Saturday, October 24, 2009

Headlines Saturday 24th October 2009

Teachers banned from contacting students on social networking sites

TEACHERS have been banned from contacting students on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and other social networking sites amid growing concern over inappropriate relationships. - of great concern is the possibility that such legislation may be abused by the authorities to cover up student deaths, as with Hamidur Rahman. - ed.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal brief NATO ministers on the Afghan War in hopes of getting a commitment for more troops — but, some allies are hedging until Obama announces strategy.

The death of the 38-hour week
JOB security sees more than two million Aussies now working more than 50 hours a week.

Baby discovered in car crash debris
A BABY has been found alive in the wreckage of a car crash that killed two people in NSW.

Government watchdogs go after the National Endowment for the Humanities for spending millions on what they say are frivolous projects, including $130G to study 'truth and meaning' of life according to Aristotle.

Doing the dirty comes with the job
AUSTRALIA'S biggest love rats work in real estate, marketing and call centres, survey reveals.

Wayne Carey: How the affair began

I CAN trace my downfall, the time when my life and everything that I held dear began to slowly unravel, to the last month or two of 2001. That was when I started flirting with Kelli Stevens, the wife of my Kangaroos vice-captain and close friend, Anthony. - I still don't care. Carey lacks integrity to take responsibility for his own choices. - ed.

Cops fed man scraps from bin
POLICE plucked toast and milk from rubbish and fed it to a man held in custody while calling him a "retard" and "dickhead".

Mad Max 4: Fury Road gets green light; Sam Worthington tipped to star

THE original Mad Max put the Australian film industry on the map and launched the career of one of our most recognised actors, Mel Gibson.
=== Journalists Corner ===

10 real solutions for health care...
Bobby Jindal says we can start them STAT!
So what's his plan?
Find out from the governor.

Saving Money Over Saving Lives?
Will some government plans cut back on the quality of your care? We get answers.
The H1N1 Vaccine
Is it the right cure for your child or will it cause more problems? Huckabee asks the experts!
White House Wars?
Wall Street, the insurance industry, Fox News, even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce! Has the WH really declared war against certain groups?
=== Comments ===
Dick Cheney Hammers President Obama
By Bill O'Reilly
The former vice president gave a speech Wednesday night in Washington, and he is not happy with the Obama administration.


DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy endangers them and hurts our cause.


It has now been almost two months since Gen. McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops to fight the Taliban, so obviously Mr. Cheney has a point.

Terrorists all over the world are watching the Afghan battlefield. If the USA seems confused, that obviously helps the bad guys.

"Talking Points" is not chastising President Obama, as much as encouraging him to be more forthcoming about the Afghanistan campaign. As I said earlier in the week, if the situation is hopeless, then get the heck out. If it isn't hopeless, then put the troops in. If you need more time to make that assessment, tell the American people.

Mr. Cheney was also upset that the Obama administration continues to blame the Bush administration for the chaos in Afghanistan.


CHENEY: This weekend, they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The president's chief of staff claimed that the Bush administration had not asked any tough questions about Afghanistan and he complained that the Obama administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembled a team that traveled to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, reviewing options and recommendations and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt.


If what Mr. Cheney is saying is true, the president needs to stop the blame game.

Finally, the former vice president is on very strong ground when he talks about Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the CIA.


CHENEY: It certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11. There are policy differences and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of those. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security and turning the guns on our own guys.


"Talking Points" agrees 100 percent. The CIA investigation is foolish and will eventually hurt the country.
White House's 'Demonization' of Critics Could Backfire
his is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 22, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: First, fighting words from House minority leader John Boehner. His target, Democrats and the White House.


REP. JOHN BOEHNER, R-OHIO, MINORITY LEADER: And this is Chicago-style politics, shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents. They're writing a health care bill in secret, even though the president called for all of this to be out on an open table and have C-Span cameras in the room. Instead, Democrats are targeting those who don't fall immediately in line -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, doctors, Fox News. The administration promised during the campaign that they were going to usher in an era of post-partisanship here in Washington, but what they're doing is really flat-out despicable.


