Slashdot Mirror

For crying out loud, this mod system is as corrupt as the USGovt, there isn't a shred of insight in that post. clearly the mod wants to help the persecution for political reasons.

here is one of many articles describing the charges and note that these facts have been out since day two and NEITHER SIDE DISPUTES THEM. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

The women then withdrew consent, appealing to him to stop. Assange did not stop.

I have two questions for you Thaeatetus. Where did you find these statements from Assange's lawer (who's name you failed to even mention)

James D. Catlin, in a letter to the editor of Crikey, here.

and do you get dental coverage working in the CIA?

Why is it so hard for people to believe that (a) I like WikiLeaks and think they're doing good work, and (b) Julian Assange quite possibly committed sexual assault? Is this some sort of cult of personality thing where, because you like WikiLeaks, therefore Assange can do no wrong?

WikiLeaks is not just Julian Assange. Even if he goes to jail over this, the site will continue.

First off, it's an insult to rape victims around the world to call this "rape". "Rape" in Sweden is what "sex offence" is quickly becoming in the US, where it is conflating serious crimes with non-issues like teenagers texting pics to their boyfriends. But the media loves it because it's hard to escape the stigma of being labeled a sex offender.

So let's see what we have here about Assange's "rape" case. Let me know where you think the "sexual assault" happened. And explain to me how can you turn that into an international arrest warrant to be handled by UK's "serious crimes" division.

The Swedes are making it up as they go along

"Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity."

Increasingly, attention has been focused on the role of Anna Ardin, the more visible of the two complainants. Her apparent mix of establishment cred, together with her varied activist/political career radical feminist, Christian social democrat, ambitious political intern seems to flummox non-Swedish commentators, who don’t understand that that is an establishment career in Sweden. Ardin has not only worked as an intern in the Swedish foreign affairs department, including a tour of DC and Cuba (from which she was allegedly deported), but has also interned on the op-ed page of the Gothenburg afternoon paper GT, part of the Expressen stable, owned by the right-wing Bonnier family (yep, Sweden has right-wingers).

It was to the relentlessly anti-left Expressen that the story of the initial charges of rape against Assange were released (a breach of Swedish law), in the small window of time before they were rescinded by a higher prosecutor.

Were there accusations of violent rape involved in this case, I’d be a lot more circumspect about reporting some of this, but it seems no one is asserting physical coercion. So here goes: two separate sources from the Swedish left have told me that they regard Ardin as more than a little over-the-top, and subject to some compelling obsessions. Another source said he was pretty sure of the identity of SW, the other complainant, and that some people had held suspicions about her bona fides as a member of the left.

And from this site here we find some very interesting info:

Someone in the police station rings up the prosecutor on duty - who just happens to be Maria Kjellstrand, whose husband works in the office of Beatrice Ask, who is Sweden's minister of justice, a position previously held by Thomas Bodström who gave away The Pirate Bay to the White House and who today runs a law firm with Claes Borgström who's made a career out of supporting militant radical feminist ideas - and who magically appears out of nowhere later on to become the two girls' legal counsel, despite being obscenely expensive.

It's too late for that. He had a son when he was quite young:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/17/daniel-assange-i-never-thought-wikileaks-would-succeed/

while it would appear the minister may have had some guilty consience,
and there wa irony that Christian MP Fred Nile was "involved"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Nile

* the audit was unauthorised
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-behind-nsw-parliamentary-porn-inquiry-quits-20100906-14y1i.html
* the audit did not properly identify "porn sites"
"instances of inappropriate access were registered by the audit if parliamentary staff accessed sites that contained links or advertisements to pornographic or gambling material."
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reports-of-nsw-mp-internet-misuse-flawed-339305748.htm
the "porn sites" with by far the biggest number of hits were local newspaper ones, apparently because they included on-line dating ads
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/03/nsw-parliament’s-flawed-prn-hunt/

Their "clarification" is only a result of the negative reaction. His real feelings haven't changed one bit. He's a crackpot. These are politicians who are merely adjusting their statements to make their gruel appear more palatable. Once they get in, all bets are off. And besides, the Greens draw up some very strange alliances with some very corrupt parties in other countries. Anything for the win... Don't trust them.

