should they avoid public transportation, Christmas markets and busy supermarkets? That would be the hysteria that the interior minister warned against. The terrorists will have already half won if they succeed in paralyzing public life."

"What should the state do? It can show strength. A democracy is strong if it can defend its principles with a cool head and calm courage. A state is strong if it realizes that human and civil rights are the best guarantee of homeland security. An interior minister is strong if he promises citizens every possible vigilance and keeps that promise. … But being vigilant does not mean immediately drafting a new anti-terror law at breakneck speed, as has so often been the case in the past."

"Germany's homeland security is at stake. But homeland security also requires the guarantee that the principles that are intended to protect democracy also apply when that democracy is being defended. Homeland security requires inner resolve and an unwavering confidence in the fundamental rights laid down in the constitution -- even in times of terror."

Did you note the wording here? This is what I mean about being proactive and at the same time safeguarding the rights of the population at large. Contrast this attitude to what we are witnessing in the USA where new useless and dangerous procedures are being implemented in airports around that nation. Those new laws indicate a government that is reactive to a threat that has already passed.

The conservative Die Welt writes:

"Islamists sometimes accuse Western societies of being too complacent and ill-equipped to deal with existential crises. Supposedly they are wimpy, unable to fight and lacking in pride. One of the most compelling features of our civilization is the fact that such accusations are not true. Again and again, Western societies have overcome severe crises without throwing their democratic nature out of the window and taking refuge under supposedly strong leaders with dictatorial powers. When London was being bombed by Germany during World War II, its society remained as free as ever, yet still managed to mobilize amazing strength. The same applied in New York in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks."

"There is no evidence that the Germans, who also reacted calmly to the financial crisis, will now be tempted to panic and overreact. There are situations in which keeping calm is actually a civic duty that has nothing to do with apathy. The population should react with a relaxed vigilance. The increased police presence will give them the sense that they are being protected. It is not a sign of indifference but of strength when life continues as normal even in dangerous situations. In democracies, heroism and everyday life can go hand in hand. The murderous nihilism of the fanatics is no match for such strength."

The mass-circulation daily Bild writes:

"As of yesterday, the ugly face of Islamist terror has become a bit clearer for us in Germany, in the form of a threat. But we shouldn't allow ourselves to be led astray. If, out of fear of attacks, we no longer go to Christmas markets and avoid large-scale events, then the devil's spawn from the terror camps in Afghanistan will have achieved their goal."

"We are supposed to be afraid of them? We are supposed to change our lifestyle, because they can't deal with the way the world is? We cannot allow that to happen! The police and security agencies have to support us in that effort and send the following message to the terrorists: You have no chance!"

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"It is debatable how useful terror warnings are. Anyone who hears that something might happen, but doesn't receive the slightest information as to the what, when, where or how (of the planned attack), tends to feel more unsettled than on guard. … Why then is the interior minister, who has previously showed no tendency to adopt the strong-arm anti-terror rhetoric of his predecessors, warning the population about an attack that could even happen this month? When the authorities have specific information about a terrorist attack, only one thing is worse than warning the public -- not warning them. Even if citizens cannot respond to the warning in their everyday behaviour, they at least want to be sure that the authorities recognize the danger and are reacting accordingly."

"All the tightening of security measures which are now being carried out across the country could ultimately turn out to be futile. But if a bomb goes off after the population has been warned, the interior minister can explain it by referring to the impossibility of absolute security. If a bomb explodes without warning, the minister does not need to give any explanations. Instead, he need do nothing more than hand in his resignation -- because he would be seen as having failed."

-- David Gordon Smith

What is the best way to respond to threats of terrorism? Reactive vs.. Proactive part 1

The threat of terrorism has been around for a very long time. In the 1960s we had a spate of hijackings and aircraft being blown up, and in the end this activity was the death-knell of Pan Am. In the 1970s this activity continued and it included the terrorist attack upon the Israeli Olympic team at Munich – oh how I cried that day when I read about what had been done in the name of terror. There have been many other incidents including the first attempted bombing of the World Trade Centre, the bombing of the Murrah building (why is it that the FBI stopped looking for that Middle Eastern person who was with McVeigh?) and eventually we had the most despicable of terrorist attacks when the Islamists successfully declared war by flying aircraft into the World Trade Centre killing thousands of people at the same time. Then there was the train bombings in Spain that killed hundreds, the Bali bombings that killed hundreds, the London bombings and so on it goes. All of these acts of terror have one thing in common – Islam.  (Yes, there is an Islamic link to the Oklahoma City bombing but the FBI simply did not go far enough with the investigation).