VAN SUSTEREN: What about the White House strategy? Earlier, House Republican whip Eric Cantor went "On the Record."


VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman, nice to see you, sir.

REP. ERIC CANTOR, R-VA, REPUBLICAN WHIP: Greta, great to be with you.

VAN SUSTEREN: I heard earlier today that you had some remarks about the sort of the spat that's been rising between President Obama and the White House and Fox News Channel.

CANTOR: Well, I mean, first of all, I think it is somewhat beneath the White House to even be bringing up a subject such as this. But listen, there are so many things going on right now. People are unemployed. The unemployment rate is close to 10 percent. We've got a health care bill that is threatening a significant, significant change in this economy, with a lot of people very uncertain about what it's going to do. We've got an energy policy that's on the table that needs to be ironed out, with a lot wrong with it. Why in the world would the White House be focusing on some -- on a news network that may or may not have an agreement on every issue that the White House is considering?

VAN SUSTEREN: I realize this is a bit of a sideshow, although I don't underestimate the importance of having the free press and the press being able to cover stories. But historically, White Houses have been -- presidents have been a little bit sensitive to the media. Is this any different?

CANTOR: Well, listen, I mean, I do think that when you have the White House focusing on one news outlet, it is a little strange. We believe in free press and freedom of speech in this country. And again, why would the White House choose to go after its critics instead of trying to bring people together? After all, this president ran on trying to unite this country, trying to bridge the differences so that we can actually get Washington working again. This is not the way I think the people thought that this White House or this president would conduct business.

VAN SUSTEREN: So why did this happen? How do you think this happened?

CANTOR: Well, yes, I think, you know, Greta, you make a point. There is a sensitivity, I'm sure, as all of us have sensitivities any time you are confronted with an adversary or an individual or an organization that doesn't necessarily agree with you on a given issue.

But again, it's not the American way for us to go in and see the White House go and single out a news outlet when so many other things are on their plate. I mean, we've got kids on the ground in Afghanistan. We ought to be worried about that, not see a White House going after Fox News.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, last night, the president was asked by a network about the -- about the spat and about the feud, about the White House calling Fox News "talk radio." We asked him. Now, he does respond, but in some sense, you know, we keep now putting the question to him. So do we sort of let them a little bit off the hook because we keep putting it in their face, or -- or not?

CANTOR: Well, again, I think the White House needs to be focusing on what American people care about. And I also think that the press, in general, needs to be very aware. If there is a tendency in this White House to react so negatively to criticism, we ought to stand up and protect the free speech in this country that we're about.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is this a big picture, important issue, or is this a schoolyard brawl?

CANTOR: Well, I think -- look, let's just say this, Greta. It's unfortunate, OK? They shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't have singled out Fox News or anyone else, for that matter. They ought to be sticking to the issues that the American people care about, and frankly, our national security, our economy that right now are in so much question.

VAN SUSTEREN: How does the White House save face and get out of this? Because they sort of -- I mean, they indict an entire news network, then they picked on a couple (ph) which seemed to dial back a little bit, and now the president again says the entire news network. So it's sort of, like, they've broadened it one again. What's the -- now what?

CANTOR: You know what I...


CANTOR: You know, I think that the president could send a big message if he were to say, Look, we were wrong. We shouldn't be singling out critics individually if they differ with us. America is about robust debate, but we are trying to bridge the gap to bring people together, and that's what we should do in a bipartisan fashion to try and fix the way that Washington works and address the fact that people are out of work, address the fact that we need some positive reform in health care."

VAN SUSTEREN: So aggressive, challenging, not a bad idea for the media to its government?

CANTOR: Well, listen, why should anyone be the exception? I think the press in this country is certainly very aggressive and challenging, and after a while, it is that freedom that we are about every day trying to protect.

VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you, Congressman.

CANTOR: Thank you.


VAN SUSTEREN: So why is the White House taking on Fox News? Joining us live is former White House press secretary Dana Perino. Dana, nothing has profoundly changed at Fox News in the last -- since the president's been inaugurated, but on Sunday, the president sent two lieutenants out, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, and they indicted the entire network! And the president does the same thing last night. Any -- you read anything into the timing?