We will make more announcements on that in the near future...

What, he can't speak for himself? Why's he holding out? Ask him whether he would ever demand mandatory "access". He sounds more like the Borg. He has no voice of his own. The "collective" speaks for him. That's a show stopper. I'm not interested in party positions. I want to know his position.

I noticed the proposals for legislation of water allotments (rationing) in your link. Not one mention of desalination to provide an unlimited supply in there. This is what I'm talking about. They want to control what they have now instead of tapping vast new resources that go largely untouched. The position speaks mainly in platitudes. Very little in there on specifics. All boilerplate stuff.

Like virtually all political parties that speak from a position of weakness, they talk the talk. As soon as they acquire real power, you will find their platform will change significantly when that power comes under threat.

All I can say is good luck. It will be needed when dealing in party politics. Little, if any headway can be made under such a system. In fact regression is usually the norm.

Yeah! I like to smell its feet..

Who is this guy? It appears he's with the Greens... What the hell is wrong with them to let somebody like this in the party? Looks like the Greens should be tossed into the dustbin with the others.. I never did trust them considering the strange bedfellows they hang with... I sure as hell would never vote for them.. I hope nobody else does.

The New York attitude comes the closest, he was born in the US but thanks to political cartoonists most Aussies think he's from Mexico

This reminds me of that one time Jeff Goldblum apparently died in New Zealand.

The pink batts "failure" was actually a failure of the media and spin:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/did-the-insulation-program-actually-reduce-fire-risk/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/risk-and-incompetence-in-an-insulated-media/

The pink batts "failure" was actually a failure of the media and spin:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/did-the-insulation-program-actually-reduce-fire-risk/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/risk-and-incompetence-in-an-insulated-media/

I find it interesting that anybody found out where he lives, given that Michael Atkinson refuses to reveal where he lives.

With no proof one way or the other, I suspect that the note story is made up. Just like the barbecued cat story.

Australia recently released rankings of all our schools.

Chifley College Dunheved Campus was the worst ranked school in Sydney.

As you can see, the school isn't very inspiring

sign the petition against it:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=892

AND

let mr conroy know what we think:

Parliament Contact: Phone: (02) 6277 7480 Fax: (02) 6273 4154

Email: senator.conroy@aph.gov.au

Electorate Office: Suite 1B, 494 High Street Epping Vic 3076

PO Box 1067 Epping MDC Vic 3076

Phone: (03) 9408 0190 Fax: (03) 9408 0194 Toll Free: 1300 131 546 Toll free number is only available in Victoria

Secondary Office: Level 4, 4 Treasury Place Melbourne Vic 3002

Phone: 03 9650 1188 Fax: 03 9650 3251

Crikey has a reasonably accurate guide on how to avoid receiving a standard response that doesn't address your concerns:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/

I'd add that it doesn't hurt to CC the PM's office because they keep correspondence statistics tracking controversial issues too.

(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)

Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism. The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release. That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians. Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates "could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds."

While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians are easily swayed. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two sides to every story? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.

The problem is that you dont have a clue about Iran and its people. Most of your key points are just false and I dont know how you came up with the underlying assumptions in the first place.

1. The demonstrators are not socially isolated. The movement draws its member from merely every social segement in Iran, which by the way explains why they gathered behind a guy who was at the forefront of the Islamization of the Republic in the 80s. Of course, the Iranian elite is more present on the web than any other social group. But that does not mean, that people without mobiles and internet access are not joining forces to overthrow that regime.

2. The deomonstrations take place everywhere in Iran! Just because the most videos are sent from Tehran doesnt mean that there is nothing happening in other cities, where Internet access has been restricted even more so.

3. Check your facts, the last revolution in Iran happened in 1979 BUT it started 1.5 years earlier. During that time, many were detained, obducted and executed. Ring a bell?

The correct answer to the question "what will happen in Iran?" is: We dont know at the moment. There is simply no way to determine the future of such a complex social event even less so by watching stuff on youtube, twitter and facebook. Also see: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/01/an-eyewitness-risks-his-life-to-tell-the-stories-of-tehran/

David Packham is not out foremost expert. He is an "Old School" fire researcher who believes that fuel reduction is the only solution bushfires. His view has been successfully refuted by Guy Rundle's piece in Crikey.