Most of the reactions to these acts of terror have been reactive. Now I do agree with going through the metal detectors. These do make me feel a lot safer when I fly. I do not however, think that stopping people from having nail clippers and knitting needles is a reasonable response.  People who knit are not going to hijack an aircraft and you cannot hide a ticking bomb in a knitting bag (it is usually stuffed with too much yarn and other bits and bobs!!). What is unreasonable in my view are the methods that are being recommended and put into use in the USA and elsewhere that involve the use of body scanners, and now with extraordinarily offensive and pat downs that are truly sexual molestation.

These new measures in the USA that are now being abused by the TSA are measures that are reactive. The introduction of what is now known as the porno scanners (they have been around for a few years) and the pat down measures are a reaction to the Christmas Day underwear bomber who failed, just like Richard Reid the failed shoe bomber, to ignite his bomb. In both of these cases the TSA and authorities elsewhere implemented new procedures. As a result of the attempt with the shoe bomb everyone has to remove their shoes to go through scanning. This is ridiculous because there has not been further attempts, no copycat shoe bombers, nothing, nada. It is a waste of time and it is inconvenient as well as being difficult for some people with balance problems. Yet, in the USA we have to take off our shoes to go through security. Time to put an end to the nonsense and reassess if this is indeed necessary.

It is the same with the underwear bomber and his failed attempt to light a bomb that was placed in his underwear. The only thing that got burned was his crotch. Now if we look at the facts that emerged in that case we find that he boarded the flight in Amsterdam. Not only that, but a person or persons unknown helped him to get onto the flight ergo the threat exists in Holland, in Amsterdam, not in small airports in the USA. There has not been any American, Australian or any other foreign tourist who has tried to duplicate the underwear bomb.

Whilst some new threats have emerged – an Islamist from Yemen blew himself up when detonating a bomb planted in his anus and it has been rumoured that some Islamic women are being fitted with bombs in breast implants – it is unreasonable to put ordinary travellers with the USA through the intrusive pat downs that are now being mandated.

Banning liquids because an Islamist terrorist cell in the UK was planning to bomb aircraft via the use of a baby bottle is reactive. Again, the normal American travelling public are not into duplicating the murderous deeds of the Islamists who hatch these plots. Forcing people to take off their shoes before going through security is also reactive. Why not let people walk through the metal detector and if the alarm is set off, then they can take off their shoes. All of these searches are reactive, not proactive. They are useless when they come after the fact. It is not likely that someone trying to board a flight in Florida to return home to New Hampshire is going to blow up the aircraft and this applies to the thousands who fly every day. 

Scams, scams and more scams - the Green solar panels scam

They tell you solar panels are eco-friendly and save you money. The truth? They don't work much of the time and take 100 YEARS to pay for themselves... | Mail Online

Solar panels have been around for a very long time. Here in Australia one of the oldest of these companies is Solarhart hot water systems. It has been around for around 40 years, and yes I can remember the business being set up in shops close to my home when I was a teenager. Of course in Australia there is more chance of these solar panels working but in the U.K.? Or even parts of the U.S.A. where they have extremely cold conditions? Give me a break!!

The climate change scaremongering has cost a lot of people a lot of money, and in this particular story the focus is on the selling of solar panels as being a super efficient means of cutting utility bills. Wendy Hammett is one of the pensioners that has been ripped off by salesmen claiming that solar panels are so efficient:

The system, she was promised, would slash her gas and electric bills by 70 per cent. It was a lie.

'It has ended up costing me more,' she said. She is not alone. Other elderly customers of Simplee Solar suffered a similar fate.

Now here is the reason that has led to the increase in the complaints about solar panel companies:

Solar panelling, in fact, is the new double glazing.

To date, about 100,000 households in the country have solar thermal installations.

Over the next ten years, the figure, analysts predict, will reach 1million - a tenfold increase.

From next year, government grants will be available to anyone who wants to install them in their homes.

It's one of the few areas of the economy which is expanding, fuelled by the soaring cost of gas and electricity as well as fears about global warming.

