Dick Cheney Down Under - Part 1

Sydney Goes Into Lockdown As Cheney Comes To Town

By Darryl Mason

US Vice President Dick Cheney is jetting towards Sydney as I write this, and the police and Roads & Traffic Authority are rushing to get this place ready for Dick's big visit.

The preparations mostly include locking down entire chunks of the city for most of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, making sure all the necessary surveillance cameras are in working order and co-ordinating with Cheney's huge Secret Service detachment to plan escape routes from the venues where Cheney is holding meetings and giving speeches should anything go explosively wrong.

The authorities have said there is no credible threat against Cheney while he's in Sydney, but then they wouldn't be talking it up even if there was.

Regardless, Big Dick is going to be surrounded by an army of Secret Service agents, undercover detectives, uniformed state and federal police, counter terrorism officers, dog squads and hired on security guards.

How many? One source estimated Cheney may be bringing as many as 50 Secret Service agents to Sydney with him, with more than 300 local police and hundreds more security guards in place to keep protesters well away from the venues where Cheney will be holding court.

Two major protests rallies are planned, for Thursday afternoon and Friday morning.

The monster security operation is expected to use up most of the resources of the NSW Police Counter Terrorism Command, the police dog squads, the anti-riot units and and the city-based general police.

How much does it cost to be gifted with a visit from such a widely admired and respected leader of the free world?

Unofficial estimates range from $3 million to $6 million. For four days of Cheney time.

The least the vice president could do is draw the winning tickets at a couple of charity raffles while he's here, but no.

He has more important business to attend to : busting the prime minister's chops over why he will only send a measly 70 more soldiers into Iraq, heaping praise on supplicant journo-
propagandists, listening with utter contempt to the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd's, demands that Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee face justice or be freed, and holding court with Australia's business elite.

Story continues below....

------------------------------------------------

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

--------------------------------------------------


Major Traffic Problems Expected In Heart Of Sydney For Three Days

You don't often get told to stay the hell out of your own city. But Cheney's coming to town, so the NSW and Federal Police, and the NSW Roads And Traffic Authority have decided to pre-warn Sydneysiders of the vast traffic chaos, gridlock and delays Cheney's visit is expected to cause :

People are warned to avoid the city if they can until Mr Cheney leaves Sydney on Sunday morning.

It's a good thing that protest rallies are being held.

This means that most of the traffic delays and chaos can be blamed on Sydneysiders exercising their democratic rights to express their disgust and horror at the child-heavy carnage the US vice president helped to unleash upon the people of Iraq.

Blaming the protesters for traffic delays means easy avoidance of the fact that the Dick Cheney visit requires entire streets to be shut down, traffic lights locked to green, and side streets searched, cleared and secured so his huge motorcade can whip through the centre of one of the world's busiest cities without experiencing undue delay.

The traffic problems will begin at 5.30pm tomorrow when protesters from the Stop the War Coalition will march from Town Hall and move along George Street.

The protesters will also demonstrate on Friday morning at the Shangri-la Hotel in The Rocks, where Mr Cheney is scheduled to speak to the Australian American Association.

At least three whole streets around Cheney's hotel in The Rocks will be totally closed for three days and nights while Cheney is in town.

The NSW police, burdened with handling most of the nightmarish logistics of closing down, locking down, huge sections of Sydney, regard Cheney as a "high risk dignitary."

Perhaps some of the huge street closures are for the safety of Sydneysiders.

With Cheney in his hotel room, surrounded by dozens of armed Secret Service agents, the vice president might be tempted to start unloading firearms from his hotel room windows at some of the local bird life.

Or lawyer life.

Dick Cheney Down Under - Part 2 - Cheney's Posse Allowed To Keep Hand Cannons

MORE TO COME....

Australian Troops Under Fire In Iraq

It is still unclear exactly why the Howard government deems it so necessary to keep details of what has happened to Australian diggers in Iraq away from the public.

While there is an argument to be made for some "classified" status to be put on certain security and operations related details, Howard and his defence minister, Brendan Nelson, could be viewed as hiding the true facts of the Iraq War, as far as Australians are concerned, from the public. Particularly the casualty figures, including an admitted 20 battle related injuries.

As the following story explains, Australian troops in Iraq have fought for their lives against insurgent attacks numerous times. They've been hit by sniper fire and grenade attacks and engaged in full-blown firefights :

In one fight, Diggers were defending their patrol against insurgent positions as a rocket-propelled grenade skidded towards an Australian group that had been under heavy fire.

"The (patrol) was targeted unsuccessfully by an RPG round from a roof top," an ADF message from Iraq to Headquarters Joint Operations Command in Canberra states.

"(It) was also targeted by an RPG round which passed behind the vehicle and bounced off into a vacant area."

More RPGs were fired, as were automatic pistols on a number of flanks as the Australians returned fire, neutralising one building where insurgents were holed up.

In heavy traffic on the deadly roads of Baghdad, Diggers have also been forced to fire on civilian vehicles suspected of being suicide bombers at least nine times.

The exchanges have caused about five deaths including an apparently drunken Iraqi driver, an Iraqi government bodyguard, a US security employee and a soft-drink seller.

Incidents included Australian troops chased and fired on insurgents running along a levee and hiding in a palm forest, after they aimed five mortar rounds towards a Coalition area and an Australian patrol fired on with RPG fire and returned fire, moving through the ambush.

A lone insurgent sniper fired on Australians with an AK-47 from a roof, so they returned fire, and an Australian patrol returning to base was fired on by two mortars and a light machinegun.

Close calls for Australian troops in Iraq came with the territory, Brig. Gus Gilmore said.

"There is no doubt Iraq is a dangerous place, that's why our force protection measures and our training are so important," Brig. Gilmore, back from six months in Iraq, said yesterday.

"Our soldiers are well trained and well equipped and very professional, and that's contributed to our relatively low rate of injuries," Brig. Gilmore said.

"It is important not to understate the risks they face daily."

Brig. Gilmore said major attacks on Australian troops, like the insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades, were to be expected.

"It's just one example of a number of occasions where our troops have found it necessary to repel an attack."

It is a mark of the professionalism of the Australian soldiers that none have been killed in such a hostile environment by insurgents, and civilian casualties, compared to the Americans, resulting from ADF operations are extremely low.

Howard Declared "A National Security Risk"

Kevin Rudd Claims The Iraq War "Is The Single Greatest Security Disaster That Australia Has Seen Since Vietnam"

Prime minister John Howard was clearly shocked when a reporter told him what opposition leader Kevin Rudd had said about him said about him yesterday morning :

"Mr Howard's strategy on Iraq is the greatest single failure of national security policy since Vietnam, and Mr Howard himself represents a national security risk for this country in the future."

"Really?" Howard asked, as a split second of raw terror flashed across his face, followed by a flicker of bulging eyes and a visible flinch.

