Did the editor's dog eat his homework?

How does one account for the Comment in today's Daily Examiner by its editor Peter Chapman?

In a piece titled Banks law unto themselves Chapman has simply reproduced, word-for-word, a media statement released by Senator Steve Fielding.

Okay, let's give Chapman some credit. He acknowledged it was Fielding's work and to make things easier for his readers he turned one paragraph that consisted of two sentences into two one-sentence paragraphs.

Perhaps the editor's dog ate his homework and when it came time to hand up his copy for today's paper he had nothing.

Let's hope other journos at The Daily Examiner don't follow Chapman's lead and simply rehash media statements.

Oh, by the way, Fielding's media statement can be read here.

The coal and oil lobby get serious about blocking moves to limit greenhouse gases

The American Institute for Energy Research has created an off-shoot, the erroneously named Energy Freedom Center.

Reportedly partly funded by Exxon-Mobile, with the help of former US Republican senator George Allen it launched the new entity in early June 2009 and, is busy attempting to dismantle any concerted effort to have the US Congress seriously consider a national scheme to address the causes and effects of climate change.

Meanwhile R&R Partners - Advertising continues to push the interests of the coal industry.

To demonstrate just how far 'dirty' energy will go to maintain the status quo here is an excerpt from the R&R brag sheet:

The Challenge:
To develop a new issue-advocacy and message branding campaign focused on changing public perceptions and influencing congressional action. Included in this effort was a well-funded advertising and earned media strategy designed to position ACCCE as a responsible, positive player in seeking workable solutions to the climate-change challenge facing our nation and in developing a diversified energy policy that includes coal as a critical component.
The Strategy:
R&R and ACCCE created a fully integrated marketing, branding and issue-advocacy campaign to educate our audiences on the importance of coal in their daily lives. Our strategy was to convince our audiences that through the use of modern technology, coal is cleaner than ever and getting cleaner still, and present coal as a vital component in our march toward energy independence.
The ACCCE campaign focused primarily around a fully integrated marketing approach that used the presidential campaign as a platform for our messaging, resulting in highly visible and well-publicized campaign tactics throughout the year. Outreach consisted of grassroots, earned media, paid media and advocacy tactics that created a "surround-sound" effect targeting each of our audiences through all mediums and communications. Grassroots efforts included street teams, walking billboards, mobile billboards and recruitment and mobilization of an ACCCE Army (supporters of ACCCE and its mission) at presidential primaries, debates, conventions and other key campaign events. Earned media efforts included maintaining ongoing media relations and generating consistent press coverage of ACCCE-related issues and successes. A national television campaign focusing on the ACCCE core-message strategy – along with state and issue-specific campaigns that included news and magazine print, outdoor billboards, and radio and online components – comprised the paid media efforts that supported the overall campaign strategy.
The Result:
Coal is now an active voice in the ongoing energy policy debate and is seen as one of our country's chief sources of energy – both now and in the future.
A recent ACCCE poll conducted in October 2008 showed that nearly 70 percent of opinion elites believe that coal is a fuel for America's energy future. This number compares with just 52 percent expressing the same opinion in May 2008. Furthermore, 47 percent of opinion elites believe the successful development of clean-coal technology will promote energy security by allowing the use of American coal, while at the same time reducing emissions. Additionally, 46 percent feel that developments in clean-coal technology will drive down the cost of electricity.
In addition, our subsequent advocacy efforts inside the Beltway have led to the acceptance and support of coal by both political parties, along with President Barack Obama, as an essential component of the energy discussion that will continue during this administration.

All in all this scenario makes Australia's Bolt, Blair, Marohasy, Plimer and Carter look rather like a disorganised rabble.

One has to wonder how effective the Obama Administration's release of the Global Climate Change Impacts Across America report this week will be in countering the push by polluting industries to maintain what they see as a right to continue producing high greenhouse gas levels.

20 page overview of this report here, US regional fact sheets here and full report here.