Hence the reason why salesmen such as Lee Comer are thriving.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) received a staggering 1,000 complaints about the sector last year. 

The disturbing trend was underlined by a recent investigation by consumer watchdog Which? which found that ten out of 14 companies investigated exaggerated claims about the effectiveness and potential savings of solar panels.

In fact a typical system, which uses the sun's rays to provide hot water, costs around £5,500 and will cut about 10 per cent (just £55 a year) from your bill.

Another way of putting it, of course, is that it would take 100 years - the so called 'payback time' - to recoup your £5,500 investment, based on current fuel prices.

In other words, the benefits are environmental, not financial - despite what you might be told by the man in a shiny suit on the doorstep, or in flyers through your letterbox.

The experience of retired gardening centre boss Chris Barrington and his wife Marilyn epitomises the worst of the industry - at least 200 solar thermal companies are now operating in Britain.

'We were promised constant hot water without any additional heating from the boiler, even in dull conditions,' said Mr Barrington, 61, from Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, in West Wales.

'We had an immersion tank to heat our water and it was expensive but the salesman assured me I would never need one again because the system we had chosen was superefficient.'

The Barrington's soon realised they had been duped.

'For much of the year it is absolutely useless, so we're having to spend £150 a month getting hot water from our old electric immersion tank.'

Mr Barrington began legal action to get his £250 deposit returned and also refused to pay the £5,850 balance.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1274784/They-tell-solar-panels-eco-friendly-save-money-The-truth-They-dont-work-time-100-YEARS-pay-.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailymail%2Fnews+%28News+%7C+Mail+Online%29&utm_content=Bloglines#ixzz0nVuoqZbb

Powered by ScribeFire.

Stevens the party hack due to retire from the Supreme Court

Justice Stevens’ activism made America weaker | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

The daily caller has a very good summary of some of the more controversial decisions of Justice John Paul Stevens.

The retirement announcement by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens brings about the usual speculation about his replacement, as well as the retrospective of the retiring justice’s career. Much will be made of the oft-described collegiality of Justice Stevens, and deservedly so. He is by all accounts a decent man, a World War II veteran, and he is beyond question a Justice who wrote opinions across the spectrums of ideology and judicial philosophy, notably defending, in dissent, Congressional action to ban the desecration of the United States flag (see Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397).

But make no mistake about Stevens’ legacy. He is, like virtually all modern liberal jurists, an activist who is not afraid to use the Court to achieve his own philosophical ends. And that tendency is as dangerous as a renegade president and Congress hell bent on increasing the power of the state at the expense of liberty, as is the case with the current regime.

Justice Stevens’ opinions span some 34 years, seven Presidents and numerous colleagues on the Court. Accordingly, some will point to supposedly “right leaning” decisions from yesteryear, such as the aforementioned flag case, his 1978 opinions upholding an FCC regulation against broadcasting indecent material (see FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726) and voting to strike down a racial quota system in California (see Regents of University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265), as well as his 1976 opinion voting to reinstate the death penalty (Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153).

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/10/commentary-justice-stevens-liberal-activism-made-america-weaker/#ixzz0kmB9yiML

Now why do I consider the man to be a party hack? I have been reading through the considerable amount of material that is the opinion of the SCOTUS in the Citizens United case. This was a case which essentially touches on freedom of speech for those who have banded together in a group in order to promote their political views. The majority decision in the Citizens United case has struck down the restrictions on corporate funding for political campaigns which in effect has denied a group of citizens the right to free speech. The majority made their decision in part to strike down the offending clause because of the penalties attached. The power given to the FEC does indeed "chill" free speech to a certain degree, which is the point that was being made by the majority. Having read through the well-reasoned majority opinions, it was like getting a dash of cold water to read the meanderings of the Stevens opinion. The anti-corporate stand of Justice Stevens seems to me to be a little bit over the top. My first impression when I started to read what he was saying was "party hack".

The tenure of Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court has seen a number of decisions that have weakened the intent of the founding fathers, especially in his interpretation of the Commerce clause (yes I do believe that those interpretations that have broadened the Commerce clause are in fact wrong). He has also written opinions that deny Christians various rights and he was responsible in part for the Roe vs Wade decision. His liberal agenda has done irreparable harm to Americans and especially the unborn.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Was it suicide? Request for probe into Dr. David Kelly's death

Shadow Justice Secretary backs call for inquiry into death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly | Mail Online

Dr. David Kelly, the weapons inspector who first queried the continued existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was found slumped in his car. His death looked like it was suicide, and the coroner ruled the case as a suicide, however, there is a group of doctors who have been gathering evidence to show that this is not possible... that the artery that was slashed was too small for Kelly to have bled to death.

