On climate change, Tony Abbott tells Europe to stuff it

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Has no time for nonsense

Has no time for nonsense

Australia is scheduled to host the annual G20 heads-of-state meeting this year. The G20 is an informal grouping dedicated promoting international financial stability, and the host country gets to set the agenda. For some strange reason Tony Abbott, Australia’s Liberal prime minister, has decided that the G20 should stick to its brief and said that global warming/climate change/ritual denunciations of the Demon CO2 will not be on he agenda.

This has made Europe unhappy.

European Union officials say Australia has become completely “disengaged” on climate change since Tony Abbott was elected in September last year.

They are disappointed with the Prime Minister’s approach, saying Australia was considered an important climate change player under Labor.

One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally”.

The EU has a long-running emissions trading scheme which was going to be linked to Australia’s market.

But Mr Abbott has pledged to scrap the carbon price in favour of his direct action policy.

Europe is sceptical of Mr Abbott’s replacement plan.

I can hear the Eurocrats’ tongues clucking and their tut-tutting even now. How are they going to live their taxpayer-funded lifestyles and carry out their dreams of “global eco-social justice,” if more nations follow Australia’s lead? They must be so disappointed in Mr. Abbott. I’m sure he’s losing sleep over it. Perhaps from laughing.

The kicker line is this:

Mr Abbott has said he doesn’t want the G20 agenda “cluttered” by topics that would take the focus from his top priority of economic growth.

Imagine that. A national leader actually concerned about his people’s prosperity and not only unwilling to sacrifice it at the altar of eco-statist group-think, but quite willing to openly “call BS” on the whole farcical charade. I’m sure that John “Climate change is a WMD” Kerry is unhappy. You can guess how that prospect makes me feel.

It’s nice to know that, somewhere in the Anglosphere, there are still nations lead by leaders who don’t have their head stuck firmly up their progressive backsides and who know that their first job is protecting their nation’s interests, not winning a popularity contest in Brussels or Turtle Bay. Canada is another.

I can only look on with envy and hope that, someday, we rejoin them.

via JoNova

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

European Union or EUSSR? Brussels demands power to regulate press, fire journalists

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

"Enemy of the State"

“Enemy of the State”

If anyone had any notion that the European Union was anything but a bureaucratic dictatorship, this should open their eyes:

A European Union report has urged tight press regulation and demanded that Brussels officials are given control of national media supervisors with new powers to enforce fines or the sacking of journalists.

The “high level” recommendations that will be used to draft future EU legislation also attack David Cameron for failing to automatically implement proposals by the Lord Justice Leveson inquiry for a state regulation of British press.

A “high level” EU panel, that includes Latvia’s former president and a former German justice minister, was ordered by Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice-president, last year to report on “media freedom and pluralism”. It has concluded that it is time to introduce new rules to rein in the press.

“All EU countries should have independent media councils,” the report concluded.

“Media councils should have real enforcement powers, such as the imposition of fines, orders for printed or broadcast apologies, or removal of journalistic status.”

As well as setting up state regulators with draconian powers, the panel also recommended that the European Commission be placed in overall control in order to ensure that the new watchdogs do not breach EU laws.

(Emphases added)

I’m sure these new powers, if granted, will be used only for the common good, to ensure fair, sensitive journalism — as determined by a bunch of Eurocrats.

The danger of this is obvious: the power to fine or fire is the power to dictate, and the only reporters to retain their jobs will be those who say things pleasing to the mandarins in Brussels. It would be the death knell of free speech in Europe, for free speech is meaningless if it doesn’t include the right to say things that make the powerful uncomfortable, or even simply to offend. A free, unfettered press is essential to a democratic society, and if the press is fettered, so is the citizen, who becomes a subject. The society is no longer free.

The article points out that these proposed regulations are aimed largely at the British press, which has a large Euro-skeptic element and regularly ticks off the European Union elite. Quite unsurprisingly, then, the Brussels initiative has set up howls of outrage in Britain, from whom we inherited our traditions of free speech and press freedom. With Prime Minister Cameron promising a referendum on a new arrangement, one can only hope the majority of Britons will see the danger of staying a part of this “brave new Euro-world” and vote to get the hell out.

Indeed, they may already ready be headed for the door.

PS: This article reminds me yet again how rare, fragile, and precious our traditions of free speech –the ability to speak one’s mind to the powerful without fear of reprisal– really are. In Europe, where on the Continent the governing tradition is top-down, the natural reaction of the government is to suppress annoying speech. (And in America, we see twitches of that from the Left.) Even in Australia, the people of which are our close political cousins, there is no recognized natural right of free speech. It is a right that we must not only assert and defend, but actively exercise, especially when it itself is under threat.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Nice try, but no Darwin Award for you!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

It was a worthy effort, however: bungee-jumping from 121 yards over a raging river filled with crocodiles…

When the cord breaks.