DANA PERINO, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE PRESS SEC., FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it seems calculated, and it also seems like it's coming from the top and...

VAN SUSTEREN: Coming from the top? I mean, the president said last night -- I mean, he sounded -- I mean, he didn't say he didn't know anything about it!

PERINO: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: He knew exactly. He used the same words, in fact, as his lieutenants!

PERINO: And he said, I'm not losing any sleep over it, which I think was an attempt to say, I'm focused on the more important things, like Congressman Cantor was just talking about. But the problem is that they have perpetuated this for weeks now. We're actually continuing to lead the news, and I can't imagine how -- at the White House, you are -- you want to show that you are focusing on the fact that 1 out of 10 Americans don't have a job, but we're still talking about this issue. And I don't know how they get back out of it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, they may not want to be focusing on the job issue, I mean, that main (ph) issue, because the numbers are not responding to the stimulus bill like they'd anticipated, so maybe they don't want that. But the thing that I just can't figure out is that until last Sunday -- that's when they came out swinging, and nothing changed here. And you know, they're swinging isn't going to change anything at Fox. Fox aren't a bunch of cowards! But I mean, nothing's going to change. So they're the ones who brought this issue up.

PERINO: Well, what might have changed -- and we don't know. We know that they do a lot of polling internally, and White Houses do this, but to try to figure out where is the country going. What are they seeing? What are they learning? And it possibly could be that they saw something there that they thought independents were moving away and it was because of maybe something -- a message that was breaking through from critics.

That's -- you know, that's speculation on my part. I used to have a job where I didn't speculate, but I guess now I'm free to.

VAN SUSTEREN: Now you're free to. But what I don't understand is -- I mean, OK, go after the anchors. Go after Glenn Beck. Go after, you know...


VAN SUSTEREN: ... O'Reilly, go after me, go after Hannity. It's, like, but when you start going after the entire news organization -- we have got, you know, people like Jennifer Griffin, eight years in Jerusalem, doing a phenomenal job. We got Bret Baier. And who's been complaining about Bret Baier? Steve Centanni, Adam Housley -- and we go through the whole list. But they're -- they want to take everybody.

PERINO: Jim Angle. I mean, you could name a lot of different anchors. What's interesting to me is that just from my perspective, having been a White House, there is a network, MSNBC, that I could have said that about evening anchor or some people in the morning or I -- I could have taken that tack, but I thought it was not the right thing to do. And I think it's mostly because it's really unproductive. It feels un-American. And it's not inspiring.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, there's been some criticism about this meeting earlier this week with a bunch of journalists here in Washington. Of course, Fox was excluded. But in all fairness, President Bush, he met with conservative talk radio people...


VAN SUSTEREN: So that was not so peculiar that President Obama would be...

PERINO: I don't blame them for suggesting that they wouldn't want to put any administration officials on at 9:00 o'clock with Sean Hannity. I understand that.



VAN SUSTEREN: If you're afraid of Sean Hannity...

PERINO: Well, I'm not afraid of Sean Hannity!

VAN SUSTEREN: No, no, but I'm saying I don't get that. I mean, it's, like, you know...

PERINO: If they feel like they're disrespectful -- look, I never would have objected...


VAN SUSTEREN: You know, not in a million years do I think Sean Hannity would be disrespectful.

PERINO: No, I don't.

VAN SUSTEREN: He might not agree. But I mean...

PERINO: You're right. You're right.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... you may not agree with him, you may not -- you know, for whatever reason. Sean is not going to be disrespectful.

PERINO: No, he's not going to be, but I think when they watch it every night and they think, Wow, all these -- all these attacks on us, give us a chance -- I think I would try to take that chance and try to win on the merits. But I would never have suggested to President Bush it would have been a good idea to go on MSNBC's evening programming. I think that probably would have been...

VAN SUSTEREN: See, I think...

PERINO: ... something I wouldn't do.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... they would have been respectful.

