|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 25, 2012 10:40:38 GMT 10
This "work for the dole" proposals for reffos ... Not going to happen. They might give it a try, but it'll collapse under its own stupidity. Apart from suffering from the same problems that work for the dole has, it also (I suspect) will fail the first test - when somebody takes it to the high court and points out that it violates article 17 of the convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Specifically: The Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances, as regards the right to engage in wage earning employment. By all means, let them work for the dole, with some understanding about the fact that they're not going to have any possessions, so there'll probably need to be a bit of material support just for them to be able to turn up - oh, and breaching them is nigh-impossible, in practice. But if we're going to do that, then I think we have an ethical obligation to let them escape that ridiculous circumstance when they find a better job. It's not appropriate to force somebody with no means to work for below-subsistence wages, while also preventing them from escaping to better conditions. And that might even be backed up by the refugee convention, if they escape to self-employment: The Contracting States shall accord to a refugee lawfully in their territory treatment as favourable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances, as regards the right to engage on his own account in agriculture, industry, handicrafts and commerce and to establish commercial and industrial companies. And if "self employment" means sub-contracting work (which it pretty much does), then I can't imagine that the whole house of cards will last long without a successful legal challenge. It's not going to last, if it happens at all. Tony's talking tough nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 25, 2012 12:18:41 GMT 10
This is a hoot Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you -- and maybe they already have -- "Daddy, did God really create the world in six days?," what would you say?
A: .... What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it. It may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and that I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live - that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible -- that, I don't presume to know. That was an answer from a US senator. Have a guess which one? :-)
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 25, 2012 12:52:45 GMT 10
Why is it that the only time I hear about this is when I listen to "skeptic" podcast from the US (or read the BBC, obviously) Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill: MPs drop death penaltywww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20463887Awesome. So they're not going EXECUTE people for being gay (or at least "aggravated homosexuality"). That's something.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Nov 27, 2012 12:36:26 GMT 10
This is a hoot Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you -- and maybe they already have -- "Daddy, did God really create the world in six days?," what would you say?
A: .... What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it. It may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and that I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live - that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible -- that, I don't presume to know. That was an answer from a US senator. Have a guess which one? :-) Inofe?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 27, 2012 14:00:07 GMT 10
obama.
Google it. It's true.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Nov 28, 2012 20:51:00 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Nov 29, 2012 22:59:42 GMT 10
Tee hee!
Series 7 of BBC's Infinite Monkey Cage is happening.
The episode "space travel" includes patrick stewart as a guest, an he's ... rather funny.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 11, 2012 12:31:01 GMT 10
obama. Google it. It's true. Talk about sitting on the fence!
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 14, 2012 16:40:09 GMT 10
Does anyone know if betting agencies are quoting odds on whether ashby will appeal?
My bed is "no". Whoever is underwriting the case has surely had a nasty shock by now, and the political payoff is now zilch until/unless it actually reaches a full hearing on the allegations themselves, and one assumes that will be well after the next election. The tactic of making the personal pain of the defendant for contesting the case as excruciating as possible has also now run its course. We've seen all the dirt.
I can't imagine that this is going to be appealed.
Now, what I expect IS going to happen is that bolta will try to turn this outcome into a cry of "a smear campaign against the opposition". Because that's just what he does.
I understand the Ramjan / Kroger case will continue in the new year. Looking forward to that one ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 15, 2012 8:29:42 GMT 10
Another shooting in the states. At least, we can call it that while it's still considered acceptable to use the word "shooting" because, after all, guns aren't the problem. I had to post a response to this - I have a few different screen names now, because the one I used to use everywhere can't post to a lot of places any more, and PJM was the first to nix it (who'd have thought that criticising a post calling for the assassination of a public figure was so inappropriate?) The following article really, truly, does contain the conclusion: "I only wish the kindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed"pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/14/dr-keith-ablow-those-who-call-for-gun-control-after-incidents-like-this-contribute-nothing-to-the-solution/Apparently, pointing out when guns are used to kill lots of people at the same time is just so obviously wrong that it's not really necessary to explain why any more. Yes, yes, the perp COULD have bought an illegal weapon ... but that just kicks the can down the road, because those illegal weapons are basically just rebirthed legal weapons, so they're back to the original problem. And yes, these mass shootings are (almost) invariably the work of disturbed people ... yeah, no kidding. Happy, well-balanced people don't do that stuff. They CAN, however, still get a skinful and blow up at the wife/missus and let things get out of hand. They can also leave the guns in reach of the kids (about 8000-9000 people under the age of 18 are admitted to emergency annually in the US with gunshot wounds). They can also start out happy and, through drugs, alcohol or circumstances, end up being a disturbed person. But I don't think it's unfair that on the occasions when guns are shown at their most horrific and lethal that their boosters might like to run through with us, again, their air-tight reasoning for why people-killing devices (an ar-15 is no sort of hunting rifle, neither is a 9mm handgun) should be readily available. They seem to think that the discussion should only take place when it's sunny, and the anthem is playing and the flags are waving and there are no innocent victims of shooting (i.e. most of them) anywhere to be seen. Likewise, no discussion of car safety should happen anywhere near an image of a crashed car. Nobody discussing airline safety should be required to view images of crashed planes. Public health officials, when considering immunisation proposals, should shouldn't be exposed to images or descriptions of polio, or rubella. They can't possibly be expected to make rational decisions under those conditions. The US has made its bed. I can't see how they can solve their current gun-culture problem as things stand now. Just so long as it doesn't happen here.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Dec 15, 2012 11:35:45 GMT 10
An insight to how pro gun people think. A response to an article on the Atlantic about why people have a need for such weaponry was,'hey, the gun the guy used looked scary but was only as effective as some handguns, so why ban assault weapons just because they are evil,looking?' or words to that effect... Dead is still dead, doesn't matter about the design of the gun.
