Boy the Wonder Cat receives a death threat

Sometimes I am amazed by what turns up in email received. This is one of those times.

Below is an email received by Boy the Wonder Cat on 12 May 2010 from an individual using Verio Data Centres, Englewood NTT America and Correo UC Webmail-n via Chile and West Australia (return address cross1953@live.com spoofing Rip Productions Limited ) to send an electronic demand for money with menace.

This distasteful scam has a long history and Boy has buried it in the backyard:

You Have 72 Hour To Respond To This Mail Or Forget It‏

Good Day

I felt very sorry and bad for you, that your life is going to end like
this if you don't comply, i was paid to eliminate you and I have to do it
within10 days.Someone you call your friend wants you dead by all means,
and the person have spent a lot of money on this, the person also came to
us and told us that he wants you dead and he provided us your names,
photograph and other necessary information we needed about you. If you
are in doubt with this I will send you to death.

Meanwhile, I have sent my boys to track you down and they have carried
out the necessary investigation needed for the operation, but I ordered
them to stop for a while and not to strike immediately because I just
felt something good and sympathetic about you. I decided to contact you
first and know why somebody will want you dead by all means. Right now my
men are monitoring you, their eyes are on you, and even the place you
think is safer for you to hide might not be. Now do you want to LIVE OR
DIE? It is up to you. Get back to me now if you are ready to enter deal
with me, I mean life trade, who knows, and I might just spear your life,
$6,000 is all you need to spend. You will first of all pay $3,000 usd
then I will send the tape of the person that want you dead to you and
when the tape gets to you, you will pay the remaining $3,000 usd If you
are not ready for my help, then I will have no choice but to carry on the
assignment after all I have already being paid before now.

Warning:
Do not think of contacting the police or even tell anyone because I will
extend it to any member of your family since you are aware that somebody want
you dead, and the person knows all members of your family as well. For your
own good I will advise you not to go out once is 7pm until I make out time to
see you and give you the tape of my discussion with the person who want you
dead then you can use it to take any legal action.

Note: You Have 72 Hour To Respond To This Mail Or Forget It.

Good luck as I await your response.

Cross. Killer

Climate Change: open letter to the world....

Open letter published in The Guardian on 6 May 20101 and signed by 255 scientists who also happen to be members of the US National Academy of Sciences:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

• The signatories are all members of the US National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf or on behalf of their institutions.

"Yamba no more needs a McDonald's then the average person needs a bullet through the head"

McDonald's versus Yamba heats up with 466 written submissions to Clarence Valley Council against McDonald's push to enter a small NSW North Coast town, one submission asserting neutrality and only 25 submissions in support.
As well as 3,974 signatures on petitions.

One of the very few 'for' submissions contained this strange paragraph which turns reality on its head:

What is not in question is the sincerity of the thousands of people objecting to the McDonald's proposal and the 17 deputations made yesterday. This sincerity had council's planning committee refer the DA straight to a full ordinary monthly meeting next week when seven councillors will decide Yamba's future.

While letters to the editor in The Daily Examiner continue on 10 May 2010:

Ulterior motives from letter writers
THOSE living elsewhere but writing to council approving of a Yamba McDonald's may have motives such as ensuring they will then not have to face a McDonald's building in their town.
Therefore only Yamba letters should be counted.
Let's note the following:
1. The economic downturn has hurt businesses and now a further threat of a multi-national company (who can afford to go for a few years without making a profit in a town while grabbing market share) faces these businesses.
2. Clarence Valley Council has a duty of care to protect local businesses and will be responsible for any loss to small business as a result of McDonald's taking business away.
Clarence Valley Council also has to ensure resident's have the widest possible choice of small businesses in the area and should small food businesses suffer with the introduction of Macca's this will not be achieved.
3. One food business for sale in Yamba has had an interested buyer informing them they will wait and see what happens with the McDonald's application first.
Should McDonald's go ahead in Yamba this food retailer will have to financially accept less for what is, at this pre-McDonald's stage, a very successful, popular and profitable business.
How many others will be facing the same fate?
No town can take several businesses closing due to lack of interest from prospective buyers as a result of McDonald's possibly moving in.
Even those just looking to buy food businesses in Yamba feel Macca's would cost them business.
4. If this is what is happening to businesses - what then of the values of homes along Treelands and adjoining roads?How many people will pay what as home is worth now when Macca's moves next door?
Will council listen to the majority of Yamba people who said 'no'? Will they act on moral issues and hear all the concerns and act accordingly?
McDonald's doesn't equate with progress.

Let's see if council respects the people of Yamba.

Those making decisions in council are not affected by their decisions, Yamba ratepayers and voters are.

The majority of people in Yamba voted 'no'.

If council votes 'yes' we can remind council how many voted 'no' in Yamba by voting 'no' to them come election time.

CELESTE WARREN, Yamba

Isn't it enough to say no to McDonald's?
I THINK Democracy is probably one of the best forms of Government we humans can come up with so far, Governments voted by the people for the people.But however is this really so?The majority of people who live at Yamba don't want a McDonald's at Yamba.That should be the end of the story, the people have decided.What is the point of having a council that disregards or rides rough shod over the wishes of the majority of the people?
Did the council just listen to the objections to placate people and make them feel good?

Since the council has said the objections raised were not legitimate what is a legitimate reason to stop such a development?