He couldn't believe it. How dare Rudd say accuse him, the prime minister, one of the closest BushCo allies in the 'War on Terror', of being a threat to national security.

The little bastard.

National security was Howard's territory, not Rudd's. As an issue to divide and conquer his political enemies, national security had been good to Howard. In fact, it had been brilliant. He had used 'National Security' as a security blanket, weapon of mass destruction and blast shield for years.

Now Rudd had claimed 'National Security' as his own by accusing the prime minister of acting in ways that threatened the country's safety, and future.

Rudd didn't retract the controversial claim. He refined it, and repeated it later in the day, with slight variations and greater emphasis :

“Mr Howard is looming as an increasing risk for Australia's long-term national security...Mr Howard can't say that he has learnt any lessons from the Iraq debacle. I think that represents for the future a risk for national security.

“Mr Howard is presiding over the single greatest security disaster that Australia has seen since Vietnam.”

It was a bold, savage and brilliant air strike on Howard, on the same morning that Newspoll revealed Rudd had overtaken the prime minister on virtually every key issue of our time, and had gained ground on Howard's all important 'National Security'.

"Really?" Howard asked the reporter, the disbelief in his eyes so evident he looked like someone shaken awake from a deep, comfortable sleep.

Howard replied to Rudd's accusation with the first thing that popped into his head, and it was miserably hopeless. A mere splutter from the man who had, until only recently, had the most razor-sharp mind-mouth combination in Australian politics.

"I think he's getting a bit full of himself," Howard said.

What kicked off the most brutal exchange of insults seen so far in the unofficial federal election campaign was the announcement that John Howard was about to send 70 extra 'trainers' from the Australian Defence Force to Iraq.

Howard is widely seen as being subservient to the Bush administration over Iraq, and Australian troop deployments, and with US vice president Dick Cheney due here tomorrow, the prime minister had to get in quick to announce the extra troops so it didn't appear that he was caving in to Cheney's demands for more support from Australia in the Iraq War.

Rudd doesn't want to send more troops, or 'trainers', into Iraq. He wants them deployed neighbouring countries, like Jordan, where the Australian troops can more effectively, and safely, get Iraqi soldiers trained up and ready to take over the responsibility of security in their country.

Howard is clearly rattled, not only be the effectiveness of Rudd's attacks, but the steadily increasing public support his plans for the Iraq War and Australia's future are finding with the public.

Rudd's opposition now leads Howard's coalition by a stunning 54 to 46 per cent, according to the latest poll numbers. While Rudd is on the rise, Howard and his government are falling back on last year's numbers, and fast.

When it comes to who the Australian public want to lead the nation, Rudd now leads Howard by a whopping 10 per cent - 47% to 37%.

Rudd's personal approval rating has hit 68 per cent, a 21 year record for an opposition leader.

Rudd and Howard's bloody exchange over the future of Australia's involvement in the Iraq War came after Rudd changed his schedule to follow Howard to Western Australia, where he now shadows the prime minister.

Rudd promised Howard, in an interview two weeks ago, that he was going to "mess with his mind."

The strategy is clearly working.

John Howard not only has to restore confidence in Australian voters that he deserves to become prime minister again, he has to counter Rudd's increasingly effective attacks and rhetoric, and also shake off the growing infection of utter desperation clearly seeping from the pores of senior government ministers like Alexander Downer and Phillip Ruddock.

The arrival of Dick Cheney in Australia is extremely unlikely to boost Howard's numbers. If anything, being seen grinning it up with Cheney is going to foul Howard's numbers even more, and if Cheney makes one wrong move on how he discusses Australia's role in the Iraq War, the public will punish John Howard.

The Australian newspaper ran a bizarre headline yesterday for an editorial discussing the new poll numbers, that showed increasing confidence and belief in the Opposition :

'Rudd Enters Danger Zone.'

Clearly the more accurate headline would have been : 'Howard Enters Loser Zone.'


"John Howard Is In Strife. Real Strife"

Rudd Goes For Howard's Throat As The War Of Words Gets Bloody

Rudd Refuses To Reverse Pledge To Pull All 520 Australian Combat Troops Out Of Iraq

Blogocracy : Howard Is At Odds With The Great Majority Of The Australian People Over Iraq And David Hicks

The David Hicks Hex & Mocking Phillip Ruddock

Originally posted on 'The Road To Surfdom'

By Darryl Mason

It’s not often you get to see a roomful of Australians laughing at the Attorney General, twice, in the space of an hour. And it wasn’t a pretty sight.

No doubt Phillip Ruddock was expecting a particularly uncomfortable afternoon when he went along to the taping of SBS’s Insight forum show debating the American detention of terrorism suspect, and Australian citizen, David Hicks.

You can only imagine Ruddock never expected it to go as bad as it did. How bad?

Absolutely terrible.

Ruddock was given numerous chances to make his case for why the Howard government had not done more, earlier, to pressure the Bush administration into getting the David Hicks military trial underway, or to get him released. But there was nothing new from Ruddock. His talking points were dashed by lawyerly waffle and blame-gaming.

Blame Hick’s defence, blame the other Gitmo inmates who appealed against the earlier, discredited, Supreme Court rejected military trial set-up, and yes, even blame the Americans as well.

Ruddock wasn’t out to save the credibility of the American military trial system now in place. He wasn’t out to save the credibility of the prime minister, or Alexander Downer, or President Bush. Ruddock was there, with his Amnesty International pin in place, to try and rescue the last fading threads of his own credibility. And he failed.

The loudest laugh from the audience, a laugh full of contempt and disbelief, came when Ruddock said the Australian government had never been happy with the time it had taken for Hicks to firstly be charged and then for the military trial rules to be finalised and accepted by the highest court in the United States.

They laughed because they know the Howard government only changed its tune on Hicks once it became clear that his five year long detention, without trial, was the sort of “fair go” issue that could hammer Howard hard at the 2007 federal election. They changed their tune when the polls showing almost 70% of Australians were not happy with Howard on the issue of David Hicks told them they had no choice.

But even worse for Ruddock, his waffly, defensive rhetoric seemed even more cold and empty than usual because David Hick’s dad and his shattered step-mother were sitting only a few seats away. The distress on her face alone made Ruddock’s words seem all but meaningless.
Ruddock looked close to tears himself, on a number of occasions, even though the case against what has happened to David Hicks was argued reasonably, and calmly, by Terry Hicks, former Guantanamo Bay detainees, audience members and Hick’s defence lawyer Major Mori.

It was hardly a gang assault of abuse and shouting aimed at Ruddock, but he still came close to cracking.

He was there to represent the government and his department but he also found himself, as usual, defending the actions of the Bush administration, something he was clearly not happy having to do. But there lies the rub. Ruddock had choice but to try and back up the stance of Bush Co. when it comes to detainees like Hicks. They’re our closest ally, after all. And this is supposed to a war against terrorists, suspected and/or confirmed.

