Posts by Bernard M. Orwell

Death of Bin Laden

Just one thing to say on this subject, U.S of A....

Pictures or it didn't happen.

~ America? Fuck no.

Venn

I've put together a Venn diagram showing overlap between the "Hate Assange" and "Hate Facebook" social groupings.

Where they intersect a hole in space/time has been created by the power of sheer, illogical confusion and conflict.

@AC 20:51

You know, I think hanging him might be just a *little* harsh.

After all, if we start inflicting capital punishment for the crime of being a dick, I suspect we'd see a lot less posts on this forum.

@AC 14:36

"Manning is not being tortured or treated any different than any other suicidal prisoner..."

Oh, really? Let me see now....

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/fresh-call-end-harsh-detention-wikileaks-soldier-2011-03-24

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/mar/04/bradley-manning-us-wikileaks-hypocrisy

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/03/does-bradley-mannings-treatment-constitute-torture/

So, that's Amnesty International who think is 'inhumane treatment' (Which, under US Law, is the same as saying 'torture', despite Bush redefining the word in Patriot 1&2).

Thats the Guardian (A major UK newspaper, very influential and representative of European attitudes) calling it torture outright.

And, an article from a legal forum mentioning that the UN is concerned enough that it might be torture that they intend to investigate.

If you'd like more 'baseless opinons' feel free to run a quick google for "torture bradley manning" and see how many sites are in favour of his incarceration under these conditions and how many are not. I would submit that the law of one nation should be prepared to change in the face of international opinion, in the same manner that the US has often expected of others.

America? Fuck no. Here's your coat....

QED, Mexico?

Personally, my response to the complaint from the Mexican ambassador would've been to offer him a sporting bet.

If I can take a flight to Mexico, disembark, and without leaving the airport, buy a stuffed donkey, a bottle of tequila with a fake worm in it, a sombrero, some cold and unpalatable 'local' cuisine and a colourful poncho, then will he pay for the flight and withdraw his complaint? Surely, after all, that would demonstrate that the image described by Clarkson is one that Mexico is actively exporting would render the complaint invalid?

It's a fair cop, guv'nor!

Here, have a beer, mate. It's British, so it's warm. Gawd, love a duck!

So, I guess....

...we're bored of being scared of non-existant terrorists, and the greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change has run out of new things to be called, so the Great Powers That Be had to find a new, implacable and unassailable foe for us all to be scared of (see: protected from).

I'm suprised that space has suddenly become so uppity, given how long its been around. Must be our fault somehow.

F.U.D. thats the order of the day. Again.

Mammon

Mammon is, in some christian doctrines, the god of corruption and wealth. Curiously he isn't listed as a demon in the Book of Solomon but as an 'angel of repetence'.

Oddly, Mammon is often taken as another name for the Owl-God Moloch, who it is said is worshipped by the celebrants who attend the Bohemian Grove for a rite known as "The Burning of Care".

Rumour, and anecdotal evidence, suggests that many powerful people have attended this rite over several decades, including most US presidents from Bush snr. onwards.

However, having researched this tenuous link somewhat, I would reccomend that you, dear reader, don't bother. Because if its true, then the world is insane, and if its not then it will send you insane with its drivel. Either way, not a good result.

A reply to Gumby.

"If Wikileaks had proof, I would hope that they actually released the documents backing up his claim."

Yes. Agreed. Don't make such claims without proof, Julian. If you have such evidence, lets all see it, then we'll know whether our politicos are indeed all worthless liars or whether you are just a media tart. (See Gumby? I occasionally agree with you on some points...now...lets move on....)

"The fact is that there are articles in the press where the Australian Government was cooperating with the US investigation as well as conducting their own investigation...."

It's in the newspaper so it must be fact? Well, thats a leap. Especially for someone who made the claim not so long ago on a thread about Bradley Manning that if one doesn't have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE of something that one is not qualified to comment. I trust that these newspapers all have such first hand knowledge and aren't simply regurgitating news collected by other third-party agencies. After all, if they didn't have such first hand experience then we can't really count their opinions.....sorry...news articles, by your standards, as accurate, can we?

"There were even articles in the Australian press where some politico claimed that Aussie troops in Afghanistan were put in harms way because of Wikileaks."

Has this un-named politico presented their evidence, or is this a claim without proof like Assanges too

"The Aussie's PM's response rings true. She probably didn't have knowledge of any information sharing..."

Oh! it SOUNDS right? That's fine then. Must be true. Y'know, old chap, I think Julian SOUNDS right too. Must be true. Again, I think we need people to present evidence, as you suggested, before we make such profound leaps to conclusions.

"That would occur at a much lower pay grade and wouldn't need her approval because there are treaties and agreements about information sharing already in place."

Wow! Your understanding of modern political structures is astounding! (Before you start, I think you ought to know that I work inside government in an....informed...position and I *DO* know how governments function internally). A senior politician not being held accountable for the work of their "lower pay grades" is not an acceptable excuse. They are ultimately held accountable for everything in their purview.