Eco-Terrorism: and I should be surprised because?

This week eco-terrorism became the subject of an The Australian piece.

Lauren Wilson June 16, 2009

A THREAT of attack by an eco-terrorism group is being taken seriously by Victorian police and the Brumby government.

State Energy Minister Peter Batchelor said a menacing letter left at the home of a power station manager was a dramatic escalation of environmental activism.

The radical Earth Liberation Front yesterday refused to back down from threats against Hazelwood power station chief Graeme York and his family. A US spokesman for the group told AAP Mr York "should consider himself lucky" to have received a hand-delivered warning. And Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland said the letter was being investigated by special intelligence detectives. Although the ELF has not been prominent in Australia, it is responsible for a series of fire-bomb attacks on industrial property and equipment in Europe and the US. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation proscribed the group in 2002 as a serious terror threat.

The letter to Mr York, dropped in the mailbox of his Melbourne home, declared: "You are responsible for the dirtiest power station in Australia and the most polluting in the industrialised world.

"We hold you personally accountable for this assault against our earth. The irreplaceable and precious eco-systems of this earth are worth much more than your manicured lawn, expensive car and opulent suburban house.

"Your property will not remain safe so long as Hazelwood continues to pollute at such an inexcusable level, swallow millions of litres of fresh water every hour and cough out hydrochloric and nitrogen acids in return."

While I unequivocally condemn threats of violence, I am hardly surprised that such threats are beginning to surface.

With so much at stake and so little being done by governments and industry to address climate change, the only thing that surprises me is that it has taken this long for resentment to find an Australian focus.

Ben McNeil recently writing in New Matilda looked at the disconnect between climate change science and the political process during the Howard years and observes; It seems for many years the Australian government reflected a broad and dangerous public misconception about combating climate change: that is it has nothing to do with Australia's long-term economic prosperity or national security.

Perhaps the Rudd Government should reconsider its limited stance on climate change impacts mitigation and factor in the possibility that home-grown political protest may take a violent turn when faced with weak government responses to the urgent need to address long term water/food supply security and resource hungry/polluting industries.

Piers Akerman proves why both he and The Daily Telegraph have such lowly reputations

This was what Piers Akerman said in The Daily Telegraph on 14 June 2009 when he pointed the finger at Kevin Rudd and shouted I accuse!:

On Monday, May 25, Rudd stood in Parliament and said: "Today the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs also activated the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment to provide further assistance to help those in northern New South Wales affected by the flood disaster.

The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment will be a one-off immediate payment of $1,000 to adults and $4,000 to children. Claims for assistance can be made through Centrelink.

"Today, in recognition of the severe damage to local communities in northern NSW, the Government has agreed to a request from the NSW Premier to extend the current assistance being provided to small business and to primary producers in the flood-affected areas in northern NSW.

"This assistance will include one-off grants of up to $15,000 for small businesses and primary producers that can provide proof of expenditure on flood-related recovery. The New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority will administer these payments.

"I have also today authorised this assistance for people affected by the earlier floods in New South Wales in late March."

Notice that Akerman's last sentence in this quote is a separate paragraph and so appears to apply to all payments/grants mentioned?

Akerman then goes on to state:

But on Tuesday, May 26, Rudd's office advised Hartsuyker that contrary to what the PM had said on Monday, the victims of the March 31 flood would not be eligible for the one-off cash payment, only those affected by the May event.

Very nicely implying to his readers that it is Rudd, not he Akerman, who is lying about who promised what.

But Hansard clearly shows that what Kevin Rudd actually said was:

Today, in recognition of the severe damage to local communities in northern New South Wales, the government has agreed to a request from the New South Wales Premier to extend the current assistance being provided to small business and to primary producers in the flood affected areas in northern New South Wales. This assistance will include one-off grants of up to $15,000 for small businesses and primary producers that can provide proof of expenditure on flood related recovery. The New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority will administer these payments. I have also today authorised this assistance for people affected by the earlier floods in New South Wales in late March.