To Summarize Rundle's argument (copied from a comment to this article):
*The pros and cons of burning off are heavily debated among bushfire specialists.
Forest fuel levels have no effect on fire speed, which was the main killer in these fires.
*Dryness is a contributor to fire speeds.
*Forestry activities may promote dryness by thinning forest canopies.
*Climate change may be a factor, and if it is, a different set of strategies will need to be employed than if it isn't, so it's worth debating.
*Fires of the "Black Saturday" intensity burn through burnt-off bush because they move at crown and canopy level
*The burn off levels advocated by green groups, are of the same order as those advocated by those bushfire experts who believe that higher burn-off levels increase risk of fire without giving consequent benefit.
*Burn-off levels do not play a role in urban green votes, and they never have.

End Quote.

By the way one of the most prominent enviromentalist has stated that "Greenies" support fuel reduction burning to the full extent that forest scientists recommend.

My reading is fire that happened was due to the horrible conditions of the day. Any fire that existed on that day would have become a uncontrollable monster. My families farm was damaged by the Grass fire that swept through their area. Thankfully it was on the edge of the fire and the neighbours had a water truck and came over at night to save the buildings when a spot fire after the main front threatened the buildings (no one was at the property that night day. The person that was there left to defend his home further up the valley).

Spending a weekend repairing irrigation lines in the vineyard was eased by the car loads of people that turned up in town at the relief centre and asked to help out.

The sad thing is then I read this self serving hate-mongering drivel in the media that is trying to turn this event into another chapter in the culture wars. The best description I have found is also on Crikey by Ben Sandilands:

Tree huggers, "greenies", climate change deniers, climate change zealots, BMW drivers, horse owners, and the viciously intolerant like Danny Nalliah -- who claimed it was God's punishment of Victoria for supporting abortion -- or Miranda Devine's advocacy of blaming and hanging "greenies", are all fuelling a conflagration of indignation, entitlement, prejudice and hate.

Some of the stories, about people being fined for tree clearing that protected their homes (only 257 trees) flirt with agendas supporting the clear felling of more land for farming.

Others, like this morning's opportunistic call by the National Association of Forest Industries for an urgent bushfire summit lead-off with the big lie that "the current process of locking forests up in conservation reserves and national parks with no on-going fire management regime has proven to be fatally wrong."

End Quote.

This disaster has brought both the best and worst of people.

David Packham is not out foremost expert. He is an "Old School" fire researcher who believes that fuel reduction is the only solution bushfires. His view has been successfully refuted by Guy Rundle's piece in Crikey.

To Summarize Rundle's argument (copied from a comment to this article):
*The pros and cons of burning off are heavily debated among bushfire specialists.
Forest fuel levels have no effect on fire speed, which was the main killer in these fires.
*Dryness is a contributor to fire speeds.
*Forestry activities may promote dryness by thinning forest canopies.
*Climate change may be a factor, and if it is, a different set of strategies will need to be employed than if it isn't, so it's worth debating.
*Fires of the "Black Saturday" intensity burn through burnt-off bush because they move at crown and canopy level
*The burn off levels advocated by green groups, are of the same order as those advocated by those bushfire experts who believe that higher burn-off levels increase risk of fire without giving consequent benefit.
*Burn-off levels do not play a role in urban green votes, and they never have.

End Quote.

By the way one of the most prominent enviromentalist has stated that "Greenies" support fuel reduction burning to the full extent that forest scientists recommend.

My reading is fire that happened was due to the horrible conditions of the day. Any fire that existed on that day would have become a uncontrollable monster. My families farm was damaged by the Grass fire that swept through their area. Thankfully it was on the edge of the fire and the neighbours had a water truck and came over at night to save the buildings when a spot fire after the main front threatened the buildings (no one was at the property that night day. The person that was there left to defend his home further up the valley).

Spending a weekend repairing irrigation lines in the vineyard was eased by the car loads of people that turned up in town at the relief centre and asked to help out.