PERINO: I don't. I don't think that they would have been, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: (INAUDIBLE) I mean, when push comes to shove. But the thing is, I -- I mean, I don't think that a president should ever look unpresidential and get into a food fight. That's bad. But I think, you know, if there's a willingness to take hard questions, you look presidential if you're willing to take on, you know...

PERINO: Like Chris Wallace, for example. I mean, I think that if you want to reach an audience where you have a lot of independents, people who are persuadable and people who might want to come around to your point of view -- and people love the presidency. They respect the president. They might disagree with his policies, but that doesn't mean that they can't be persuaded if they think that they have the better argument.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, anyway, never dull. And of course, we'll be watching (ph) this (ph). Dana, thank you very much.

PERINO: Thanks for having me.
skreee … skreee …
Tim Blair
Some $350 worth of mud crabs are presently in my kitchen. Occasionally I can hear them scraping at the sides of their polystyrene prison. Only a few hours to go, little ones. Then you will be at peace – rich, delicious, Singapore chilli peace.

Also on tonight’s menu: rock oysters, scampi, and whatever other sea-beasts guests can trap (Joe, who misunderstood the concept, is bringing KFC). It’s just our way of celebrating the global day of action.
Tim Blair
Australians, British, Canadians … everyone is getting over the Great Fear:
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.
Many moments have evidently been reconsidered, despite a recent propaganda surge. Some blame overly-cautious scientists, whose doomer messages aren’t getting through; Peter Hartcher blames Kevin Rudd.

UPDATE. Clive Hamilton, the comedy candidate for Higgins:
We are really are at a critical juncture in Australia’s history and I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that. The climate scientists are telling us we’re at a vital point and this is really our last chance.
Not that he’s exaggerating, of course.
Tim Blair
Only the brave dare play Baby Puppies.
Tim Blair
“The 2008 election revealed a divided America,” writes the SMH’s Shaun Carney, who’d apparently prefer it if everyone voted for the one candidate – particularly white folks, who just won’t get with the program:
Obama won under-30 voters two-to-one, blacks by 90 per cent, Hispanics by 36 per cent and Asians by 27 per cent, but he lost white voters - still by far the biggest voting bloc - by 12 per cent.
Which leads Carney to conclude:
When you look at his policy challenges, and hear the unhappiness, the despair and resentment at government in general, and when you see pictures of gun-bearing men attending Obama’s public meetings, some possibilities are too awful to contemplate.
Everything is seemingly spinning out of control, as Associated Press might put it. Plus there are assassins. On other Obamic issues, James Taranto reports:
It’s hard to see any way in which the White House’s war on Fox makes sense. The aim of the effort seems to be to contain the political damage from stories like the Van Jones and Acorn scandals, which Fox reported well ahead of most media outlets, by encouraging journalists at those outlets to think of Fox as illegitimate.

But that is their natural inclination anyway; it is the reason Fox was out in front on those stories. Other news organizations were embarrassed to be so badly scooped – and rightly so …
They were too busy performing in the Obama choir.
Bullies can’t beat the BNP
Andrew Bolt
It’s the Hanson phenomenon, only more serious, and this poll alone should be a warning of the danger of attempts to ban the BNP leader from speaking on the BBC:
One statistic above all stands out from the YouGov opinion poll commissioned by the Telegraph. And it’s not that 22 per cent of respondents would consider voting for the BNP, amazing though that is. It’s that a majority of voters, while they may despise the BNP, think it “has a point”:
More than half of those questioned said they agreed with the BNP, or thought that it “had a point” in wishing to “speak up for the interests of the indigenous, white British people … which successive governments have done far too little to protect.” This included 43 per cent who said that, while they shared some of its concerns, they had “no sympathy for the party itself”
I have some sympathy with the “but would you give a platform to Adolf Hitler” argument. But the BNP politicians, although unpleasant, are not the Nazis, and if half the voters think that at least this one party raises an important issue, then banning it from debates can only entrench doubt in democracy, or at least cyncism towards the existing political and media establishment.