Most in the audience didn’t look particularly angry, just sad, disappointed, worn out by the apparent pettiness of the evidence against Hicks that was raised by his military prosecutor.

Is that it? Is that all they’ve got on this guy?

As terrible as it is that a young Australian went to fight for an outfit as odious as the Taliban, the charges still not formally laid against Hicks, and the case made by the prosecutor (who couldn’t have asked for a more open forum to say whatever he wanted), still don’t add up to enough to make most Australians think Hicks deserves to be held like a rat in a steel box for half a decade.

Let alone be tortured and mind-fucked.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

Treasurer Would Deport Australian Citizens For Not Being Patriotic, If Only He Could

The Australian federal government would love nothing more than to make the coming national election a debate about what it means to be Australian.

It's their favourite non-issue of the moment, and although government minister can usually bag a few minutes of media air time whenever they start spouting off about they categorise as non-Australian behaviour or beliefs, the majority of Australians are more interested in issues the government would rather not have at the forefront of the national agenda - climate change, dwindling water supplies, shocking levels of personal debt, ending the Iraq War, the five year long imprisonment, without charge, of Australian citizen David Hicks in a US isolation centre.

Because they've lost control over setting the subjects of national debate, political figures like the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, are becoming increasingly sad, divisive and bitter.

Costello has other reasons to be so very sad and so very bitter. Prime minister John Howard had promised Costello, repeatedly, through the early 2000s, that he would hand over the leadership of the coalition government to Costello, but Howard kept changing his mind, deciding to stay on.

The longer Costello feels he has been cheated out of his dream of being gifted the prime ministership of Australia, without having to face an election, the more extreme his rhetoric has become. He can't slam the dishonesty and questionable loyalties of the prime minister, so he continually goes after easy targets : idiotic religious leaders, flag burners, anti-globalisation protestors.

Costello has become the chief bulldog in the fictional, reactionary debate about what it means to be an Australian, and who should, and not be, be allowed to keep their Australian citizenship if they were determined to be, by an undeclared body, acting against the interests of the nation.

I say fictional and reactionary because this debate is one all but created by the government to tamp down the political dreams of Australian Muslims, and to drive wedges into Australia's mostly harmonious and accepting multicultural society.

Now Costello's mind is whirling with plans to deport Australian citizens, even those born here, who he thinks don't past the patriotic muster call.

When he talks about the loyalty of those Asutralians who hold dual citizenships, he doesn't even bother trying to make it sound like he's talking about the hundreds of thousands of Australians who still hold onto their US, Israeli and British passports. For Costello, it's all about those who remain citizens of countries like Egypt and Lebanon.

He is, however, far too cowardly to just come out and say his chief target is Australian Muslims.

"If somebody is an Australian citizen and also, let's say, an Egyptian citizen and that person doesn't support what this country stands for... I think we'd be within our rights to say to that person, well, Australia's not for you..."

But Costello doesn't want to just "say to that person", he wants them gone, and it bothers him greatly that he can't just write up a list of all those he thinks should be deported for being "divisive" and and un-Australian and hand it over to the Immigration Department for fast action.

Costello isn't just talking about dual-citizenship Australians, either. Even those born here, he believes, should be thrown out of the country for not being patriotic enough. He wants to kick them out, but is clearly saddened by the fact that he can't. Well, not yet anyway.

"You get into a difficult situation if they're not dual citizens, because at that point, if you take away Australian citizenship they're not a citizen of anywhere, they've got nowhere to go."

Don't let that stop you, Peter. I'm sure Indonesia would donate one of its unoccupied islands for all those Australians you think should be deported, but can't be because they're not dual citizens and don't have another homeland to be sent back to.

Costello likes to harp on about Australians who still hold citizenship in countries like Egypt and Lebanon. But he never mentions the fact that the vast majority of Australia's dual citizens hold secondary citizenship in the US, the UK or Israel.

He doesn't like flag burners, either. In fact, they make him "sick to my stomach." But again, he doesn't want to make the act of burning the Australian flag illegal because he's afraid that those convicted would become "martyrs".

Costello clearly doesn't view the flag-burning non-issue through the prism of freedom of speech, or one of the rights inherent in a free society, no matter how distasteful the burning of the national flag may be.

To him, it's all about loyalty to Australia. Which is in itself a hypocritical argument to make, as long as Australia remains part of the British Commonwealth, and has the Union Jack eating up one quarter of our flag.

How you can be 100% loyal and patriotic to a country that still has a foreign queen as the official head of state?

You'll know Costello is being serious about his calls for dual citizens to show their loyalty to this nation when he starts calling for those Australians who still hold British, American and Israeli passports, along with those holding Lebanese and Egyptian passports, to give them up and drop their dual citizenship.

Until he makes this call, Costello is being a divisive and hysterical hypocrite.

But then, that is the kind of behaviour that gets him the most media attention.

Youth Drops Pot Habit In Australia

3 Out Of 4 Australians View Smoking Cannabis As "Dangerous"

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Australia was amongst the highest ranked nations in the world for cannabis use amongst its teenagers. Remarkably, in one period during the late 1990s, Australian youth smoked cannabis more regularly than similar age groups in Amsterdam, where cannabis was legally allowed to be grown and consumed in coffee shops

During that period, there was a brazen and open dope culture in Australian cities like Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney, with an entire community in the far north of New South Wales that regarded cannabis farming and sales as its primary industry.

T-shirts bearing pot icons like Cheech & Chong and Bob Marley were extremely popular in the suburbs and inner cities, as were images of the Pope John Paul II smoking a huge scud (clearly altered imagery) and in Sydney's outer west, at least, it was considered by some that the epitome of true wit was to wear a t-shirt showing Hitler giving the fascist salute with the tag line "My Plants Are This High!"

Back then, the marijuana leaf was an icon, to be found hand-drawn on school bags, tattooed onto upper arms, emblazoned across caps, jeans, t-shirts and jackets. Whole suburbs were blighted with marijuana leaf graffiti and bongs, stash boxes and joint rollers jostled for space in tobacco store display cases in shopping malls.

But a new report claims that a widely stoned Australian youth populace is a fading reality in the mid-2000s. In short, smoking a joint just ain't considered "cool" any more.

According to this study by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre one third of youth regard cannabis use as "socially unfashionable", in much the same way that cigarette smoking no longer holds the social cache it clearly once did.

"Clearly, it's not as acceptable as it once was to be stoned," said Paul Dillon, a spokesman for the centre at the University of NSW.

But the study survey also revealed that half of all Australians under 30 knew friends who smoked cannabis. The disparity between the public image of cannabis use and the numbers still using it are obviously great.

What the study seems to reveal, primarily, is that a few years worth of media stories and federal government fear campaigns about the mental health related problems associated with regular, or heavy, cannabis use has transformed the way Australians now view the drug previously, and widely, regarded as "mostly harmless".