I think it is possible to conclude that Iraq had WMDs. In fact Saddam Hussein used those weapons against his own people. He was ordered to destroy the weapons, and the weapons inspectors were supposed to go in and check to make sure that they had been destroyed. What seems to have taken place is that Saddam Hussein either got rid of the WMDs by sending them across the border into Syria, or he had destroyed them and then pretended that they still existed.

When Saddam Hussein was captured he did admit that he had pretended to continue to have the weapons, as a protection against Iran... I can understand why he would have wanted to pretend to Iran that he had the weapons... as such I think that Saddam Hussein did in fact dupe the world about the existence of the weapons. He would not let the weapons inspectors into Iraq to check and make sure that the weapons had been destroyed.

If Dr. Kelly's death was not a suicide after all, then what in fact happened? Was this a government hit?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Animal tales of the moment

Micro-pig: The dog, the cat, and the six micro-pigs who share a home together | Mail Online

Having had the experience of a dog and cat that "slept together" and "ate together" well, what really happened is that the dog thought that she was mother to the kitten, I do like to read these animals stories. This one is no different because the dog, cat and micro pigs living together in harmony makes a great story.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What exactly are you advocating Mr Rudd?

Kevin Rudd (also known as Kevin Krudd) is about to have an essay released in which he calls for a New World Order. Without a doubt what Krudd is actually advocating is a lot more than socialism - he is advocating Communism. In his essay, Krudd denounces what he terms the "unfettered capitalism of the past three decades" whilst he calls for a new era in which government intervention and regulation feature heavily.

The problem here is that this form of heavy government intervention has failed in the past. The New Deal experiment by Roosevelt is a prime example of how this kind of intervention fails in its task to bring an economy out of the morass of high unemployment, and other ills.

Also, Krudd has a bit of a problem if he describes the way in which the economy has worked for the past 30 years as a "great neo-liberal experiment", rather, it is what he wants that will be the the "neo-liberal experiment", and if it is allowed to proceed then we will find ourselves falling further and further into an economic depression.

Krudd has decreed:

"Neo-liberalism and the free-market fundamentalism it has produced has been revealed as little more than personal greed dressed up as an economic philosophy. And, ironically, it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself."

Mr Rudd writes in The Monthly that just as Franklin Roosevelt rebuilt US capitalism after the Great Depression, modern-day "social democrats" such as himself and the US President, Barack Obama, must do the same again. But he argues that "minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do" and advocates a new system that reaches beyond the 70-year-old interventionist principles of John Maynard Keynes.

The problem with the Krudd analysis is that Franklin Roosevelt did not rebuild US capitalism. The reality happens to be that the USA took longer than necessary to come out of the Great Depression because of the failure of the Government intervention. What Krudd fails to appreciate is that unemployment actually got worse during the Great Depression, not better. What saved the USA was not the policies of Rossevelt, but the Second World War.

The neo-liberal socialists like Kevin Rudd seem to think that they understand Keynsian economics. They cling to the fact that Keynes advocated that there should be government intervention during times of high unemployment. What they fail to understand is that J.M. Keynes actually understood that what is also needed is private investment to help keep the economy working or well-oiled.

Like his rather incompetent counter-part in the USA, the new POTUS, Barack Obama (Sotero perhaps is more correct), Kevin Krudd believes that it is necessary to bash the CEOs of businesses and banks and to grandstand about what has gone wrong. The Kevin Krudd "fix" has been a stimulus package that will cost the tax-payer dearly, but it will not help to bring the economy out of the present recession.

When Kevin Krudd blasts CEOs for awarding themselves bonuses, he should think about how this is hypocrisy in its worst form because members of Parliament do not exercise any restraint at all. The essay by Krudd seems to be indicating that he wants to plunge Australia into a government that is based upon communism. He is talking the double talk, attacking the straw-man that he refers to as neo-liberals, when in fact it is his policies that are those of the neo-liberals.