Americans have the right to bear arms, but do they have the right to ammunition? Restrict ammo to shooting ranges only and guys who get a power stiffy from holding an assault rifle can strut as much as they like
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 15, 2012 13:26:32 GMT 10
"Americans have the right to bear arms"
Yeah, well, they've come that conclusion by ignoring the other half of the sentence, which pretty obviously ties that right to a well-regulated militia.
I've decided that I'm quite happy for the US to keep demonstrating to the world why its firearm laws and culture are a Very Bad Thing. That way, we won't go down the same path here. Every few months, they can have a mass shooting, refuse to do anything about it, and everyone else can think "hmm, that's not working at all".
What is noteworthy thing time around is the degree to which the "if only the teacher had been packing" response is drifting toward the mainstream. I really do think that's a threshold of insanity for the US to cross, and would pretty much signal that it's lost (or given up) control of the problem, or intention to address it. It would also be a tacit acknowledgement of what their bozo interpretation of the second amendment ultimately led to - every man/woman/preschooler for him/herself.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 14:18:39 GMT 10
MoC - I'm almost inclined to agree with you, except for the fact that many thousands of innocent people are killed.
Interesting to note the stats for gun ownership by country. Apart from those countries emerging from major civil conflict, the scandawegians are pretty high up the list as are the Swiss (where all residents are liable to be called up for military service and are encouraged to keep their weapons at home in the meantime).
Sadly I think there's more going on culturally than just the raw numbers of guns.
I wonder if the influence of Hollywood and right-wing rhetoric means anything?
Country (top 10) Guns per 100 residents (2007)
United States 88.8 Serbia 58.2 Yemen 54.8 Switzerland 45.7 Cyprus 36.4 Saudi Arabia 35 Iraq 34.2 Finland 32 Uruguay 31.8 Sweden 31.6
Australia 15 (ranked 47th)
|
|
|
Post by angra on Dec 15, 2012 14:32:17 GMT 10
On second thoughts, I think some of the figures on that Wikipedia list are highly suspect. Eg. PNG is ranked 145th with only 1.2 guns per 100 which is wildly innaccurate - especially knowing from bitter experience how easily raskols make their own and put them to good effect and how many black-market firearms there are and how easy they are to get. (I was offered an ex-Army semi-auto Glock pistol for $150 after being held up at gun point twice, but wisely chose to decline. My argument to the seller was that having a gun made it more likely I'd be shot, not less).
I reckon these are official figures based on sales per capita or uniformed services censuses (censi?).
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Dec 16, 2012 11:49:16 GMT 10
Wow. Not only is the "teacher shoulda been packing" response worryingly mainstream, a few public figures have gone right over the cuckoo's nest: livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools," Huckabee said on Fox News, discussing the murder spree that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, CT that morning. "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?" www.mediaite.com/online/christian-radio-host-god-didnt-stop-ct-shooting-because-we-took-prayer-out-of-the-classroom/“Where was God when all of this went down?” Fischer began. “Here’s the bottom line: God is not going to go where he is not wanted.”
He explained: “We’ve spent 50 years telling God to get lost. Telling God we do not want you in our schools. We do not want to pray to in our schools. We do not want to pray to you before football games. We do not want to pray to you before graduation…. We don’t want your word read in our schools.” Of course ... both of these statements are staggeringly historically ignorant. The problem that the US has is guns, not god. Of course, some would like lashings of both. That second statement is sheer idiocy. God didn't step in to stop churches being burned or bombed in the south of the US (or in other places around the world today). I do actually understand what huckabee was saying as well - the problem is, he's just plain wrong. It's a variation of the "no good without god" assertion, and it's Just. Plain. Wrong.
|
|