Make a Difference

Day: May 12, 2011

Assange Wins Peace Prize – Pardon?

The Sydney Peace Foundation has handed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange its gold medal for extraordinary achievement in promoting peace with justice.

Excuse me while I throw up.

The Foundation glowingly reports that this is only the fourth time in its history that the gold medal, its highest honour, has been awarded.

Foundation director Professor Stuart Rees said the award was to honour Mr Assange’s work in challenging official secrecy.

Urrghh… Sorry, throwing up again.

Director Rees says the Australian government has been complicit in demonising Assange, who has broken no laws, and is a really cool dude and everything.

Tell that to the women he raped (allegedly), or the people whose lives he has put in danger. It is not just the nasty USA that says Mr Assange’s profit before anyone else’s rights philosophy has put people in danger, incidentally, but human rights organisations including Amnesty International.

Meanwhile, in equally barf-worthy and unsurprising news, Assange has demanded that all Wikileaks employees sign a confidentiality agreement which specifies that the information stolen by Wikileaks is the sole property of Wikileaks, that Wikileaks has a proprietory interest in such information, and threatens anyone who leaks this information with a penalty of $20 million.

Julian Assange is not remotely concerned for human rights, peace or justice. He is a profiteering reseller of stolen information. And a rapist (allegedly).

Please, Ditch the CAPTCHAs

I hate those wretched CAPTCHA things. Too hard to read, and they don’t do a good job anyway.

If you have a website where people can sign on to some service, and you need to be able to distinguish between people and robots, consider HIVE instead.

You can try it here.

One of the challenges was not clear to me. At the moment it may be too USA centred (products, seasons, etc) to be applicable to wordwide users, but it is still in development.

In the meantime, it’s easy, it works, and it’s fun instead of frustrating.

I wish them every success.

Insults Are Not Evidence

In the early eighties I went through a stage of uncertainty about the ordination of women to the priesthood. I was living in Adelaide at the time, studying at Flinders/The Adelaide College of Divinity for priestly ministry in the Anglican Church.

I had listened to debates about this in New Zealand. The bishops all seemed to be earnestly in favour, and that made it something I had to consider. I read books, listened to the debates at Synod. There was lots of talk about justice, but I was not entirely convinced.

I went to a public discussion. The usual arguments were put. There was much nodding of heads by serious bearded gentlemen, and grumpy-looking nuns.

So I asked how we could reconcile what was proposed with the example of Jesus, the teaching of the Apostles, and the universal practice of the Church. Did we really believe that Jesus, the Apostles and the entire Church before us had misunderstood the will of God, and that our generation was the first to see things clearly?

The answer was a look of astonished fury, and the raising of two fingers, accompanied by laughter from the serious bearded gentlemen and grumpy nuns.

That was a turning point for me. If anger, rude gestures and public mocking were the best arguments they had, then this was not much to stack up against what Jesus had done, the Apostles had taught, and the entire Chuch had practised for 2,000 years.

Sadly, this is a style of debate that still has its adherents. Example:

Via WUWT.

The best arguments they have are to swear, call people names, suggest anyone who disagrees with them is corrupt or stupid, and wave their boobies.

They might have a chance of convincing people if they answered a few questions:

Is there any correlation between human activity and changes in global climate? (Answer – No)

Is there any evidence human actvity has changed the rate of sea level increase? (Answer – No)

Is there any evidence for the claimed positive feedback from water vapour that would increase a possible but harmless 1 degree increase in temperature caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to a dangerous four degrees or more? (Answer – No)

Or if they showed any sign of engaging with, or even awareness of, the vast body of peer reviewed literature that questions the global warming frenzy (and associated government funds feeding frenzy).

Till then, thanks, but I think I prefer this:

Greenpeace Not A Charity

As a contrast to the appallingly dumb judicial decision in the previous post, I offer this as a counter-example:

Greenpeace has lost a High Court battle to restore its status as a charity.

The environmental lobby group was deregistered as a charity last year after the Charities Commission decided it had an overtly political role, particularly in its promotion of peace and disarmament.