The sad thing is then I read this self serving hate-mongering drivel in the media that is trying to turn this event into another chapter in the culture wars. The best description I have found is also on Crikey by Ben Sandilands:

Tree huggers, "greenies", climate change deniers, climate change zealots, BMW drivers, horse owners, and the viciously intolerant like Danny Nalliah -- who claimed it was God's punishment of Victoria for supporting abortion -- or Miranda Devine's advocacy of blaming and hanging "greenies", are all fuelling a conflagration of indignation, entitlement, prejudice and hate.

Some of the stories, about people being fined for tree clearing that protected their homes (only 257 trees) flirt with agendas supporting the clear felling of more land for farming.

Others, like this morning's opportunistic call by the National Association of Forest Industries for an urgent bushfire summit lead-off with the big lie that "the current process of locking forests up in conservation reserves and national parks with no on-going fire management regime has proven to be fatally wrong."

End Quote.

This disaster has brought both the best and worst of people.

David Packham is not out foremost expert. He is an "Old School" fire researcher who believes that fuel reduction is the only solution bushfires. His view has been successfully refuted by Guy Rundle's piece in Crikey.

To Summarize Rundle's argument (copied from a comment to this article):
*The pros and cons of burning off are heavily debated among bushfire specialists.
Forest fuel levels have no effect on fire speed, which was the main killer in these fires.
*Dryness is a contributor to fire speeds.
*Forestry activities may promote dryness by thinning forest canopies.
*Climate change may be a factor, and if it is, a different set of strategies will need to be employed than if it isn't, so it's worth debating.
*Fires of the "Black Saturday" intensity burn through burnt-off bush because they move at crown and canopy level
*The burn off levels advocated by green groups, are of the same order as those advocated by those bushfire experts who believe that higher burn-off levels increase risk of fire without giving consequent benefit.
*Burn-off levels do not play a role in urban green votes, and they never have.

End Quote.

By the way one of the most prominent enviromentalist has stated that "Greenies" support fuel reduction burning to the full extent that forest scientists recommend.

My reading is fire that happened was due to the horrible conditions of the day. Any fire that existed on that day would have become a uncontrollable monster. My families farm was damaged by the Grass fire that swept through their area. Thankfully it was on the edge of the fire and the neighbours had a water truck and came over at night to save the buildings when a spot fire after the main front threatened the buildings (no one was at the property that night day. The person that was there left to defend his home further up the valley).

Spending a weekend repairing irrigation lines in the vineyard was eased by the car loads of people that turned up in town at the relief centre and asked to help out.

The sad thing is then I read this self serving hate-mongering drivel in the media that is trying to turn this event into another chapter in the culture wars. The best description I have found is also on Crikey by Ben Sandilands:

Tree huggers, "greenies", climate change deniers, climate change zealots, BMW drivers, horse owners, and the viciously intolerant like Danny Nalliah -- who claimed it was God's punishment of Victoria for supporting abortion -- or Miranda Devine's advocacy of blaming and hanging "greenies", are all fuelling a conflagration of indignation, entitlement, prejudice and hate.

Some of the stories, about people being fined for tree clearing that protected their homes (only 257 trees) flirt with agendas supporting the clear felling of more land for farming.

Others, like this morning's opportunistic call by the National Association of Forest Industries for an urgent bushfire summit lead-off with the big lie that "the current process of locking forests up in conservation reserves and national parks with no on-going fire management regime has proven to be fatally wrong."

End Quote.

This disaster has brought both the best and worst of people.

I don't know if its true but crikey ran with this earlier today: http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20081017-And-the-Wankley-Award-goes-to-Conroys-net-filtering-scheme.html

Newspapers are dying out, but quality journalism will still be in high demand. An alternative to traditional print and blogs are publications like Crikey which mix the old with the new. They offer traditional newspaper articles in a daily email and website format. Crikey's only real problems are getting respect and recognition from the traditional industry, probably because of their numerous criticisms of it. Expect to see all major newspapers follow this lead, especially after Rupert Murdoch's endorsement of this plan. In short, as newspapers die out, their websites will become like Crikey and become the new home of professional journalism.

Some evidence from a Family First media release announcing their House of Representatives preference deal:

"There have been some Liberal candidates who we have asked to sign a 3 year voting agreement on certain FF policy platforms that may arise in the Parliament over that 3 year period." http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2004/09/21-0001. html

deregulation is a strong tennet of economic liberalism and media deregulation is consistent with those philosophies.