"Also that if he faced the Death Penalty and Assange was in Australia, he wouldn't be extradited. That's true for pretty much most of the world and even in the states the death penalty is going away."

This is true, and again we are agreed. All this nonsense about death penalties being applied is ridiculous. No one wants Assange to become a martyr and provoke world-wide rebellion now, do they?

"So how's his appeal going? He filed it and no response from the Brits?"

Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow in the UK. We can but wait.

"I am disappointed in ABC because of their cheap stunt. I wonder who's going to lose access to the PM?"

I'd hope that such an upright government are above petty revenge. After all, we don't see other nations in the west carrying out unfair, unsanctioned and illegal punitive actions against individuals or organisations do....oh....wait....

"You know that things always happens in 3s. 1) Charlie Sheen, 2) Gilbert Gottfreid getting the Axe and now 3) Assange making an Ass of himself."

Didn't have you down as a believe in synchronicity or fate, Gumby.... Also, Charlie Sheen is a person, not a thing or an event (despite what HE might think!)

"Lets face it. If you're going to ambush your own PM, you'd best have relevant dirt and not make a wild arse suggestion that she'd ever be tried on treason."

Yeah, everyone, lets see your cards on the table. Evidence all round please then we can make an informed decision rather than letting rhetoric, appeal to celebrity, politcal opinion and ad hominen attacks determine our viewpoints for us!

"Maybe if the boy hadn't been home schooled he might have learned something."

Ad hominem attack. Ignored because its a weak last line.

The Register(tm)

The Register(tm), an online tabloid produced using Windows(tm).

Register: Compound Noun - "Re", a prefix denoting a secondary iteration of an already performed action. "Gist(er)": Speech, writing or other information. Gister being the individual to provide such. QED the "Register": To repeat information, writing or other information gained from an unspecified source. See also Regurgitate.

Oh, and they smell and they dress like girls.

@AC 22:51

"Every Policeman in the EU has a number - these are prominently displayed on their uniform... ... When they disappear, this will point towards us having a police state..."

Allow me....

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/policing-and-crime/evidence-of-police-violence-sent-to-ipcc-$1305708.htm#

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5596190/Protesters-arrested-for-challenging-police-officers-without-badge-numbers-lodge-formal-complaint.html

http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/04/londons-police-senior-officers-also.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198038/Police-confrontational-hide-badge-numbers-finds-G20-kettling-report.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23678440-sir-paul-officers-were-wrong-to-hide-their-id-badges.do

http://policestatebritain.blogspot.com/

....there, that should set you straight.

@The Gopher

Not AC? I doubt somehow that your mailing address says "Mr. T. Gopher" does it?

You're as AC as the rest of us, don't kid yourself.

Also, just to address your point, WHICH bible are you going to use to justify your particular flavour of prejudice? Just so I know where to look for the passage in the "good book" that tells me who is considered subhuman by your sky-fairy? I mean, I wouldn't want my received-wisdom based hatred to be pointed in the wrong direction now, would I?

For the first time in my adult atheist life, I hope there IS a hell so that WBC can experience it first-hand as they clearly deserve.

...try to shut me down on MTV...

"Under Ms Smith, domestic violence was redefined to include giving your spouse verbal abuse. She confessed on television that she had verbally abused her hubby over porngate."

Now, I am NOT a Jaqui Fan (being human and reasonable in essence), but I will point out that she didn't author any such bill. She did, however, chair a panel entitled "Ending domestic violence against Girls and Women" that strongly implied that all domestic abuse was carried out by men and that young boys couldn't be considered as victims of abuse.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/papadopoulos_women_review/

The event I think you are referring to, fellow commentard, is that recently a high court handed down the judgement that 'emotional abuse' was to be treated in the same way as 'physical abuse' when it came to domestic violence. In the case in question the man was found guilty of domestic abuse because he shouted at his wife. A lot. Other factors that are now considered as 'abuse' are denying your partner money or criticising them (unreasonably).

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/525361-shouting-counts-domestic-violence.html

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=12684

(both genders represented for reasons of fairness and balance)

Personally, I wonder how long it will be before looking at a woman is considered sexual harrasment....

.....oh...wait....

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/sexual-harassment-and-the-law/83339

So, according to UK Law we can now no longer shout at, speak to without consent, criticise, refuse to give money when asked for it or even look at women.

Take note, chaps. It's the LAW.

Obtaining Goods/Monies by Deception

you know, I'm fairly certain that assuming a false identity in order to obtain a financial advantage or to secure goods/services is called fraud in the UK....

Egyptian Democracy

Ah yes, the people took to the streets and their leaders heard their cries of outrage and responded, now there's to be a free and open election isn't there? Democracy in action in the middle east at last! Hoorah for democracy and freedom!

Wait....no...I see no sign of such. What I do see is that the current government is "in negotation with the opposition parties to form a new cabinet."