The High Court declined Greenpeace’s appeal, saying it is clear the group sees itself as an advocate rather than an educator.

Justice Heath said the group uses non-violent, but potentially illegal, activities to make a point – which are not necessary to educate the public.

The decision means Greenpeace will not be exempt from income tax, a status granted to registered charities.

Makes sense to me – if you are primarily a political lobby group, no matter how noble you think your causes are, you are not a charity.

Especially interesting that this decision has been made in New Zealand, where Greenpeace has a large following, and the sunken Rainbow Warrior is treated as a kind of holy shrine.

The shine is coming off.

Ex Con Gets Compo For Beating Customer

This is one of those ‘What the #^*?!’ moments.

A fast food restaurant manager has been awarded thousands of dollars in compensation after he broke his wrist while bashing a customer.

Matthew Styles had previous convictions for assault, including assault against police.

But a Melbourne Court magistrate ruled that Mr Styles, who was sacked after the brawl, is entitled to a juicy compensation payout despite using foul language and escalating the dispute.

Red Rooster, which refused Mr Styles’ compensation claims, said he did not honour its “employee behaviour standards” and therefore was not entitled to any compensation.

It also pointed out Mr Styles lengthy criminal record.

But the magistrate found his injuries arose “out of or in the course of the employment”.

He was awarded 13 weeks in lost pay.

His injuries arose in the course of his employment?

The media delights in portraying judges and magistrates as out of touch with commuity standards. That characterisation is frequently unfair. Most judges are careful and responsible.

But this is about as unfair and irresponsible as it is possible to imagine.

Thoughts on Bin Laden’s Death

I wrote a few weeks ago that the death penalty should be kept as an option, but used very rarely – when it seemed to be the only way to protect society from a vicious and dangerous criminal.

Osama bin Laden fitted that category.

The operation that lead to his death was carefully planned and carried out.  Those involved in both planning and operations deserve congratulations.

Two quotes from George Bush seem appropriate:

“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a 2 million dollar missile at a 10 dollar empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.”

“Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

In the end, it was on Barack Obama’s watch that the time came when it was possible to take that decisive action. Justice has been done.

But the search for Osama bin Laden was not the prosecution of a criminal offence. It was a response to an act of war, a war declared and ongoing.

No one can doubt bin Laden’s intention and plans for his minions to carry out further attacks on the West.

If you start a war, you should be prepared for the people you have attacked to respond. You can’t destroy buildings and murder thousands of people and then cry ‘no fair’ when the country you have attacked decides the world would be a safer place without you.

The US responded to these threats in what seem to me to be the most fair and responsible manner imaginable.

It removed the person making them.

Al Qaeda is a many headed monster, but some heads are more equal than others, and the head removed was the most equal of all.

The attack on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was a military victory. It deserves to be celebrated, for the courage of those who participated, and for the outcome.

A message has been sent: If you murder our citizens, if you attack our people, we will find you, and there will be nothing inspiring or noble about your end, which be like the end of a vicious, worm infested dog whose body is thrown by the side of the road to rot.

Also, Pakistan is not our friend.

There are three possibilities.

1.  Pakistan’s security forces had no idea bin Laden was living in their neighbourhood. In that case they are mind bogglingly incompetent and should not be trusted with a plastic bow and arrow, let alone nuclear weapons.

2.  Some members of Pakistan’s security forces knew bin Laden was living in Abbottabad, but they protected him rather than tell Pakistan’s political leaders. In that case, Pakistan is in deeper trouble than we thought. It is unstable and should not be trusted with a plastic bow and arrow, let alone nuclear weapons.

3.  Pakistan’s poltical leaders knew, but protected him rather than tell their allies. In that case, Pakistan is in deeper trouble than we thought. It may not be unstable, but it is definitely not our friend. It already has nuclear weapons, which it has developed rather than spend money on vital infrastructure.

Instead, the West has paid for much of its infrastructure with massive doses of aid.

Pakistan needs to demonstrate some trustworthiness, and a commitment to the welfare of its own people, including its non-muslim minorities.

Until it does, that aid should stop.

© 2024 Qohel