Of the 1500 adult Australians surveyed, three in four felt smoking dope was dangerous or very dangerous, and half thought it could trigger schizophrenia or anxiety disorders.

About 40 per cent believed marijuana was always addictive, and one in five believed it was always a gateway to harder drugs. Sixty-eight per cent thought cannabis use could lead to other crimes.

"In the 1970s the people who got stoned were cool but now younger people just see a gang of guys who sit around smoking a bong, eating a pizza and watching television," Mr Dillon said.

"There's a general perception they're just 'stoners' and that's a real change."

Dillon also credits school education programs for the raised awareness amongst youth of cannabis' more troubling side effects, while federal government spokesmen prefer to credit their murky, troubled-youth advertising blitzes for the vast cultural shift.

From abc.net.au :

"We're not focusing on the long-term health effects or even necessarily the psychological effects, we're looking more at the social impacts, the way that it will affect your relationship, how will it affect your financial situation - these are the things young people really relate to," (Mr Dillon) said.

"I think we've done a pretty good job of educating, particularly young people, that getting stoned is not a particularly fun thing to do," he said.

While the public at large believes cannabis to be far more dangerous, and less socially acceptable, than they once did, there is little support for those busted with cannabis to face courts. 60% of those surveyed said people busted for cannabis use or possession "should be referred to treatment programs" instead.

The report's only bad news, said Mr Dillon, was that many beliefs people had about cannabis - like the fact it leads to harder drug use - were actually incorrect.

"Cannabis seems to polarise people which gives off a black and white impression of the drug," he said.

"It's spoken of as either God's sweet nectar or the devil's own weed but in reality it's something in between.

It should also be noted that the cannabis in wide use around Australia at the moment is extraordinarily strong compared to that of the early 1990s. And compared to the strains of the 1970s, it may as well be another drug altogether.

The increased strength of today's cannabis is due to high-volume, maximum-yield production methods associated with the mostly hydroponic crops, and the cross-breeding of extremely powerful European strains of the plant.

The strength of this generation of hydroponic cannabis has all but forced the much weaker, more naturally grown New Guinea and Indonesian strains out of the marketplace.

For a teenager smoking his or her first joint, and expecting a mellow, relaxed effect, with lots of giggling, hooking into a joint packed with THC-drenched hydroponic pot is like the difference between drinking a beer and a tall glass of vodka.

The overpowering, sometimes frightening effects of very strong hydroponic cannabis in itself must add to the current negativity surrounding the drug.

For, it seems, as cannabis in Australia has grown stronger and stronger, since the 1970s, its acceptance as a social drug of no great impact or consequence has, correspondingly, changed as well.

Think Your Performance Car Can Outrun The Cops?

Think Again



This is definitely one of the more interesting 'alternative' policing methods tried in the suburbs of Sydney in recent years.

The car company Lotus has donated the above vehicle to Bankstown police on a "long term loan" basis.

It's good for all involved. Lotus gets some top-notch publicity, the cops not only get to cruise around in what must be the best looking police car on the planet, but they also have an excellent way of getting the local car enthusiasts to come over for a chat.

To top it off, the Lotus Exige is leaner and greener than the meaty V8s most police in NSW are currently using.

Gizmag has an excellent, very detailed story, well worth checking out on the Lotus Exige, and the Bankstown police's plans for the vehicle. Here's some highlights :

The lightweight, high performance Lotus Exige sports car will be used by Bankstown Local Area Command for a number of community policing roles over the next six months, including most importantly, helping to build better relations between police and local performance car enthusiasts and youth.

The Lotus also boasts significantly better fuel economy than conventional V8 and turbocharged six cylinder Highway Patrol cars and will bring a new green hue to the command’s vehicle fleet.

Being almost half the weight and with an engine that is less than a third the size of traditional Highway Patrol sedans the Exige is significantly kinder on the environment consuming on average around five litres less fuel per 100km while still being able to accelerate from 0 to 100km/h up to 30 percent faster than the big V8s.

“The Lotus Exige will help break down barriers between our officers and youth in the area, it gives them a discussion point and a way of breaking the ice,” said Superintendent Dave Darcy.

“We have a large proportion of car enthusiasts in the area and it is a challenge to influence them to drive safely. Whilst its easy to give this group tickets to slow them down we would prefer to influence young drivers to take care on the roads."

I think the Bankstown cops better make it clear to the local rev heads that the Lotus isn't on the roads for high speed pursuit.

For some, the temptation to try and outrun this super cop car could prove too much to resist.

New US Military Spying Base Means Australia Is Now Pre-Committed To All Future American Wars


The Pine Gap listening station near Alice Springs

The West Australian district of Geraldton got marked up on China and Russia nuclear target lists yesterday, if they weren't there already.

The small town, 420 km north of Perth, is expected to become host to one of the most sensitive US military installations in Australia, if not the world.

Pity no-one told the mayor about it first.

For some three years, the Australian government and the Pentagon have been working on plans for the high-tech communications base, designed to act as a key link between geostationary Pentagon satellites.

Reports on this evening's news claimed the base would be 'unmanned'.

Who's going to guard it? Robots?

Well, probably.

The base will play a key role in all future American wars in the Middle East and Asia, claimed one radio report.

Future American wars in Asia and the Middle East? How many are planned exactly?

Five? Ten?

Or just one real big quick one?

It's interesting to note that virtually no-one outside of the government or Defence Department, including the council of Geraldton, appears to have had any idea this facility was in the works.

Considering this will join the Pine Gap listening station, at Alice Springs, and the US submarine communications base in the North West Cape, as key targets for some international nuking should any of these proposed "future wars" become a reality, you might have supposed that Australians would have been told about all this long before the plans were finalised.

Or not.

The building of this base, and the possibility of more US military bases to come, commits Australia to joining the United States in any future wars they may feel they need to wage.

Such a commitment is locked in solid (any opposition or debates will be democracy by wasted breath), as we could hardly expect to adopt a neutral status when we are an essential hub for United States military, spying, and surveillance capabilities across most of Asia, including China and Indonesia.

The announcement of the new base certainly solved some of the mystery of why General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, was in Canberra and Sydney earlier in the week, and perhaps explains a bit more about exactly why US Vice President Dick Cheney is arriving in Australia in a few days time.

The official line is Cheney is hear to thank Australia, and Australian troops, for helping to fight the War On iraq.

Unofficially, he is also here to discuss how Australia might make use of the dozens of second-hand Abrams tanks we recently purchased from the United States.

The tanks were not designed for jungle warfare, or even for tooling along the muddy tracks of East Timor. These are desert tanks, perfectly suited for a desert somewhere like, say, the desert region along the border with Iran.

From The Melbourne Age :

(the base) will provide a crucial link for a new network of military satellites that will help the US's ability to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia.