If the BNP are as dumb and wicked as claimed, then open debates will eventually destroy it. Using violence, abuse, censorship and even the law to instead bully it into silence will only make more people determined to defend it - if only to defend their own right to be heard. That was the lesson of Hansonism.

Here’s how BNP leader Nick Griffin actually went on the BBC:

Matthew Engel complains that the gang-up was exactly not what was needed. I agree, especially given what these polls say. Argument, not abuse, is the most effective antidote. I’m with Rod Liddle: don’t panic or rage, just talk. Separate the legitimate concerns BNP supporters have from the BNP’s ugly remedies, and address them seriously. Repudiate only what’s left.

These were the successful tactics John Howard used in neutering Hansonism. - This argument by Bolt fails to recognize the complicity in Australian and UK Labor parties in inflating the issue of Hanson or BNP policy. Both parties have been able to smear conservative parties by merely pointing out they are different to the national socialist extreme right. The truth is that conservative parties are different too. BNP and Hanson were and are stupid and giving them any authority is a mistake because their brand of stupidity is the same as the NAZI party of the late twenties and early thirties. Opportunistic and thoughtless. Destructive and acidic for social cohesion. I don't know why Bolt seems to buy into it for the ALP side of politics. - ed.
He’d have to have a belief before he fought for it
Andrew Bolt
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher is dismayed by the growing public scepticism of the claims of warming alarmists, and disappointed now in his spin-obsessed Prime Minister:
John Howard was a prime minister who defined himself by the fights he picked. He would often champion an unpopular policy, then go into a mighty campaign of public advocacy. He usually managed to turn opinion and win the day, or at least get away with it. This was true of the GST, waterfront reform, the Iraq war.

Rudd is emerging as a prime minister who defines himself by the fights he avoids. He is uncomfortable advocating an opinion that might be electorally risky. He would prefer to shut down an Opposition attack with narrow political tactics than to overwhelm the Opposition by mobilising broad public opinion.
It’s just odd that only now does Hartcher begin to realise what’s been obvious for years - that Rudd is a deeply insecure man who stands for little but the seizing and holding of power.
Greens’ candidate: let’s sell tickets for a koala-killing party
Andrew Bolt

Clive Hamilton, the anti-democratic and anti-shopping Greens candidate for Higgins, and the benefits of shooting koalas for sport:
One approach worthy of serious consideration would be to charge a fee for visitors to Kangaroo Island to hunt koalas.
Wonder how that will go down with the party he’s only just joined to contest a seat that’s actually in another state? Looking forward to Bob Brown’s response.
Where are the Howard haters now?
Andrew Bolt

Gee, Kevin Rudd’s Indonesian Solution is such an improvement on John Howard’s Pacific Solution, which he so damned and then closed:
A TOTAL of 78 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers on board an Australian Customs vessel were to be transferred today to an Indonesian detention centre where detainees yesterday claimed they were beaten and robbed by guards, and slept 20 to a room on mattresses on the floor with no airconditioning.

With arms outstretched through the bars of their first-floor dormitory, above a string of razor wire, a group of Afghans who have already spent seven months in the Tanjung Pinang immigration detention centre on the Indonesian island of Bintan said they had been treated like “animals” and pleaded for Australia to help them.
Where are those Howard haters now, who vomited with assumed shame over his Pacific Solution? I hear only the scrabbling of positions being rapidly adjusted. Example (and more at the previous link):
Activist Julian Burnside on John Howard’s policy to send boat people to Nauru:

The Howard government ... forever sacrificed any claim to moral decency. The insidious thing about the Pacific Solution is that it preys on impoverished countries who have no real choice whether to lend themselves to the wishes of an Australian government willing to throw millions of dollars at them. I heard someone not so long ago draw an analogy with prostitution… These people are being held unlawfully… This is a staggering enterprise, on any view: about 1500 people have been hijacked at sea and transported against their will to a pile of bird-droppings in the Central Pacific.... To perpetuate this system of state-sponsored piracy and kidnap, the government has committed Australian taxpayers to a staggering $1.2 billion over the next few years. Moreover, the Pacific Solution is a fraud on the Australian people.
Activist Julian Burnside on Kevin Rudd’s policy to send boat people to Indonesia:

I would be interested in looking at the idea of processing in Indonesia with a couple of reservations though… Now, you know, both conditions and legal remedies to ensure the fairness of the process are extremely important in solutions like this and it only takes a slight shift in the attitude of the government for a solution like that to get out of hand utterly the way the Pacific solution did.