Now it is evident that what had been agreed to was that small business and primary producers (caught in that earlier flooding which Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker had apparently approached Akerman over) will be afforded the right to apply for a one-off grant. Not individual home owners.

I really feel for everyone caught by flooding on the NSW North Coast, but Luke Hartsuyker's cynical political ploy utilizing the likes of Akerman is doing more harm than good.

Phishing lures received this week

St. George Group

Dear Customer,

Due to recent account takeovers and unauthorized listings, St.George Bank is requesting a new account verification procedure. From time to time, randomly selected accounts (seller and/or buyer) are placed under an advanced updating process based on merchant accounts/bank relations and on-file credit cards. St.George Bank may also request in an email message scanned/faxed copies of one or more photo ID's. Your account confirmation may go wrong if your credit card/bank account has expired, or if you have changed/replaced your credit card without letting us know about the change.

An email one doesn't reply to!

Dear costumer ,

For your security, we have temporarily prevented access to your account. We have reasons to believe that your access may have been accesed by someone else than you. You may be getting this message because you are signing on from a different location or device.
If this is the case, your access may be restored when you return to your normal sign on method.
For immediate access, you are required to follow the link below to secure your personal account informations.
https://ibanking.stgeorge.com.au/InternetBanking/welcome.jsp?loginattempt=max&resetid=emailID29953291
Thank you for helping us protect your account.

© St.George Bank Limited ABN 92 055 513 070 AFS Licence No. 240997

The spelling gives this attempt at Internet fraud away.

Rudd must've been smiling, surely?

Saw a Tweet from Kevin Rudd in which he signed himself KRudd.
Perhaps our Kev is finally embracing the very Aussie moniker Kruddy?

And you thought he would be different?

As the days mount in Barack Obama's presidency, the word 'change' has been firmly shelved when it comes down to actual government practice.

Reverting to what looks suspiciously like right-wing Christian fundamentalism, the Obama Administration through the US Justice Department has now argued against same-sex marriage in a 54-page motion to dismiss in the matter of Smelt & Hammer v The United States of America.

Incredibly at Page 28 of the motion the legal argument appears to draw an analogy between same-sex marriage, underage marriage and incestuous marriage (but was careful not to mention polygamous marriage).

Not content with this about-face, Obama's troops are also out there arguing in support of the restrictive use of 'state secrets' legislation when it feels US political interests are threatened, as well as continuing to support warrantless phone tapping.

Jewel v NSA has now been joined by Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama and the earlier Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., has just developed an extra twist.
With the Obama Administration arguing against a recent ruling on limitations when invoking state secret provisions (the court had ruled that government could not prematurely invoke privilege) and petitioning the court of appeals full panel of judges to rehear an earlier Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that victims of extraordinary rendition and torture could have their day in court.

The rehearing application hypocritically states in part:

This is one of those few cases warranting review by the Court en banc.
The panel has significantly altered the contours of the military and state secrets privilege – a constitutionally-based means by which the Executive protects critical national security information from disclosure.
The panel's approach is flatly inconsistent with decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, and this Court's sister circuits on questions of exceptional importance applying the privilege.
We emphasize that the Government's request for en banc review is based upon the most careful and deliberative consideration, at the highest levels, of all possible alternatives to relying upon the state secrets privilege.
As the President made clear two weeks ago, while the state secrets privilege is necessary to protect national security, the United States will not invoke the privilege to prevent disclosure of "the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government."1

Full copy of Petition for Rehearing here.

It seems that from American presidential election to presidential election POTUS remains POTUS in the worst sense of this public office.

Update:

In Padilla & Lebron v John Yoo currently before the courts it appears that John C. Yoo, former US Justice Department counsel, former advisor in the President's War Council and author of the infamous Bush-era torture memos, has also unsuccessfully attempted to invoke 'state secrets' to avoid legal scrutiny and litigation. US District Court June 2009 ruling here.