The base...will control two of five geostationary satellites - those with the highest priority parked over the Indian Ocean to monitor the unstable Middle East. Building may start within months.

A visiting fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Philip Dorling, said that once the base was operating it would be almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved.

The network will provide frontline military units instantly with high quality intelligence information, graphics and maps. All this information will be carried in unbreakable codes.

Story continues below....

------------------------------------------------

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

--------------------------------------------------

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson also took the opportunity to disclose that "talks were continuing" on proposals from the US Defence Department to build ground stations for an entity named the 'Mobile User Objective System'.

More ground stations might be built at other locations in Australia, he said.

When Brendan Nelson says "might" in connection with US military plans in Australia, we know to translate this as "definitely will happen".


Said General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, of his visit to Australia :

"The thing you always get out of these meetings is a greater understanding of our joint endeavors...

"We talked extensively about Iraq, Afghanistan and some of the other areas around the world where we are being challenged by forces that stand for something completely opposite to what we believe in.

"We believe in a free and democratic world, a world where people can pursue their own interests in a free and open way.

"I think we share the same value set, and we stand against the people who want to change that."

Pace is being purposely vague, but I think he's talking about New Zealand.


Promises To Allow Australia Access To Intelligence From New Base

Australians Are Overdue For A Debate On The Nature Of The "Security" We Get From The American Alliance

Howard Goes For 'The Fear' Over Future Of Iraq War

Bookies Brand Rudd Next Australian PM

The following are excerpts from a post I wrote for Road To Surfdom :

Australia's prime minister, John Howard has got that 5 a.m. gambler’s stale sweat tang seeping out of his pores, and those who once praised him as the greatest PM since Menzies are now stepping around his quivering shadow. This gambler’s luck has run out, the bar’s cut him off, and he still needs to turn his last $2 coin into a taxi fare home. The bouncers are ready to toss this loser out into the bright dawn.

But even the bookies won’t now extend Howard the courtesy of easy confidence. They’ve turned on him, and fast :

Since Mr Rudd took over from Kim Beazley in December, Centrebet’s odds for a Labor election win have shortened from $2.75 to $1.80, while the Coalition’s have blown out from $1.40 to $1.90.

International All Sports, another online betting agency, also has Labor as favourites - $1.85 compared with the Coalition’s $1.95.

However Sportingbet still has the Coalition in front - $1.85 compared with Labor’s $1.95.

Watch those Sportingbet numbers change quick smart on the back of the next Newspoll.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Watching Howard sink into his own muck is like watching your sherry-soaked granddad making a fool of himself at a family gathering.

It’s fun for a while, and as long as granddad keeps his pants on, and doesn’t go near the BBQ, you know he can only cause so much damage.

Soon enough, he’ll be out on his feet, snoring away in front of the cricket. He’s old, you might only get a few more chances to watch the crazy old bastard in full flight.

Why wrestle him to the ground now and spoil everyone’s fun? Let him go off for a while, at least until the snags are cooked.

Howard has ranted for three solid days about the supposed apocalyptic fallout from a troop withdrawal, which is now very likely to come from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and President Bush himself, beginning in late 2007.


He has shouted himself hollow in a pathetically desperate effort to resuscitate the decomposing corpse that is the NeoCon wet-dream horror-fantasy of thousands of jihadi-crazed Iraqi insurgents sweeping out of the Middle East like a plague of turbaned locusts on the back of an American defeat in Iraq.

Howard has, of course, added the local angle, threatening every Australian with bomb-packed terrorists lusting to splatter us all across the sails of the Opera House.

So much for the Iraq War not bringing terrorists to our shores.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

For The PM, US Fallout From Linking Democrats To Al Qaeda Grows Only More Intense

Outraged Decorated Marine Veteran Tells Howard To Commit More Troops To Iraq War

John Howard Refuses, But Publicly Commits American Troops To Iraq For Another Year, Or More

By Darryl Mason

To rehash a worn-out, thoroughly disproved argument about the Iraq War must have seemed like no big deal to Prime Minister John Howard when he sat down early Sunday morning for an interview on a national current affairs show.

What he said wasn't all that different from the mantra that he's been chanting for the past three years : that any major withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, before "democracy has taken hold", would be viewed as a major victory by Al Qaeda and a veritable international cast of assorted terrorists.

But this time, John Howard wasn't using the Rumsfeld-trademarked argument against an Australian political opponent, or to whip up unease amongst the Australian public.

Howard's dementia-level international gaffe came when he tried to claim that presidential hopeful Barak Obama, or any other Democrat who wanted to withdraw some combat troops from Iraq in the first quarter of 2008, would hand a victory over America to Al Qaeda.

This time, the American reaction was so intense, and so intensely embarrassing, that Howard couldn't even rely on his "good friend" President George W. Bush to come to his rescue.

It was pointed out to American journalists that Bush had not spoken to Howard in more than six weeks, and Bush made no comment in support of his friend and ally, nor did he issue a statement.

Howard was on his own.

The barrage of criticism and the daily "laceratings" (Howard's description) in federal Parliament became a noxious breather from the intense wave of American anger.

The level of coverage in the US was given a huge boost by the fact that Howard had made these comments on a Sunday morning.

By the time the biggest American news night of the week, and the roll call of current affairs talk and magazine shows, got rolling last Sunday evening, Republicans and Democrats alike were falling over themselves to blast Howard for "interferon" in American politics.

On many American network and cable news shows, the 'Howard Vs Obama' story was number two and even number one, straight out of the gate.

Howard has clearly been left stunned, even mortified, by the American reaction.


There were claims made against Howard in the US that he was being insensitive to the horrific losses of life, and treasure, suffered by the United States in the War On Iraq. The War On Iraq has cost America more than 3100 lives, leaving more than 25,000 wounded and a monumental spend already reaching $AUS400 million.

Then, perhaps even worst of all, came the lead or second-to-lead American Monday night news revelation that Australia had a mere 1400 troops in Iraq. And that as a Coalition of the Willing ally we had suffered no combat deaths, and spent most of our time in the desert training the Iraqi Army, blasting away on firing ranges or shepherding diplomats in and out of the Green Zone.

As an American news-addict friend told me when I called to get his take on the US coverage : "If you ain't dodging bullets, you ain't in the war."


Howard is failing to win the war of opinion over Iraq, or even to seize the high ground.

You could clearly see the look of deep concern on the faces of Howard's ministers as he tried to rebuff the calm, quiet demands in Parliament from Opposition Leader Keving Rudd for the prime minister to apologise to Obama and US Democrats, on Monday and Tuesday.

Howard yelled and waved his hands around and occasionally shrieked, as he tried to light fires with old irrelevant quotes from Labor leaders and ministers. But the noise from his side of Parliament was far more subdued than usual. They were not rallying behind their leader this time. At least, not like they usually did.