No voting.

Oh.

Who's the opposition then? Ahh... that'd be the "Muslim Brotherhood", another group that the people of Egypt have expressed their doubts about having democracy at the heart of their agenda.

So much for democracy. Glad that the outcome wasn't influenced by the west in any way....oh...wait...

Plus Ca Change, non?

Oh Egypt....

You can't silence the people forever you know...

NYT, not propagandists?

"We live and work in a city that has been tragically marked as a favorite terrorist target..."

That'd be once, then. Not exactly a regular, favourite target by any stretch of the imagination.

"...in the wake of 9/11 our journalists plunged into the ruins to tell the story..."

I trust they are speaking metaphorically, as there was a total media blackout after 9/11 and no one

was was permitted physically into the ruins.

"The Times has nine staff correspondents assigned to the two wars still being waged in the wake of that attack...."

Disingenuous at the very least. "..Two wars still being waged under the thin disguise of that attack...". There, fixed that for them. I could barely believe they are STILL attempting to link US 'foreign policy' (Cf: Kill, kill, kill) to the 9/11 incident.

But, they're not propagandists.

(PS. I actually agree with them articles body about Assange/Wikileaks. I just though the last paragraph was a bit rum!)

Conspiracies

Anyone who believes there is no such thing as conspiracy in this world is terribly naive.

Anyone who denouces conspiracists as 'nuts' is simply buying into the sanitised government/media version of the world. To them I say enjoy your lives but remember not to watch any history documentaries.

Especially on something called Watergate, for example.

Good Heavens!

A government increasing the power of public scrutiny?! Whatever next!?

I, for one, however, look forward to issuing FOIA requests to the ACPO.

I doubt they will enjoy it as much as I do.

O rly?

"we want a good balance between working life, social life and family life."

That may as may be, Mr. AC, but I don't want to be told by some over-inflated 'superior' moral authority to tell me what that appropriate balance is!

I'm already sick and tired of my employer trying to take control of my home life with the concept of 'work/life balance' without the government trying to do the same.

Employer; the transaction is simple. You pay me for work, then I go home. I work for as much time as you pay me for. No more, no less. When I go home I don't give you a second thought. That, old chap, is balance.

Now, off with you.

or, to put it another way...

...are we all happy that we weren't told that US troops had shot 30 children at checkpoints, whilst engaged in an illegal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all?

I'm not.

@Gumby

Epic. Fail.

Occams razor does not, and should not be applied to anything other than natural phenomena, and very specifically does not apply to social structures or mad-made technologies.

You cleary didn't read the article that you actually dare to quote as source... let me provide some choice quotations directly from that very wiki page:

"The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions." - Paragraph 2

"Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[4]" - Paragraph 3

"To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[6]" - Paragraph 3

"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[9][10][11][12]" - Paragraph 4

So... nothing in the first four paragraphs fits your use of Occams Razor. I think it'd be fair for me to qoute the immortal Sherlock Holmes in response, as it is opposed to your view and just as valid, if not more so:

"When one eliminates the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Off you go.

@Keith 21

Yes, you're right, and it would appear that morality is relative, not absolute. Makes it odd that it is abitrarily tied to national boundaries, doesn't it?

If we're going to accept that a metre either side of a boundary changes what is morally correct, then its not a huge leap to question why, at the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthday, becomes legally allowed to do things that 5 seconds ago they were not. If we accept that as being fair, then perhaps we should be ensuring that our legislation only accepts them as 'of the age of legal consent' at the point *precisely* 18 years after they were born.

And what if we don't base our ruling on geographic or age boundaries? Where then do we turn for our moral compass? Religion? Majority Approval? Scientific Evaluation?

Who makes these laws, and why are they are moral guardians? Should they be beyond question, as they appear to be?

Morality; not as easy as it appears, I suspect.

Patriotism

Patriotism is another form of fundamentalism. Just lacking the Sky-Fairy aspect.

"My Country, right or wrong."

Further Clarity

"...over a distance of 1mm. Useful."

Their experiment might've only been over a distance of 1mm, but the whole thing with entanglement is that distance/time isn't a factor, ultimately. It doesn't matter where the entangled particles actually are in the entire universe; change one and the matched particle changes to the exact mirror instantly.

Space/Time is old hat!

On behalf of Moral Philosophers from previous centuries....

...you cannot legislate individual morality, and thusly, global morality must follow in a like fashion.

Fail award handed to everyone who tries. Let us alone to be our moral guardians ourselves, and to take the same responsibility for our own children. I don't want either my or my childrens morality dictated by aloof, nonsensical religion; by my neighbours unquantifiable standards; by cold, impartial legislation or by some hand-picked, anonymous group of 'nannies'.

I have the right to decide for myself, within the bounds of law, how my morality should be. The rights of others to affect my rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Freedom 'from' should not outweight freedom 'to' where no harm is caused to a third party.

Ergo; leave me alone!