The fact that Rupert Murdoch's intervention with John Howard has resulted in the indefinite shelving of any reform should tell you just how little their principles matter.

Australians don't say "crikey!" (much - unless we're toying with the Seppos ;-); we don't drink Fosters (unfortunately, Australia's best-selling beer is VB, which is even worse...); and we don't all ride around in kangaroos (we have wallabies, which are smaller and easier to park...)

According to Kohler's Wikipedia stub he has been at it for 35 years. He is ubiquitos here, turning up in the middle of our TV news with some of other spin graph to punctuate the too familar droning to the day's 'numbers'.

He is trying to become his own industry, in pale imitation of the likes of Crikey who have actually been prepared to do the hard yards and enjoyed some deserved success. But I've yet to hear Kohler say anything perceptive. Certainly this piece lacks any suggestion of coherence.

Well it's currently sequestered underground in hydrocarbons. Nothing to say it can't be bound up.

But the coal industry is astonishingly fat and complacent.

Crikey have to story of an Australian called Terry Peabody who's travelled the world getting coal fired power stations to pay him to take away their fly ash, which he sells to concrete companies who can't get enough of the stuff.

Capitalism? Good?

The producers of capitalism have also brought you such wonderful things as George W. Bush.

I guess you're right: People are just not going to "get more intelligent" anytime soon.

Not if we vote with a C average. [crickey.com].

$240,000 - or atleast that is how much Armstrong Williams's integrity costs.

I know this is noted above, but it is worth restating. Family First are in no way left wing. They are supporting Australia's conservative Government in the upcoming election, and directing their preferences against Australia's main left wing party (under Australia's preferential voting system).

They are socially conservative, being the political arm of one of Australia's largest evangelical groups, and have no real stance on economic issues. Their main aim is to move their evangelism into the political arena, and their political candidates are predominantly drawn from the Christian Right. The party generally agrees with the current conservative government, and they are vehemently opposed to the major left-wing parties in Australian politics (Labor and the Greens).

Luckily, although Australian nominally has a two-thirds Christian population, most people who describe themselves as Christian rarely go to church, and many don't really have any religious beliefs. The average "Christian" Australian only goes to Church for weddings, baptisms and funerals, but describes themself as "Christian" on the census, because they "were baptised that way". Many past Australian Prime Ministers have been atheist, agnostic or followed minor religions (e.g. Alfred Deakin was a "spiritualist"), and very few have professed strong religious convictions.

Politics in Australia have generally been a religion-free zone, apart from a few minor political parties, so the arrival of the cashed-up, conservative Family First party is a real worry. They are currently polling at anywhere from 2-5%, and mainly draw their support from members of Pentecostal chuches.

I really can't see how they could - in any way - be described as left-wing, and I thing the story poster was either: confused, uninformed, or trolling against left-wing Slashdotters. In any case, the story should be corrected. As it is, it implies that Family First have some connection with Labor, when they actually might cost them the election.

It is generally considered that Labor is "left" in Australia whilst the coalition (liberal and national parties) are the "right".

The family first party is clearly a right wing party and is identified locally as such.

This party has been clearly shown to be essentially a front for the "Assemblies of God" church. See one of Australia's most popular political sites for an article on them

They're right-wingers guys!

but who are these sharman networks people?

Re: corruption, a number of them were caught rorting their travel expenses, including one who got off because he had a note from his doctor saying that he only had three months to live. (This was a few years ago now.) The only reason they stopped flinging those accusations back and forth was because Nick Sherry's suicide attempt gave them an excuse... too many people being damaged on both sides, and neither side wanted any more blood drawn, figuratively or literally.

I don't imagine pork-barrelling your party's electorates really counts as corruption, but it's pretty odious at the best of times, and both parties have been guilty of it (the 'sports rorts' affair for Labour, the Federation Fund for the Liberals).

Also, Howard's "Code of Ministerial Conduct", introduced after he took office, was a bit of a laugh, as it kept on being violated and he wouldn't do anything to the guilty parties. His Resources Minister owned a load of coal shares and his Small Business Minister ran a few shopping centres on the side.

There's always Crikey if you want more, mostly true, dirt on Aussie politics.