Howard tried to reframe the controversy, yet again, last night by claiming :

"My deep concern is that if America is defeated in Iraq a humiliated, enfeebled America might withdraw its interests in our part of the world..."

Trying to now make it all about Australia is an argument unlikely to turn down the heat. And it completely ignores the tremendous losses the US has suffered, and says nothing about the 100 or more Iraqis now being blown to pieces every day the war goes on.

"...my job is to try and call what I think are the consequences of certain actions against Australia's national interest..."

"...if America is defeated in Iraq, it will be a colossal blow to Western prestige and it will give an enormous boost to terrorism and to terrorists not only in the Middle East but in our part of the world and that will not be in Australia's national interest..."

His words have become cold, calculating and genuinely disturbing. And they show clearly just how far removed Howard is from what is happening in Iraq, or perhaps more importantly, what is now happening in the United States, where more than 60% of Americans want their troops to pull out now, civil war or not.

Howard has claimed that any withdrawal at all of US troops from Iraq in the next twelve months hands victory to Al Qaeda and terrorists across the world. This time he did not specify Democrats, or Barak Obama.

His words, without direction, were aimed at the Bush White House as well. Not as a warning, but as a tip of the hat.

"...if we are out in a year's time it will be in circumstances of defeat. When I say we, I mean all the coalition forces and obviously if the Americans go, then other forces will go as well.

"Now that would be circumstances of defeat and I know that the consequences of that for the West, its prestige, American prestige and influence in the Middle East, to spur that would give the terrorism in the Middle East, the implications it would have for the stability of other countries in the Middle East and also in our part of the world, the spur to terrorism..."

You don't need any clearer indication than that, that Howard has already been told by the Bush administration that there will be no withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in the next twelve months.

It is simply not going to happen. Full stop.


In Australia, it's now three days on from Howard's already infamous quote :

"I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

And it doesn't look like the pressure and attacks on Howard, from within Australian and American politics, is slowing down. Incredibly, the level of fury and outrage seems only to be rising, increasing, multiplying.

The Australian defence minister, Brendan Nelson, tried to come to Howard's defence by committing Australian troops to Iraq for another year, or more :

"Only when we get through the next six, 12 months or whatever period of time it takes will we be in a position to make any reasonable and responsible judgement about whether the United States, Britain or anyone else is in a position to withdraw..."

Clearly Howard's crew believes they are on the right track. That they have seized control of the national debate and can use it to show up Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd as being "weak" on national security. They are all likely to be proven very, very wrong. As with the situation in the US, Howard has lost clarity on the views and opinions of Australians when it comes to how long our troops should stay in Iraq.

Rudd challenged the prime minister to a televised debate over the future of Australia's involvement in the Iraq War.

But Howard refused.

Not a good look for someone now trying to claim that Rudd is "gutless", because he won't spell out what he thinks will happen in Iraq following a coalition troop withdrawal.


It's a rare day in political hell when a coalition leader manages to get both the Democrats and Republicans offside. I can't think of another incident from a leader, say Tony Blair, that even comes close to generating the level of fallout that Howard's absurd claims have now created.

And now comes the hardest question of all for Howard to answer : If he believes in the War On Iraq so much, so vehemently, that he would accuse American politicians of trying to hand victory to Al Qaeda, why doesn't he commit more Australian troops to the fight?

Saying we don't have enough forces, that our Army is too small, that combat-trained troops are already on other deployments, won't cut it in the United States.

It's barely a good enough excuse back home. The Americans are going to eat Howard alive if he thinks that's some kind of excuse for short-changing the war effort.

Decorated Marine veteran, and American senator, John Murtha, has demanded Howard keep his nose out of American politics and domestic affairs, or commit more troops to Iraq. Now :

John Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who is close to military commanders, and who galvanised leading Democrats into demanding a phased withdrawal from Iraq, said he appreciated that Australia had been a good ally, but that it was US soldiers whose lives were being sacrificed in Iraq and US taxpayers who were paying for the war.

"John Howard is trying to interfere in an election and that's uncalled for," he told CNN. "I agree with Barack Obama that if Mr Howard believes it is so vital for coalition forces to stay in Iraq, he should find a way to send more Australian forces."

"The Iraqis will deal with al-Qaeda as soon as we are gone," he said. "They don't want them in the country and al-Qaeda will be gone once we have withdrawn."

Note : The US Ambassador to Australia just said during a National Press Club address that Murtha is the only person he knew of who was making this argument. The ambassador needs to read more Arab media, where arguments exactly like the one Murtha made have been debated for more than a year now.


Howard Advises Al Qaeda On Winning A Victory In Iraq Against America

Howard's Fears Of An American Defeat In Iraq Are All About The Damage To Australia's "Interests"

The Tide Of Events In Iraq And The US Are Running Against Howard, And The Australian Public Knows It

Police 'Legally' Search Mobile Phone Records Of Journalists To Source Leaks And Whistleblowers

By Darryl Mason

It's a story you might think would have got more media coverage, considering it concerns...the media, as well as being a story that heralds a stunning invasion of their private and professional lives. But clearly the death of Anna Nicole Smith was far more important.

It's surprising enough to learn that police are able to access the 'cell' phone records of journalists, without their knowledge.

But it's shocking to think that this is being done to discover the source of journalists secret sources, to uncover the names and locations of those who 'leak' information to the media, or "blow the whistle" on police corruption and criminal behaviour.

If they can do it to journos because news reports using undisclosed sources can lead to embarrassment for senior cops and government ministers, what exactly do you think they're doing with your phone records?

The days of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" are dead and gone.

This is the age of "If you haven't done anything wrong, we're still going to have a good look around your private data and keep a permanent record of it for later, just in case."

From the Sunday Telegraph :

NSW Police are combing through the mobile phone records of journalists trying to find whistleblowers who have given information to the media. The Sunday Telegraph has been told the practice has become common since the Macquarie Fields riots in early 2005.

Newspaper and radio reports following the riots exposed serious shortcomings among senior NSW Police.

The leaks embarrassed Commissioner Ken Moroney and the Government.

Presumably "common" means "daily".

Police Commissioner Moroney refused to answer any of the ten questions submitted by the Sunday Telegraph, but he did issue the following, fact-filled, chilling, statement :

"The Telecommunications Act 1997 governs the circumstances in which telecommunications carriers may disclose mobile phone records. The NSW police force obtains access to this information within the bounds of this legislative scheme. It is not in the public interest for the NSW police force to disclose its investigative methodology.''

It appears the police commissioner is not only saying this is all perfectly legal and nothing new, but that they may have been combing journalists 'cell' phone records for 10 years.

In fact, forget maybe and think definitely instead.

The exploitation of provisions within the 1997 Telecommunications Act has clearly allowed police to cross-check the phone records of journalists, without their knowledge, over the past decade, and may have already yielded the identites of numerous whistleblowers and leakers.

The sheer fact that such privacy violating provisions exist within the law also acts as a powerful psychological weapon.

