Mailroom Page 5
Addressees names removed to protect their privacy
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: The economy is so bad that...
The economy is so bad that:
I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
I ordered a burger at McDonald's and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"
CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM.
McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico .
Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting.
Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore.
The Mafia is laying off judges.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh Great!! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!
And, finally...
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Lifeline. I got a call center in Pakistan and when I told them I was suicidal they got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.
Stolen Generations ?
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:48 AM
Subject: FYI - The death of the "Stolen Generations" myth
The death of the “stolen generations” myth
Andrew Bolt – Saturday, January 30, 10 (07:59 am)
Another myth crumbles - this time the “stolen generations” claim that racist Australia committed genocide by stealing up to 100,000 children from their Aboriginal parents just to wipe out their race.
Keith Windschuttle today shows how few children were actually removed from their Aboriginal parents, and that many of those in the few homes that in fact existed were actually sent there for good reasons. For instance:
In the post-war Northern Territory, 80 per cent of children in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin and almost all those at the St Mary’s hostel in Alice Springs (the Territory’s sole institutions for part-Aboriginal children) were of school age, between five and 15. This was not surprising since the main reason for these homes’ existence was to provide board for children sent by their parents to go to school.
Windschuttle also demonstrates the brazen falsity of Professor Robert Manne’s claim that a keep proof of the “stolen generations” was that the Australian government in the 1930s had endorsed a genocidal policy to “breed out the colour”. First, says Windschuttle, Manne is talking about some proposal to discourage part-Aboriginal women from marrying Aborigines, and not about a plan to steal their children. Second:
(Manne) stopped short of revealing that the events concluded with cabinet throwing out the proposal and the minister denouncing it in parliament. To have told it all would have publicly disproved his case about the Stolen Generations and the allegedly racist and genocidal objectives of government policies in the 1930s.
The historian who invented the “stolen generations” label, Professor Peter Read, is also found out (again):
Read claimed the files of individuals removed by the (NSW) Aborigines Protection Board revealed the motives of those in charge. “The racial intention was obvious enough for all prepared to see, and some managers cut a long story short when they came to that part of the committal notice, `reason for board taking control of the child’. They simply wrote `for being Aboriginal’.”
My examination of the 800 files in the same archive found only one official ever wrote a phrase like that. His actual words were “being an Aboriginal”. But even this sole example did not confirm Read’s thesis. The girl concerned was not a baby but 15 years old. Nor was she sent to an institution. She was placed in employment as a domestic servant in Moree, the closest town to the Euraba Aboriginal Station she came from. Three years later, in 1929, she married an Aboriginal man in Moree.
In short, she was not removed as young as possible, she was not removed permanently, and she retained enough contact with the local Aboriginal community to marry into it. The idea that she was the victim of some vast conspiracy to destroy Aboriginality is fanciful.
Read the whole piece, or, better still, Windschuttle’s new book on the creation of the “stolen generations” myth and the role of academics in this great fraud.
Windschuttle concludes:
Rather than acting for racist or genocidal reasons, government officers and missionaries wanted to rescue children and teenagers from welfare settlements and makeshift camps riddled with alcoholism, domestic violence and sexual abuse. In NSW, WA and the Territory, public servants, doctors, teachers and missionaries were appalled to find Aboriginal girls between five and eight years of age suffering from sexual abuse and venereal disease. On the Kimberley coast from the 1900s to the 1920s they were dismayed to find girls of nine and 10 years old hired out by their own parents as prostitutes to Asian pearling crews. That was why the great majority of children removed by authorities were female…
Government officials had a duty to rescue children from such settings, as much then as they do now.
And should you doubt Windschuttle’s evidence that the “stolen generations” is a myth, I repeat the challenge I’ve put for years to Manne and others. You have said that between 25,000 and 100,000 children were stolen from their parents in a racist scheme to destroy the Aboriginal race. Name just 10 such children.
Manne has tried three times to answer my challenge and failed. Hundreds of thousands of Australians who were taught the “stolen generations” myth as fact in their schools must now ask what it says about our education system that it can be so hijacked and corrupted by ideologues. And what does it say about our academics that they, more than anyone else, are responsible for the manufacturing of a grotesque and completely unsubstantiated myth?
Stolen Generations"Insider's view of the Copenhagen disaster
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:53 PM
Subject: An insider's view of the Copenhagen disaster
We who know Christ try to remember that "All power is given unto Him in Heaven and Earth" (Matt. 28:18) So when the leaders of the nations of the world gather to promote the latest hysterical agenda, we watch to see whether our Lord Jesus Christ will allow them to stick their heads farther into the noose that awaits all the nations that forget God, or allow them to lean farther out the window (for a photo-op?), or whether He will resist their follies and turn them back in His mercy. I was interested when I saw this headline on the Liveleak site, simply because it is the first eyewitness report I have read about what happened behind the close doors at Copenhagen. The write is obviously a climate change believer and openly confesses his disappointment when China puts the boot in. Or throws a spanner in the works, whatever.
I think we need to keep a sharp eye on China, but isn't it interesting that God used one of the last openly Communistic nations to thwart Mr. Obama's efforts to set up the next phase of a one world government?
Insights, anyone?
Bro. Buddy Smith
Mark Lynas guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009 19.54 GMT
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the More.. blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas/print
The Copenhagen Disaster"