Also, he is attacking the trade and economic policies of the Hawke-Keating years (when Keating was Treasurer) which has led to Keating's own attack upon Kevin Krudd (and a well deserved attack by Keating). Paul Keating was responsible for most of the changes in the Australian economy that have been very painful. The fall-out from those changes has seen an end to Australian manufacturing industry. At this moment we are seeing that one of the few remaining companies has made a decision to lay off employees and head to China - the company owns the brands of Bonds and Dunlop. In some ways it is inevitatble because these brands simply cannot compete against the Chinese imports. The costs of manufacturing are just too high, and with all of the Green nonsense that we suffer these costs will continue to rise in the future.

I happen to agree that we need to have some kind of justification for some of the CEO bonuses that are handed out, especially when they are given at the expense of employee jobs (QANTAS) but it is not right for the Prime Minister to bash these compnanies by implying things that are not necessarily true.

There is little chance that the Krudd stimulus package will work. The reason? There is too much pork in the package, and that pork is not going to help job creation. If Krudd had been following true Keynesian economics, then the solution would have been to lower taxes first. Those companies that are struggling need to start looking at ways of reducing their waste and bloat. They should not be relying upon a government handout. The government handouts to companies such as General Motors Holden are in reality quite wasteful. That money is not going to fix the underlying problems within the motor industry. We are a small nation, and if we were to continue to have a viable motor industry then we need to be able to sell the cars in the overseas markets. Is this happening? In other words why is the product not being sold on the world market? Why is the product so uncompetitive? Throwing money at these car manufacturers is jut not the way to resolve these questions.

I do not believe in the level of government intervention advocated by Kevin Krudd. Perhaps it could be said that I am a libertarian because I believe in less intervention, not more, but I do not see myself in that light because I have certain differences of opinion with the Libertarians. There are many areas where Government intervention is somewhat necessary, but I think that the intervention should be short-term and not long-term as Krudd seems to be advocating.

I suspect that few Australians have any knowledge of the real Kevin Krudd agenda. I just hope that more Australian voters will become aware of his very dangerous policies, especially when they begin to realise that he wants to drive us towards communism, which is the real name for what he is advocating.

UN launches Tribunal to prosecute the assassins of Harari

U.N. opens prosecution over Hariri assassination - CNN.com

A tribunal has been convened at the The Hague more than 4 years after Hariri was killed in a massive car bombing in Beirut on February 14, 2005.  The bomb had detonated as Hariri's motorcade passed through the seaside district of Corniche. The bomb itself contained hundreds of pounds of explosives and it left buildings shattered and streets littered with the mangled wreckage of the vehicles. The blast killed 22 other people.

The Tribunal will have 11 judges, 4 of whom will be Lebanese. Four senior generals have been held over the killing, but the United States and the U.N. investigators believe that Syria ordered the assassination, even though this is denied by Syria.

The killing sparked widespread protests that led to the eventual withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon (followed by the build up of Hezbollah the Syrian puppet organization) and the election of the anti-Syrian bloc in parliament.

The U.N. investigators who were tasked to find the killers of Hariri found links between the Syrian government and Hariri's asassination.

The U.N. says that the case is expected to be ready for trial by 2010.

Lies and Damned Lies - part 1

It has been almost a month since Barak Obama became the 44th President of the USA. There are already signs that this presidency is shaping up to be one of the worst in history. Within the first week Obama managed to upset the Vatican with the reversal of one of the Bush executive orders which means that the USA will now resume funding for abortions and forcing contraception on overseas (read third world) countries. This is one reason why Pope Benedict gave Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, a bit of a smack during her private audience at the Vatican.

The liberals within the USA seem to think that it is important to enter third world nations and demand that the women either use contraceptives or have abortions. The USA government is now set to resume the funding of abortions in these nations. However, what these liberals do not understand is that people in these countries see things in a very different light when it comes to having children. We most definitely should be alarmed at the way in which abortion is being carried out in India as an example. The use of ultrasound and tests to discover whether the unborn child is a girl or boy has meant that there is now a greater imbalance of boys over girls in that country, because girl foetuses are being aborted at a very fast rate. In China the one child policy has also led to similar problems, and in that country the enforcement of the one child policy has in fact led to the oppression of the population. Thus, by reversing the executive order Barak Obama is in fact endorsing this form of oppression in China. However, the real goal is not either China or India, but third world Muslim countries but in these countries the people are against these policies – and they are inappropriate for other reasons.