What about health reasons?

There is a growing incidence of obesity in our population including our children do not fast food out lets like McDonald's contribute to this incidence of obesity?

Yamba is a beautiful place, no doubt about it.

Yamba no more needs a McDonald's then the average person needs a bullet through the head.

The council should not be there just to rubber stamp the wishes of multi national corporations and big business but to respect the wishes of the majority.

If it can't do this, it ceases to be legitimate form of Government.

JOHN STELZER, South Grafton

Lawrence wetland is now potentially threatened by a subdivision proposal

David Bancroft's editorial in The Daily Examiner on 7 May 2010:

A FEW years after leaving home I found myself living in a small cottage in Lawrence that real estate agents might have called a renovator's delight.

There were cracks in the wall large enough for birds to fly through, there were windows missing, others painted blue, a giant peace sign painted on the roof from some previous hippie tenants and a fuel stove that had to be lit each afternoon to provide hot water.

Some of the hot plates on an electric stove didn't work, but the massive fall in the floor came in handy to let the rainwater that came through the roof drain away.

It even had a nest of carpet snakes in the ceiling.

But for all its failings, it was a great place to live, probably the best site on the Clarence River.

You could cast a line from the back verandah, but it was out of flood; it had a huge yard and the snakes became something akin to pets.

One of the real charms of the place was the view it had over a wetland not far from the Lawrence ferry.

Each year thousands of water birds would fly in from all over the world and the trees turned white with the mass of egrets congregating there.

It is that wetland that is now potentially threatened by a subdivision proposal to be considered by the Department of Planning.

The department should demonstrate extreme sensitivity dealing with the application, as the wetland is probably one of the most valuable and vulnerable in the Valley.

It cannot be allowed to be damaged.

Hartsuyker's petition gets gaffed by Garrett

This letter to the editor by the Australian Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts in rebuttal of the Nationals MP for Cowper's position was published in The Coffs Coast Advocate online last Thursday:

To the Editor,

Luke Hartsuyker should deal in the facts when it comes to the marine planning process under way in Commonwealth waters (Advertisement, Luke's petition seeks support for local fishing and tourism, Coffs Coast Advocate May 5 2010).

A comprehensive program of work is now taking place right around the country to assess the unique economic and environmental values of the Australian marine environment. It was a process initiated by the Howard Government, of which Mr Hartsuyker was a member.

It's a process aimed at ensuring the sustainability of our marine resources now and for the future by providing both multiple use and protected marine areas in Commonwealth waters nationwide. But importantly, it's a process aimed at minimising the social and economic impacts.

The very purpose of the consultation process currently underway is to get a better understanding of how industry and the community use these areas so that areas of high importance economically or for recreational use can be avoided, where possible, when the Government creates new marine reserves.

Instead of fishing for a headline Mr Hartsuyker should reel in the facts.

PETER GARRETT AM MP

The mistake Labor made.......

The mistake Federal Labor has made in framing its policies (as it approaches this year's national election) is in thinking that Australians voted Kevin Rudd in as Prime Minister rather than voting John Howard out, that support for Labor in 2007 was only hinged on how Rudd was perceived by the electorate and voters' love affair with Rudd was a solid given.
Chickens are coming home to roost with a vengeance now as Rudd's popularity plunges in the polls and two-party preferred figures turn neck and neck after Labor ditched or deferred key policies it took to the last election.
Labor has boo-booed big time and with the mainstream media stirring the pot with the help of the Opposition Leader, who has the policy attention span of your average gerbil, this is going to be an interesting albeit confusing time for voters.

Both pics are from The Sydney Morning Herald 7a.m. on 10th May 2010

Flying under false colours in the Australian Hamburger Wars: bullied orphan and financial beggar stagger forward

Any Google search will uncover the ongoing Australian Hamburger Wars, as town after town resists the idea of multinational fast food giant McDonald's in their midst and suburb after suburb complains about the litter and anti-social behaviour associated with McDonald's stores.

There is a subtext to the fight between residents of one small Australian town and the McDonald's Corporation over its development application for a 24hr drive through store in Treelands Drive, Yamba on a commercial property currently valued at $2.7 million.

In the face of strong opposition from the townfolk McDonald's Australia is trying to paint itself as not receiving a fair go. Additionally it is rumoured that connections of the corporate landowner are 'confiding' that this commercial development is needed to help that company meet its own financial obligations to investors because it is currently experiencing difficulties in some vague unstated fashion.

Now McDonald's Australia was reported to have doubled its profits in the last financial year to $364 million and dominates the fast food hamburger industry globally with an estimated 90% of market share. It would scarcely miss removing Yamba from its current global expansion plans as it seeks to capitalise on fluctuating land prices.

While in 2009 the landowner released an annual report and fund update which indicate a reasonably healthy financial status, with a predominately commercial, retail and investment property portfolio valued at $312.6 million, $13,392,541 in non-direct property assets, an 8% vacancy rate on par with the rest of the country and, on-going monthly distributions to investors despite what the global financial crisis did to other Australian property trusts (fund members received or were entitled to receive distributions of $11,519,064 for the period ended 30 June 2009).

So in fact what we have here is a large multinational playing the bullied orphan child for public consumption and a successful investment corporation alleged to be privately donning beggar's rags in an apparent effort to sway local opinion and presumably the votes of Clarence valley shire councillors.