If you had the 'scoop' on some corrupt coppers and the phone number of a journalist you knew would be interested, but you then read the Sunday Telegraph story, you'd be thinking twice about contacting that journalist by any method of communication other than semaphore flags from a distant hilltop.

But then that fear of exposure might be the exact kind of deterrent desired, in the first place, by those who wish to discover the identity of once anonymous whistleblowers and leakers.


------------------------------------------------

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

--------------------------------------------------

Prime Minister Advises Al Qaeda In Iraq On Strategy To Defeat America And The West

Howard : Democrat Win In 2008 Presidential Elections Will Spell Victory For Al Qaeda

Howard's Attack Aimed At All US Democrats

By Darryl Mason

In a bizarre, venom-splashed attack on US presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama yesterday morning, the Australian prime minister, John Howard, first imagined what he would do as leader of Al Qaeda, and then offered the following advice to the terrorist group that has killed thousands of American citizens and troops in the past six years :

"I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Howard's astounding comments (echoing comments made against Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry by US President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential elections) came only hours after Senator Barak Obama announced he would pull US combat forces out of Iraq if he became president of the United States.

Senator Obama fired back, stating that John Howard should send 20,000 Australian troops to Iraq to help win the war, if he believed his own words and wanted to avoid a hypocritical stand :

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced [my candidacy]," Senator Obama said.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400.

"So if he is...to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

In Parliament this afternoon, the prime minister attempted to claim that his comments were only aimed at Senator Obama, though clearly he was talking about all Democrats who foresaw a US troop pullout in their portfolio should they win the 2008 presidential election, including Hilary Clinton.

Under persistent questioning by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, the prime minister launched into near incomprehensible ranting about how his Obama comments were all about "Australia's interests". He claimed that a US defeat in Iraq would spell big trouble for Australia and the region, appearing to go against his former claims that local terrorist threats were unrelated to the Iraq War.

Many Australians are wondering today whether prime minister, John Howard, has "lost it." "It" being his previously razor-sharp political instincts and his ability to rarely put a foot wrong when it came to international politics.

Howard's attack on Obama are widely viewed in Australia as yet another major error by Howard, who claimed last week that "the jury is still out" when it came to the link between climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. He later corrected himself in Parliament, though he clearly did not want to do so. Long derided as a global warming denier, Howard now says he is a climate change "realist".

Howard's damaging errors of the past seven days are causing huge displeasure in the coalition government (though few have stepped forward to publicly criticise the prime minister, so far), placing his position as leader of the coalition under threat.

Howard has long maintained that he would remain leader of his party as long as the party wanted him to remain leader. If the coming federal election was delayed until 2008, Howard may find himself learning the harsh reality of those claims.


Story continues below...

------------------------------------------------

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

--------------------------------------------------


John Howard's recent remarkable failure to maintain his rarely dented visage as a political behemoth come as fresh polls reveal both Howard and the government he leads are losing favour and popularity amongst the Australian electorate, at near record rates of decline.

Howard is clearly rattled, by the failure of the War On Iraq, and his fading popularity. More Australians now prefer Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd as prime minister than John Howard by a margin of some 16%.

The prime minister was clearly hoping to give his American allies, President Bush and the White House administration, an opportunity to infer, as Fox News has already done, that Senator Barak Obama has some kind of sympathy with Islamist terrorism because his father was a Muslim. Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports the War On Terror and that he is a Christian.

In all, Howard's comments are damaging to the Australian-US alliance, as this alliance is about decidedly more than simple allegiance to President Bush.

How John Howard expects to have an open and honest relationship with the Democrats should they win the 2008 presidential elections, after openly stating such a victory would be praised by Al Qaeda, is anyone's guess.


MORE UPDATES TO FOLLOW.....

Demands Made In Parliament That Howard Retract Obama Comments And Apologise To All US Democrats

Howard Steps Up Attack On Obama

US Democrats Say Howard's Comments "Bizarre"

Howard Vs Obama Over Iraq Dominates US News

Obama To Howard : Send 20,000 Troops To Iraq Or Shut Up

One In Three Australian Medical Specialists Admit They Will Break The Law To End Infants Suffering

The crime is not using pain and consciousness relieving drugs to hasten the end of a terribly unfortunate life. The crime is that compassionate medical professionals must break Australian law to do so.

Below is a story that quietly appeared in the Australian media and then disappeared again, almost without a sound.

It was quite surprising that no conservative groups or right-wingers latched onto this story and raised a fuss. It is a mark of a mature society when medical professionals are left to do their jobs with the trust of the community behind them. That the hard choices they sometimes have to make, that we rarely hear about, are not made in a spontaneous fashion, nor spuriously, and are only done so as to end pain and human misery where it is reasonably possible to do so.

Yet it remains an appalling tragedy that these medicos must break the law by using drugs to bring about a fast and humane end to human suffering in lives so young, yet it is legal to let a three month old baby die of starvation or asphyxiation instead.

The crime is not the action, in these cases. The crime is the law.

From 'The Australian' :

One in three medical specialists is prepared to break the law by using painkillers or sedatives to hasten the death of a baby born with a severe life-threatening disability.

An anonymous survey of neonatologists in Australia and New Zealand also found almost half were willing to use medication to speed up death in critically ill newborns for whom further treatment was considered hopeless.

Peter Barr, a senior physician at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, who conducted the study, said the desire to alleviate a baby's pain and suffering sometimes outweighed doctors' concerns about the law.

"This was a self-reporting questionnaire where neonatologists responded to hypothetical situations, so we don't know exactly what they do in practice, but we know what their preferences are," Dr Barr said. "They were presenting their views, knowing that they were not lawful."

While neonatologists commonly withdraw or withhold treatment in newborns with a terminal disease or severe disability, it is illegal to use medication to hasten a person's death.

However, doctors reported that they would prefer to use painkillers or sedation to hasten death, rather than withholding oxygen or nutrients.

"For example, if further medical treatment has been deemed therapeutically non-beneficial or overly burdensome, then neonatologists may consider it more compassionate and humane to purposefully hasten death unlawfully with analgesia-sedation than, for instance, to forgo gastric tube feeding, which may be lawful," the study found.

"Hence neonatologists seem to support the moral notion that it is sometimes 'better to kill than let die' - even though the former is unlawful and seems not to respect the 'sanctity of life'."

Dr Barr also discovered there was a link between doctors' personal fear of death and their ethical beliefs. "Neonatologists who said that they were prepared to hasten death when death was inevitable had a greater of fear of death than those who thought that it was unacceptable," Dr Barr said.

"Fear of the dying process and premature death may unconsciously motivate these neonatologists to do what they can to ease the baby's suffering and hasten their death, and that takes priority over the legal implications."

University of Queensland professor of medical ethics Malcolm Parker told The Australian doctors who chose to break the law were motivated by compassion.

"It's never easy for clinicians faced with that situation but I'm sure they feel compelled in very severe cases to do what they believe is the most humane thing," he said. "In that sense, ethically they may not find it a difficult decision to make but I'm sure the idea of breaking the law would not be easy."

Thousands Of Birds Dying In Huge Clusters In Western Australia

Why? "Extreme Weather"

Thousands of birds have been, literally, dropping from the skies over towns in Western Australia over the past two months, and no-one seems to know why.

While finding a dead bird in your yard isn't unusual, find a few dozen certainly is, but this was the experience of people in the WA town of Esperance in December, 2006.

Now it's happening again, in other towns.

There were reasonable fears that the birds were dying of avian influenza, but that has apparently been ruled out, as has other viruses and poisonings.

The best WA's Department of Environment and Conservation has been able to come up with to explain the bizarre bird deaths has been "extreme weather".

From the smh.com.au :

More mass bird deaths have been reported in Western Australia but authorities do not believe they are related to the mystery scourge that killed thousands of birds in the state's south.

WA's Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has been unable to determine what killed up to 4,000 nectar-eating birds in and around Esperance between December 7 and January 2.

The birds, mostly yellow-throated miners, wattle birds, new Holland honeyeaters and silvereyes, plus some seagulls and pigeons, were found dead near water sources such as sprinklers and water tanks.

The DEC said bird viruses and bacteriological causes had been ruled out as the cause of death and toxins were still the most likely culprit.

DEC Nature Protection Branch manager Dave Mell said the department had recently received reports of groups of dead birds - up to as many as 200 - at Yealering, Kellerberrin, Cunderdin, Kulin and Kukerin, in the state's wheatbelt.

But Mr Mell said he did not believe the deaths were related to those around Esperance.

"The recent deaths have coincided with high temperatures of up to 45 degrees Celsius and strong winds, and we believe it's most likely the deaths can be attributed to the extreme weather conditions," Mr Mell said.

"Monster" Great White Shark Spotted Off Sydney Beaches

Cue music : duh dum, duh dum, duh dum dumdumdumdumdum....

It's said to be at least 15 feet long, and has already eaten a dog and a pelican. It's a great white shark, and it's prowling off Sydney beaches.

The "monster" sized shark was described in this report as having "a tendency for aggressiveness." Unlike all those other 15 feet great whites that are complacent and friendly.

“There is evidence to show that this shark has been taking animals,” said Stephen Leahy, the rescue services manager for Surf Lifesaving Sydney.

A couple of eyewitness reports :

“I just went down to the beach, everything was nice and calm and then all of a sudden it was like a boat taking off with all the wake; but we could only see the fin and the shadow...”

Mangan, who owns the Boatshed Cafe on the seafront corroborated Leahy saying, “I definitely know about the pelican being eaten, because the helicopter pilots who saw it happen come for coffee in my cafe. They said it was a White Pointer.”

Mangan was worried about his business. “I rely on people coming swimming and then eating at my cafe. The shark has been hanging around for over a week. I hope it goes away soon,” he said.

But wait a minute, there seems to be a bit of a dispute about whether or not sharks are actually aggressive. Apparently sharks are not aggressive, they're just "curious".

Yes, curious about what your lower torso tastes like.

Shark expert Matt Jacobs informs :

“Sharks, unfortunately for us, don't have hands, and so use their mouth to feel. They are curious and sometimes soft bodied animals, like us, can be damaged.”

“They could just be curious but because it's a shark, people think it is being aggressive...”

Matt appears to be saying that if sharks, uh, had hands, they would not be biting off so much of you when they came up to see what you felt like (?).

They're just curious, you see, and all that chomping and thrashing and foaming blood and sea water is just how a great white shark gets to know you better.

So far the "monster" shark has spotted off La Perouse Beach, but shark alarms have also been raised at Bondi.

Swimmers Should Think Twice "Until This Monster Goes Away"

December, 2006 : Surfers Had To Be Talked Out Of Returning To The Waves After Vicious Shark Attack

Head In Shark : "Poke The Bastard In The Eye"

McDonalds : Good For The Heart?

Nine Maccas Meals Approved By The Heart Foundation

Ever since the UK McLibel trial of the early 1990s exposed the questionable quality, product sourcing and preparation standards of McDonalds' fast food, the global hamburger giant has spent billions re marketing itself as a "healthy" fast food alternative to, say, a bowl of green salad.

They now sell green salads, of course - along with the deliciously greasy double-meat, double-cheese burgers - and this has won the company the right, in Australia at least, to claim some of its food is good for the heart.

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to test-trial McDonalds salad range and low-fat yoghurt's and fruit salads and sandwich 'wraps'.

The move wasn't exactly a monster success for the first couple of years, but they've gradually clawed themselves a new market amongst vegetarians and people who used to feel their clogged chests tighten when they panted the words "Two Quarter Pounders and a large fries, please."

The move by the Australian Heart Foundation to allow McDonalds to put its widely-respected 'tick' logo on some food products is going to be enormously controversial, particularly since McDonalds also had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the "clearance" to do so from the Heart Foundation.

But Australians are buying the 'fresh food' and 'vegetarian' alternatives on offer from McDonalds in greater numbers than they were three or four years ago.

And with the Heart Foundation's approval, they are now likely to buy a whole lot more of those healthier fast food options in the future.

Along with an occasional large fries.


From ABC Radio's 'The World Today' (excerpts) :

For the first time McDonald's has received the Heart Foundation 'tick of approval' for nine of its meals.

It's an unlikely liaison between a fast food giant and a guardian of healthy eating, and undoubtedly the best advertising a fast food outlet could have.

JANE COWAN: For years a trip through the Golden arches has been laden with guilt, as well as fat....

Susan Anderson from the Heart Foundation...makes no apology for the Heart Foundation venturing into the world of fast food. She says McDonald's is feeding thousands of Australians every day and has genuinely lifted its game.

SUSAN ANDERSON: We've given them a tick of approval for meeting some very strict standards, because we know people are there, we know that they're not curbing their dietary patterns by not going to these sorts of places, so it is much better that they have a healthier choice when they're there.

JANE COWAN: Catherine Saxelby is a Sydney-based nutritionist. She concedes she was surprised to hear McDonald's had won the tick, but pleased.

CATHERINE SAXELBY: Look, in an ideal world I would love to walk into a fast food outlet where everything was healthy, was low in fat, high in fibre, lots of vegetables, lots of salad, but it isn't available, and when I'm driving on the highway and I have to stop at McDonald's because it's the only place available, at least there are healthier choices.

So there you go, even nutritionists now admit to eating McDonalds, after guilt-tripping everyone else for years about scarfing down a 3am Big Mac to quell a gut full of roiling booze.


Weird Fact : One of the founders of the Heart Foundation was a man named Sir Warren D'Arcy McDonald.