Today’s news roundup has an international flavour. Just for a change….
An independent anti-war tribunal has found the United States and United Kingdom guilty of a variety of crimes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
‘Independent’ and ‘anti-war’? I guess independent in that it’s not affiliated to other anti-war movements. Not, as I initially thought, independent in that it starts with an open mind and lets the facts speak for themselves.
The independent panel of academics, writers and activists in its concluding verdict on Monday found the US and UK governments guilty of “planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles”.
I more or less oppose the war too - I wish I could find a principled and intelligent conservative to read about rather than these rent a hippy dudes.
Apparently the
Istanbul Bar Association a leading light in the prosecution of the UK government for its part in what the Istanbul lawyers claim is an illegal war.
Not the Istanbul Bar Association! We’re done for..! UNESCO Peace Prize winner Richard Falk addressed the tribunal:
“The tribunal is not set up to discover the truth but to confirm it…”
The Truth, already decided on, is: Guilty as hell.
Next!
The Canaries are turning into desert, according to The Tenerife News.
The combined effects of global warming, soil erosion and short-sighted and irresponsible use of the land are taking their toll on some of the most vulnerable areas of Spain, and this region, where experts say 100 per cent of the territory is at risk, is one of them.
Spain is already signed up to the Convention to Combat Desertification but, apparently, hasn’t actually done anything about it.
One measure being undertaken to arrest this process is the introduction of plants in order to prevent soil erosion and hold in water. Actual reversal of the desertification process will require more than just this though…
France’s press is subsidized in one way or another by an estimated sum of more than $55 million annually. Prices of newspapers are controlled by the government.
Subsidization takes several forms. For example, a journalist in France phones, cables, or telexes his story at half the ordinary rate, and newspapers are mailed to subscribers for only a fraction of the cost for other material of the same weight. If a reporter has to travel anywhere in France on a story, he pays half fare on French railways.
Sometimes the subsidy is direct. If a publisher desires to build a new printing plant, the government will pay up to 15% of its cost, and in the important budget item of paper cost it will pay the difference between the French price for newsprint and the world price, which is lower. The state also subsidizes overseas sales of French newspapers. It does not require publishers to pay a purchase tax, and it exempts them from the corporation tax on profits if the money is reinvested within five years. Working journalists get an automatic 30% deduction on their income taxes as an expense allowance.
Guess what? All that subsidy has done nothing for the French newspaper industry, according to the website. A combination of strong, intransigent unions, ineffective management and high production costs leaves the French press in a state of crisis.
Anyway, they’ve let a rapist out of prison with the strictest parole provision ever set in the state of Victoria.
These provisions include curfews, 24-hour monitoring and treatment in a rehabilitation program.
Jones, formerly known as Brendan John Megson, was jailed in 1981 for kidnapping boys, shaving their heads, dressing them in girls’ clothing and sexually assaulting them.
After his release, he attacked again and in 1992 was given a 14-year sentence for raping a nine-year-old boy and sexually assaulting the boy’s six-year-old brother.
Oh and he’s not allowed to work with children now. So that should see him on the straight and narrow. Good to see the Australians deal with their psychopathic sex offenders with the same leniency as we do here. Crazy.
The New York Times (free registration required) runs a profile of Hilary Clinton. Seems she might be preparing a presidential campaign - which means, Blair-like, she has to drop - or disguise - some of her leftist rhetoric in favour of the so-called ‘third way’.
So, on abortion:
Ever since she was first lady of Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton has paired her support for abortion rights with the goal of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Like her husband, she has made “safe, legal, and rare” her mantra on abortion.
Doing that has enabled Mrs. Clinton to give Democratic women what they want to hear by championing abortion rights at political rallies, while stressing prevention, sexual education and abstinence when she wants to reach out to the middle.
Hmmm. Do we know of a political ‘leader’ closer to home who also wants to be all things to all people?
On defence:
During the Clinton years, her public image was shaped, fairly or not, by her participation in protests against the Vietnam War while she was in college. She also stood in the shadow of a husband known for his often tense relations with the armed services over issues like gays in the military.
In recent speeches and interviews, as well as in votes in the Senate, she has emerged as a staunch ally of the armed services and a strong proponent of a forceful American military presence abroad.
On Iraq, for example, she has stood by her vote authorizing the president to wage war and has argued for a greater troop presence there, to the chagrin of some liberals.
And then the de rigeur attempt to appeal to all as she supports something from both sides of the Iraq argument:
People close to Mrs. Clinton say her stance on the military has inoculated her against any charge that she is soft on defense, even as she criticizes some aspects of the president’s management of the war in Iraq, like his failure to get wider international support for it.
Seems like she’s dropped her plans for universal free health too. Maybe she’s seen what it’s done to the UK? Health is a highly complex area and undiluted ideology just won’t solve the problems that technological nations are facing.
And on immigration she seems to be taking a tougher, anti-illegal immigration stance.
“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.” She called for a comprehensive system to track these immigrants, some form of entry and exit identification and tighter border controls, and she reluctantly suggested that an identification system for citizens might be needed.
Which is Blair to a ‘t’. He was all light and fluffy on immigration when it didn’t seem to be an issue and then, when he realised there were votes on being tough on immigration, he suddenly got tough on immigration. Maybe Ms Clinton has learnt some of Blair’s lessons and is getting real early. At least then she won’t look like the opportunistic liar that Blair looked at election time.
I used to repeatedly say on my last blog - and boy I must have been a pain - but I’ll say it again: you cannot be all things to all people. You just cannot. Be most things to 45% of them and you get a landslide election victory.
Rocket science this isn’t…