ABC political Chirs Uhlmann now backs his impressive on-air performances with a blog - and he, at least, won’t ignore the rank hypocrisy and spin:
Mr Rudd chose the wide path.In the modern, relativistic, world of politics the only way of measuring a man or woman is against their own words.

This was not a large test of character. But it is a telling one.
He also notes spin-mad Rudd’s use of his own church as a political prop:
On many Sunday nights the news carries pictures of the Prime Minister walking out of St John’s Anglican Church in the Canberra suburb of Reid. The tradition began with a request from television networks and, when his office agreed, it was on the condition that it was a picture opportunity only: he was not to be assailed by journalists asking questions.

Then, one morning, instead of walking past the camera, he stopped and made a statement. Now his post-church sermons have become a regular feature of Sunday political fare.

Pause for a moment and imagine what the reaction would have been if John Howard had done that.

We have some idea what Kevin Rudd would make of it because in two essays for The Monthly in 2006 he railed at “how right-wing Christian extremism has become John Howard’s religious handmaiden in his political project to reshape Australia”.

Burnside ups his anger a notch, to about 3 on his Hate-Howard scale of 10:
Julian Burnside, legal veteran of asylum seeker battles in the Howard years, condemns as ”really regrettable that Rudd feels the need to appear to take a tough line” on boat arrivals. ... Burnside regards the Indonesian solution as only slightly better than Howard’s “Pacific Solution” – unless the Government has “cast iron guarantees that the people will be treated decently and processed quickly and properly”.
Poor Rudd, who regrettably “feels the need to appear to take a tough line”. Driven by evil currents beyond his control to merely appear to be as tough as that Satanic Howard, who in contrast “forever sacrificed any claim to moral decency”.

Try again, Julian. I’m sure you can do better if you really, truly put your mind to it. Surely it can’t do any harm to any chances of, say, judicial preferment?


Frank Brennan, the priest Rudd chose to recommend a charter of human rights, demonstrates beautifully how Rudd is held to a lower standard. Here is Brennan on Howard’s tough policies on boat people:
Our present Prime Minister has much in common with Sir Joh. Each has won a string of elections; each has enhanced his popular appeal by abusing the rights and dignity of a minority - for one it was demonstrators and for the other, asylum seekers; while one politicised the police, the other has politicised the defence forces; and each has been in government long enough to undermine the professionalism of the public service.
Here is Brennan on tough-talking Rudd’s new “Indonesian solution”:

Father Brennan told the National Press Club today there was a need “to attempt negotiation with our neighbours’’ on the issue.

”I applaud any attempt by an Australian prime minister to negotiate arrangements with the Indonesian Government,’’ he said, adding that it would always, however, be “highly problematic’’.
We’ll dob you to the Government for dissent
Andrew Bolt
London’s Science Museum launches an apocalyptic exhibition on global warming, with the ecouragement of a government determined to terrify people into backing its new green taxes.

Even more astonishing is that the museum is also conducting an utterly unscientific on-line poll to whip up support for the Labour Government’s aim to get the world to set crippling - and fanciful - targets for cuts in emissions at December’s Copenhagen summit. To make the museum’s poll even more suspect, not only is the language loaded, but those dissenting from the Government’s position are given a warning, as Watts Up With That discovers. Check this snapshop of the museum’s site:

Followed by this implied warning - perhaps just clumsy wording, yes, but definitely on the result-skewing side:

In the toilet, again
Andrew Bolt
Wayne Carey is only the latest to selfishly think that selling his contrite memoirs is an act of expiation, not exploitation. Strangers will enjoy, but those once close will be mortified again.
Post a Comment