An Australian tourist who survived a terrifying fall after her bungy cord snapped at Victoria Falls has been re-admitted to hospital.AN Australian tourist survived a 111m fall into a crocodile-infested river after her bungee cord snapped.

Erin Langworthy, 22, plunged up to 25m when her rope broke during a bungy jump at the 108m falls, on the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia, on December 31.

The Perth backpacker, who had said it was a miracle she survived, is back in hospital after a setback.

”Unfortunately, I actually went back into hospital last night – my lungs have been acting up a fair bit,” Ms Langworthy told Nine News.

”They actually told me today both my lungs are partially collapsed.”

The footage of the jump has gone viral on the internet, with cries of horror from viewers as Ms Langworthy dives into the Zambezi River.

She spent a week in hospital with extensive bruising.

Describing her survival as a “miracle”, she told Channel 9 she blacked out as she hit the water.

I wonder if her last sight was of a croc looking up and licking his chops.

But, hey, she survived, so no Darwin Award for you, Erin!

Nice try, though.

RELATED: Video of Ms. Langworthy’s plunge.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Freedom of speech beaten and left bleeding in Australia?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

This is the kind of authoritarian garbage I would expect from real dictatorships, such as Venezuela or Russia or… Chicago, but not from one of the stalwarts of the Anglosphere:

THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government’s clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.

On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.

It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”

Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.

“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.

There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.

Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.

(Emphasis added)

So a barkeep or beauty salon owner in Australia can be fined one million Australian dollars for speaking the truth? (1)

Seriously?

Once again, we see the statist, totalitarian nature of the Green movement laid bare for all to see in a way that would leave Stalin smiling. Dare to criticize the dogmas of the High Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming and you’ll be fined for more than you’re worth. Question their jihad against the demon CO2 and watch as the Carbon Tax Inquisition smashes your business.

If I understand Australia’s electoral system right, the next federal election is in 2013. Julia Gillard‘s minority Labor government was already unpopular for the economy-choking carbon tax it imposed; after this… “nonsense,” I’d be surprised if she could be elected dog catcher. I’ve never known an Australian who would put up with being pushed around like this and I predict voters will shove back hard come election day.

via Watt’s Up With That?

Footnote:
(1) Australia apparently doesn’t enshrine free speech as a natural, preexisting right as we do. Instead a right to free political speech was found to be implied in the Australian constitution in the case Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, decided by the High Court of Australia in 1997.

PS: Be sure to read the rest of Miranda Devine’s article to see just how Aussies are already suffering from skyrocketing electricity prices, which the new carbon tax will only make worse. That is exactly what Obama, his EPA, and the Green Statists have in mind for us.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Global warming causes mental illness?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Is there nothing that can’t be blamed on a harmless gas that serves mainly as plant food?

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.

”While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,” the report says.

Emphasis added, because that bit is key to the whole fantasy built by this article — that dangerous man-caused climate change is leading to an increase in mental illness.

First, let’s remind ourselves of something. According to one of the high priests of the Cult of Global Warming, Dr. Phil Jones, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (1), there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Another, Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, once wrote in an email:

“The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

So, I ask the article’s author and the Climate Institute, where is the “unrestrained global warming?”

*crickets*

But let’s get back to the article’s thesis. It rests on two pillars:

  1. That changing climate (2) and severe weather events can lead to stress and various mental illnesses.
  2. That these events and therefore the mental illnesses can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

I have no disagreement with the first point, nor am I making light of the mentally ill. Fire, drought, earthquake, hurricanes, tornadoes… all these and other disasters can lead to the loss of property, loss of a job, injury or even the death of loved ones. Sure, all this can lead to stress and possible mental illness. I’ve seen it myself in the wake the wildfires and temblors that periodically ravage California.

So, sure. A connection between natural disasters and mental illness? No problem.

But it’s in the second point that Erik Jensen Health of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Climate Institute take a Wile E. Coyote-like leap off the cliff of logic. First for assuming anthropogenic global warming exists when it is very much in question. (See also Carter and Plimer.) And second for listing event after event with the underlying assumption that AGW must be the cause, while never presenting a skeptical viewpoint and without ever investigating if these events fall outside the norms of Australia’s climate history, whether as recorded by human observers or seen in the paleoclimatological record.

This wasn’t an article about science or even the problems of mental illness. It’s just unchallenged assertion after unchallenged assertion, all meant to scare the reader by invoking the dread demon Climate Change. It was nothing more than a fire-and-brimstone sermon at an Al Gore revival meeting:

“Repent, ye racist greenhouse gas-spewing sinners, lest your communities collapse and your children go nuts because of your crimes against Gaea! THOU SHALT DE-CARBONIZE!!”

