home about photos phd v1.0

Today I attended the largest of the anti-APEC protest rallies to hit the streets of Sydney. Estimates of attendees [2] have been put between 3,000 to 10,000, with 6,000 being the most likely number.
 

Not Happy John - mums and dads on the streets of Sydney

The march was peaceful and virtually without incident. Marching from Town Hall down to Hyde Park, the procession was slow but boisterous. The protesters were comprised mainly of students, and mums and dads, standing in stark contrast to the police force that was on display. During the walk I kept flicking my gaze skyward, running my eyes across the rooftops looking for snipers and spotters, as has been reported. More than once I noticed people looking down at us. When they saw me looking, they quickly popped back out of sight. It was a comforting thought knowing that there were probably a half-dozen high-powered sniper rifles aimed at us at any one time.

The police message was clear: intimidation through overwhelming force. Police put the protest numbers at 3,000 while stating their own force numbered at 3,500. Their demeanour was cold, unhelpful, and overtly dismissive - most likely under orders not to engage with protesters in order to maintain the tangible power distinction. As the protest moved down George Street, an enormous convoy of police consisting riot trucks, attack dogs, the expensive new water cannon, and rows of riot police formed behind us.

Show of force 

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned his post. Mired in scandal, Gonzales' resignation brings to a close one of the most politically embarrassing issues of the White House administration. The controversy centred around the illegal and politically motivated firings of eight US attorneys by the White House, which I wrote about earlier. You can watch the famous clip in which Jon Stewart attacks Gonzales here.

Operator: Hello, National Security Hotline

Alert but not alarmed Caller: Ah yeah hi, I'd ah ... I'd like to report some suspicious activity. That terrorist hotline commercial, it's been on television a lot lately, kind of a spike in activity. I think ... I think they must be planning for something.

Top White-House aide Karl Rove, seen by many as the brains behind George W. Bush, has announced he will step at the end of August. Reviled by democrats, loved by Republicans, Karl Rove leaves behind a considerable political legacy in his shadowy political manipulations for a "permanent republican majority".

In his 2004 election acceptance speech, Bush referred to him simply as "the architect". "Everyone in the room knew what that meant," says Washington Post reporter Mike Allen. "He was the architect of the public policies that got them there, he was the architect of the campaign platform, he was the architect of the fundraising strategy, he was the architect of the state-by-state strategy, he was the architect of the travel itinerary. His hand was in all of it." You can read more at the PBS timeline of Karl Rove.

Grist has an exclusive interview with Rupert Murdoch, in which he says his son convinced him to turn NewsCorp green. It's a frank article with some eye-opening responses. Along with turning the company carbon neutral, NewsCorp plans to be pro-active in its content, introducing the issue into its programming.

I found the article to be an enjoyable read, I agreed with some of Murdoch's decisions; even if does pain me to fall into his answer on "business logic". I do however disagree with his comments regarding the Bush administration and climate change. There has not been a leader more obstructive or damaging to the climate change issue. Also, despite the funding of environmental research, the White House has been roundly condemned for censoring its own reports.

The process of selecting the next American president is in full-swing, with the Democratic and Republican presidential debates approaching their second round. One democratic candidate, Senator Mike Gravel stood out from the rank and file in the first debate with his honest and unapologetic stance on hot button issues. Since then, Gravel's support has exploded with a fervour of online support.

However, Gravel's honesty regarding some of the real problems [2] facing America has ruffled powerful feathers, so despite his rising popularity the mainstream media has consistently sought to exclude Gravel from media coverage and further debates.

On Tuesday a Washington Post editorial put forward some points as to why Gravel should be excluded from further presidential debates. However there are two core problems with The Washington Post's article. Firstly, that early poll numbers are a terrible way to predict a nominee [2], and by themselves should not be used to decide on the next round of debaters.

Secondly, that voters "presidential choices aren't helped by debates cluttered with the likes of Mike Gravel". I, and millions of others disagree. We disagree for the same reason we turn to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for the news rather than The Washington Post; because we recognise the truth when it's spoken. We do not appreciate the conservative hedging that mainstream US media continually places on its news and editorial, nor the process of over simplification. You insult us on a daily basis when claiming to report "the truth", yet when a man stands up and publicly speaks it, you seek to censor him. After the last eight years [2] under President Bush, I think it is time that US politics had an element of truth, don't you?

Earlier this month US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stood before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain his role in the firing of 8 US attorneys. At the heart of the matter is whether the attorneys were fired for performance-related issues, or if there were political motivations, as a trail of emails suggests [2].

Jon Stewart summaries the matter elegantly, pointing out that Gonzales used the phrase "I don't recall" 45 times before lunch. Yesterday Stewart chatted with award-winning documentary maker Bill Moyers about the concept of "fake news", specifically the matter of Gonzales, in this rare glimpse of Stewart outside The Daily Show.

After watching the disgraceful testimony of Gonzales, and the unfolding scandal involving the White House, the following quote came to mind: 

"Someone who knows too much finds it hard not to lie".
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Today the White House declared in its strongest tone to date of Iran's involvement in the current Iraq civil conflict. President Bush said that an elite branch of Iran's revolutionary guard had been supplying weapons to the Iraq Shiite insurgency, but was uncertain as to whether the branch had been ordered by the top levels of the Iranian government.

President Bush said, "And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?". I don't know, which is worse? Them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening [2].

The White House has conceded defeat, with the Democrats seizing control [2] of the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. The race for the senate is still tight however, with indications that Republicans (George Bush) will hold on. The ramifications of this are extraordinary, and brings to an end the the type of unbridled abuses of power that has characterised the Republicans under George W. Bush. With control of the house, the Democrats will have greater influence over oversight committees, can launch investigations into the cases of abuse, corruption and policy failure (i.e. Iraq), and control over other Bush administration policies. 

How this will effect Bush's executive power remains to be seen. Over the years there has been much criticism of Bush's interpretation of executive powers. Principally, that it has been used to ignore congress, and to act without the checks and balances of a democratic government. That is, assuming the power of a Monarch. In Al Gore's blistering attack, citing many cases of abuse, he stated that "The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws."

Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by a Baghdad court, for crimes against humanity. In Iraq, the method of execution is hanging. Saddam was found guilty of his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.

The trial itself has been plagued with legal problems, and criticism of interference by the United States, a complaint backed by US group Human Rights Watch. There has also been much criticism of the timing of the sentence, which was postponed to November 5th, occurring just two days before crucial midterm elections in America. The Iraq war has proved to be the defining topic of the midterm election, a factor for which Bush's republican party is expected to see substantial losses.

In an international study of public opinion, America is now seen by its closest allies as a serious threat to world peace. The survey found that British citizens saw president Bush as a greater danger to the world than North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il, and Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Bush came in second, edged out only by Osama bin Laden.

Fans of ABC's The Glass House [2] are today upset following the announcement that after 5 years, the show would be discontinued. There are a number of news outlets circulating the story at present. The Age has an interesting 2-page story, The Daily Telegraph has an editorial by Will Anderson, while The West Australian has a shorter, more politically motivated piece.

The ABC's official reason for axing The Glass House is "finite resources", and not the result of the new ABC managing director Mark Scott. A few select comments from the linked stories:

• "It is not possible to make new programs and continue with all our existing output, and so the decision was made some months ago that this would be the last year for The Glass House. We've been discussing it with the production team for some time now."
• "The Chaser's War on Everything will come out of the bunker and be broadcast in a higher profile timeslot in 2007"
• "The ABC said yesterday it would not recommission the series, fuelling speculation that the show is the first casualty of new ABC managing director Mark Scott, who has promised to end perceived political bias on the national broadcaster."

Political interference may well have played a part in the decision to axe the popular series. If that were the case, then The Chaser's War on Everything, which is arguably as biased against the government as The Glass House, should not have been selected for another season. Admittedly The Chaser has been toned down considerably since CNNNN, and not being as popular as The Glass House may also be a contributing factor for allowing it through. 

To understand the ABC's decision may require better knowledge of their mission statement, or charter. On the one hand the ABC wants as many viewers as possible, but on other they are not a commercial network trying to wring every last cent out of a series. While the ABC charter [2] doesn't provide much in the way of applicable information, their history page does state the ABC fosters "the arts and reflecting the nation's cultural diversity." It's hard to do that in a quality fashion when being underfunded (which is politically motivated [2]), and so perhaps the ABC just had to make a call; The Glass House has had its time, and best to go out on a high note. We may glean more information over the coming weeks, or from Will Anderson's blog.

As a strong supporter of the ABC it is always sad to see the loss of one of their successful programs. The Glass House however may well continue, picked up by a commercial station as has happened in the past with ABC content; albeit in this case with a toning down of political rhetoric.

President Bush has acknowledged the existence of secret overseas CIA prisons for the hiding and interrogation of terror suspects [2, 3]. 14 suspects that had been held in these prisons have now been transferred to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The announcement was given in a carefully choreographed television address alongside families of those killed in the September 11 attacks.

Last year The Washington Post broke the story that the CIA had been operating secret prisons for the hiding and interrogation of terror suspects (a follow-up on earlier 2002 claims). The secret camps, or black camps as they are referred to, were setup to allow interrogation to occur outside the US Intelligence Oversight Act. In essence, to allow for acts of torture to be carried out without knowledge by the West, in nations which do not have strict laws preventing the use of torture in interrogations.

Earlier this year I discussed the report released by the international Human Rights Watch that stated the interrogation torture program of the US was 'authorised and routine even after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light.' For an interesting think piece and history on the torture saga, I refer you to this article by the Columbia Journalism Review.

The BBC is running a special feature that examines America, pre and post September 11 terrorist attacks. It presents a series of graphs that examines the change in the defence budget, air travel use, presidential approval rating, hate crime incidence, and Bin Laden's mentioning in the media. The interactive presentation earmarks important dates from 1998 to late 2004, such as the introduction of the Patriot Act, and Bush's 2004 reelection. The presentation makes for an interesting read.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has backed the recently passed UN resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities. However Israel's military is pressing ahead with an expanded ground assault in Lebanon. Ehud will press cabinet this weekend to endorse the motion, but it is likely to take some time to be implemented.

Ehud may indeed be looking for a quick end to the hostilities; his popularity has plummeted from 75% to 48% since fighting first began, with a majority of Israeli's unhappy that the military campaign has been largely ineffectual. A quick exit may the only option left for Ehud to hold onto power. Israeli paper Haaretz is quoted as saying that the UN resolution is in effect an "unconditional ceasefire to Hezbollah," and that "you cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power."