In some of the poorest countries in the world the women who are fecund are at risk of dying whilst giving birth. The risk is high because they do not have access to hospitals, or to highly skilled medical staff. It is the lack of proper facilities that is the major cause of maternal deaths in these countries – yet the liberals will tell us that what is needed is more abortions. Also, this form of funding only serves to give rise to other unseemly practices where contraceptives that western women refuse to use are dumped upon these 3rd world countries – this happened in the past when IUDs were dumped in India and there was an increase in women suffering harm from this form of contraception.

The kind of message that is being sent to these poorer nations is not a message of good will, rather it is a message of bad will – genocide via getting rid of the unborn. What these liberals are really saying is that these people do not deserve to have children, let alone exist. Therefore, it is better to eliminate the problem by eliminating the children, leading in the end to the genocide of a nation by stealth.

However, the reversal of this one executive order is just the beginning of the shambles that is the Obama Administration. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were given the task of drafting a bill that has been dubbed “porkulus” and with good reason. There is so much pork or earmarks in that bill, that it really makes Barak Obama into the biggest liar out when he states that there is no pork in the bill. The size of the spending in the bill is astounding. The bill is supposed to be a response to an economic crisis, yet once the details are examined there is little in the short term that will be achieved. In the long term the American people will find themselves saddled with an extremely high debt such that the GDP will in fact fall, not increase. The hasty manner in which this bill was passed means that few if anybody had the opportunity to examine all of the provisions within the document. On top of that the Obama administration promised there would be transparency and bi-partisanship, yet Reid and Pelosi excluded the Republicans from input in the first place, and instead of the Bill being posted to the internet for 5 days prior to its acceptance, there was absolutely no transparency, to the point that members of the House  of Representatives and the Senate had not bothered to read the document before voting. This kind of action is fiscal irresponsibility.

 

Geitner gets a C- from the financial markets

I am a graduate of Economics and Commerce at Melbourne University, which includes a major in economics. I have a very modest qualification and have not been following economics all that much since graduation - it really is quite a boring subject. However, since the middle of last year I suddenly find that I have to sit up and pay attention, because of the collapse of the financial markets all around the world.

It is outside of my almost non-existent expertise to give any form of in-depth analysis of the present crisis. I can barely understand all of the critical factors that has led to the crisis that occurred first in the USA and then sent shock waves around the world. A new word has been created - "toxic debt". Getting around what this means is quite difficult. It is not as claimed by Barak Obama and his sleazy bunch of cohorts something that resulted from Bush policies. The fact is, the "toxic debt" has its roots in legislation created by the Carter Administration that led to the creation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. As an outsider these are concepts that are not easy to grasp. I do not pretend at this stage to have been able to grasp all of the realities of the situation.

What I do know, however, is that as a result of policies that began with the Carter Administration, my superannuation fund has dropped by a whopping $40,000 and my husband suffered a greater wipeout from his funds because of the crash of the stock market. The nervousness within the stock-market which generated the largest crashes since the Great Depression is due to the collapse of several banking institutions because of bad debt practices and the creation of what is now called "toxic debt". This situation could have been avoided if the Carter Administration as well as administrations that followed had behaved in a fiscally responsible manner.

Whilst it is true that the Bush Administration made mistakes, that it got tax policies wrong, that it sent out the wrong signals, it is wrong to blame everything that has happened solely on G.W. Bush. I certainly think that the Carter and Clinton Administrations must share responsibility for very poor policies. Over time, as I learn more, or at least refresh my own understanding of the subject I will try to explore some of the things that are now coming to light. In the mean time the world financial markets have not responded well to the latest from the Obama Administration in the form of the Geitner package that is supposed to help with what is called "toxic debt".

In what is rapidly becoming known as Obama double speak, Geithner stated that the new bank bail-out package was vital as "critical parts of our financial system are damaged. Instead of catalyzing recovery the financial system is working against recovery, and thats the dangerous dynamic we need to change"

The new plan is allegedly aimed at restoring confidence in the damaged financial system and restarting bank lending. Despite the aims of this plan the financial market analysts are not convinced and they are in fact disappointed. As James Ellman of Seacliff Capital stated: investors wanted clarity, simplicity and resolution and what they got instead is convoluted, obsfucating and clouded. It is yet another poor start for the Obama Administration, which is struggling to get above and F for the first month in office report card.