The SMH should be embarrassed for running such tripe.

via WUWT

Footnotes:
(1) Also a key figure in the Climategate scandal. (See also)
(2) Of course the Earth’s climate (really, a range of regional climates) is changing. We live on a dynamic planet that has never been in a steady state. But there is no evidence showing that any changes now occurring are beyond what has happened in the past. It’s not CO2, folks, it’s the sun.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

“Man-made” global warming news and notes

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Here’s the latest from the cult of “man-made” global warming alarmism:

—- The Daily Mail reports on women and couples who have either aborted their babies in the name of “reducing” their “carbon footprint,” or opted to be sterilized in order to prevent bringing a baby into the world who would do nothing but ‘unnecessarily suck up valuable natural resources’:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

[…]

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

[…]

When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet – and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”

Sarah’s boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni’s, with the breakdown of several relationships.

“I’ve had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn’t be with them long term,’ says Sarah.

“I’ve had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn’t think it was fair to waste their time.

“In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible.

“I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn’t provide him with what he wanted so I walked away.”

Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancÈ Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.

When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children.

“To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn’t want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation,” says Sarah.

“I didn’t want to have an ‘accident’ if contraception didn’t work – we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby.”

While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.

“We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised,” says Sarah.

“In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby.”

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.

Sarah says: “We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.

Hey, if these women and men want to make it so that there’s no chance they’ll ever have children, that’s fine by me, as it means at least as far as that part of their family goes there wil be one less generation of idiots we’ll have to listen to, but when it comes to the idea of aborting a baby supposedly for the ‘sake of the environment,’ we see once again in action the selfish intentions of so-called ‘caring’ individuals who view human life as nothing more than a parasite on themselves as well as the environment. I wonder if these morally bankrupt morons ever thanked their lucky stars that their parents didn’t view them as a hindrance to a healthy environment?

—– Hat tip to Rosslyn Smith at The American Thinker, who also writes about yet another instance of global warming hypocrisy from the Usual Suspects:

Along those same lines comes this release out of Bali that the airport there is expecting so many private jets for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference that local officials will be making most attendees ferry their planes to four other airports in the region for parking as the local airport can only accommodate 15 planes. The closest airport to provide parking space for such jets is about 60 miles away, the furthest about 600.

I wonder how the projected future carbon footprint of the infant one of the women in the Daily Mail article aborted in order to “protect the planet” compares to that of deadheading a fleet of jets from Bali to Jakarta and back again?

And I wonder where the hell the outrage is over this excessive use of our natural resources by the very people who claim to care the most about the “carbon footprint” we leave for “future generations”? Probably buried with all the rest of the unanswered-for hypocrisy that has come from the likes of uber-greenies Al Gore, John Edwards, and Senator John Kerry, among other gw stormtroopers.

—- The SF Chronicle reported earlier this month that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is considering a ban on the use of … residential fireplaces:

It would be illegal to use residential fireplaces on nights with poor air quality under a rule being considered by Bay Area air regulators.

Over the next three weeks, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will hold workshops to gauge public opinion on the proposal, which would follow similar bans in Sacramento County, the San Joaquin Valley, and such Bay Area cities as Mill Valley, where people who disobey the city’s wood-burning law are already subject to stiff fines.

Spurred by growing evidence that shows smoke from wood-burning is as bad or worse than smoke from cigarettes, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is trying to reduce the amount of harmful particulate matter that people breathe. Children, the elderly and those with respiratory illnesses are particularly susceptible to smoke particles that emanate from wood-burning fireplaces.

The minute particles, which enter nasal passages and lungs, can cause asthma, bronchitis, lung disease and heart disease, according to health experts.

The workshops, which start Wednesday in Oakland, are designed to solicit comments and explain the proposed regulation, which would cover wood-burning stoves as well as indoor and outdoor fireplaces. On days in the Bay Area when particulate matter is at its worst, wood-burning is the greatest contributing factor, accounting for 33 percent of the pollution, according to the air district. The problem is especially acute in winter, when fire-place use is high.

[…]

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency strengthened its particulate standards, reducing by almost half the amount of such particles that can be released into the air. In the past 10 years, a growing number of Bay Area cities – including Oakland, Union City, Fremont and Los Gatos – have limited wood-burning devices. In Mill Valley, first-time violators are warned before facing a $150 fine.

[Air district spokesman Karen] Schkolnick said the Bay Area district’s wood-burning law would mirror the regulations used in Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley. During the 2006-07 winter, the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District – which covers San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties as well as part of Kern County – issued 192 tickets to residents. The first fine is $50. Repeated violations can lead to fines of between $100 and $1,000, district spokeswoman Jaime Holt said.

In lieu of paying a fine, first-time violators can attend a two-hour “residential wood-burning compliance school,” where they learn about the pollution hazards of wood-burning, Holt said.

Most violators in the San Joaquin Valley are initially reported by concerned neighbors, Holt said.

I swear, you cannot make this stuff up. Most people burn their wood-burning fireplaces as either their sole source of heat or as an additional source of heat so as not to have a sky-high electric bill. So you’d think that it would be a good thing that people are utilizing wood-burning fireplaces, because using gas and/or electricity as a source of heat supposedly increases the size of your “carbon footprint.”

But in the Bay Area, it seems that you just can’t win.

St. Helena, CA resident and realtor Jeffrey Earl Warren has the best response yet I’ve seen to this latest instance of left coast nonsense.

—- Lastly, in semi-related news, Bush ally John Howard has been voted out as Australia’s PM, to be replaced by the ‘eco-friendly’ Kevin Rudd, whose Labour party was swept into power in this weekend’s Australian elections, effectively ending nearly 12 years of conservative rule. The AP reports that Rudd has already made gw a top priority:

SYDNEY, Australia – Australia’s Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd took advice Sunday on how to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and fielded phone calls from world leaders — starting in on work the day after a sweeping election victory.

[…]

The emphatic victory for Rudd’s Labor Party swings Australia toward the political left after almost 12 years of conservative rule and puts it at odds with key ally Washington on two crucial policy issues — Iraq and global warming.

After declaring victory late Saturday, Rudd attended church Sunday then held meetings with government officials about the mechanics of signing the Kyoto pact on global warming, an issue he made his top priority during the election campaign.

[…]

Britain, New Zealand and Indonesia said Rudd’s election would boost international efforts to address climate change. Ousted Prime Minister John Howard had refused to sign Kyoto.

Aussie blogger Tim Blair notes that the media fawning over Rudd has already begun. Time Magazine does its part here.

Aussie writer Peter Day, writing for Pajamas Media, has more on the new Aussie PM-elect and points out that Rudd’s victory isn’t a total loss for conservatism in Australia, nor was it a referendum on Iraq, as some people may believe.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.

“Live Earth” concert updates

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Live EarthI know you’re desperately seeking updates on how the “Live Earth” concerts are going (MSN’s website surely seems to be), so here are a few of them:

—- Aussie Tim Blair has a huge and hilarious link roundup of reax to and stories about the Australia Live Earth concert.

—- The Daily Mail writes about the hypocrisy of certain Live Earth celebs like Madonna, who they claim “produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Britons in a year.” Here’s more from that article:

Dr [Andrea] Collins [expert in sustainability from Cardiff University] estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.

Other venues including the Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg – where Joss Stone is performing – will cater for audiences of tens of thousands.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced – the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the ‘carbon footprint’ talked of by ecological campaigners – contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental ‘cost’.

Collins says: “It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn’t have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel – precisely what we are trying to reduce.

“There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world – that is absolutely huge.”

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.

Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

—- Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard has more thoughts on the un-green nature of these greenie concerts, as does Mark Steyn.

—-Atlas Shrugs calls the concerts a “carbon footprint stampede.”

—- On that note, the Good Lt. at The Jawa Report has a great suggestion:

The carbon footprint of these concerts is likely to be a permanent stain on our environment. Save the world! Ignore environmentalist and activist celebrities! They’re killing us!

—- Check out more Live Earth concert update/global warming hilarity links here and here.

Me? I’m just wondering how many LE concertgoers and celebs are following Sheryl Crow’s “one square [of toilet paper] per restroom visit” rule

More: The Goracle himself weighs in: Al Gore slams global warming doubters at Live Earth.

Update: Here’s the quote of the day:

Live Earth is like Larry Flint making a porno movie to promote chastity.

Heh.

“Innocent” Aussie David Hicks agrees to seven year plea deal (PLUS: OUTRAGEOUS – HICKS TO SERVE ONLY NINE MONTHS

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via AP:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – The prison sentence of an Australian detainee who pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge would be limited to seven years under terms of a plea bargain, a military judge at Guantanamo Bay said Friday.

The judge, Marine Corps. Col. Ralph Kohlmann, revealed the terms of the agreement at a hearing Friday on whether to accept David Hicks’ guilty plea.

It was not immediately clear whether the maximum sentence accounts for the five years Hicks has already spent at Guantanamo Bay. Under an agreement between the United States and Australia, Hicks will serve any sentence in Australia.

Now, I wonder where all the apologies are from the anti-war/hate Howard fanatics who rushed to Hicks defense not so much because they believed in his ‘innocence’ but more because they were using him as a symbol for all the things they ‘hate’ about ‘evil wars’?

Wondering, watching, waiting …

Update: Aussie Tim Blair had a little fun speculating earlier what kind of bargain would be reached. Heh.

PM Update: All but nine months of Hicks’ sentence has been suspended as part of the ‘deal.’ Unfreakingbelieveable!

Prior: