Aehso’s Output

From this article on Sean Gilbride’s performance at the Mahon Tribunal yesterday

A former Fianna Fail councillor, who was on developer Owen O’Callaghan’s payroll during critical Quarryvale rezoning votes, never told other councillors he was being paid the equivalent of his teacher’s salary for almost a year.
…
He said he had always been supportive of Quarryvale. The fact he was being paid by Mr O’Callaghan had nothing to do with it.

I might have to start posting a series of these.

Aside, did you know that the Mahon Tribunal has been running since Nov 4th, 1997?

I can’t describe how disturbing this is, one wonders what the bullshit justification for this will be - stupidity, stress, orders?

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

- An excerpt from President Bush’s speech on Jan 10th, 2007. Responsibility, anyone?

Amazing statistic of the day : 35,000 people are (apparently) being held in secret prisons around the world.

To put that figure in perpective, the combined population of prisoners in Ireland (that we know of!) is around 3,199 (Irish Prison Service - 2004 figures) + 1472 (NI Prison Service) = 4,571 people (and no leprechauns) at any given time.

(via Searchblog)

I stumbled across this program last night while checking to see what time MOTD2 was one and I started watching. Talk about blurring the line between drama and documentary! Today, it seems to be generating quite a bit of a stir in the media but the mainstream masses will only remember what they saw.

Why air a non-factual docudrama about such an emotive issue? To entertain? To educate?

Salon have obtained more documents on the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal.  I am at a loss for words at this stage.  How can anyone defend this?  What happened to the chain or command (and responsibility)?  How can these people sleep at night?  So many questions…

[Update 26/01/06: Chomsky's lecture is now available as a podcast from NewsTalk 106]

Noam Chomsky’s interview on Newstalk 106 (podcast RSS) this morning was interesting although I didn’t care much for Dunphy’s incessant attempts to put words into Chomsky’s mouth (nor did Chomsky for that matter but he dealt with it without breaking his stride, as usual.) Despite what Dunphy might think in that little shrivelled head of his, he was way out of his depth interviewing a titan like Chomsky.

Chomsky’s passing references to ongoing interference by the West in the affairs of Latin American states was an interesting part of the conversation so todays link from BoingBoing to Kathryn Cramer’s attempts to find out more about a US-expat-owned mercenary army that is operating in Haiti grabbed my attention this lunch-time.
Her story is worth a read (and presumably is not over yet). The organization in question calls itself the “Consultants Advisory Group”. It has no office address, wants to be known as a ‘management consultancy’ and is apparently conducting covert surveillance of public debates between Haiti’s presidential candidates, posing as journalists. It is run by former “agency” and military personnel. I hope she finds those people who have disappeared.

As I commented a few months ago, wearing a heavy jacket (even if it is the coldest July day for 25 years), carring a bag with electronics, wearing glasses, missing eye contact and speaking with a foreign accent can easily get you arrested if you try to ride the Tube. I was half joking but it has since happened to David Mery.

I suppose it’s progress from shooting him in the head 5 times. It is shocking that they would misinterpret doodles in red ink as a map. It is also impossible to understand why they have not yet returned his posessions despite it all being a clear misunderstanding. Is this the authorities way of subtly “getting back at” innocent people who they arrest in error?

I’m not sure this entry even belongs under my politics category. A new “police state” category is called for.

This is shocking. The International Association of Chiefs of Police have issued guidelines advising officers who confront a suicide bomber [...] to shoot the suspect in the head. Take a second to analyse that nouns used in that sentence - first the target is identified as “a suicide bomber”, then a “suspect”. The same thing?

I digress, I think anyone who reads of this change of policy has to wonder is it really such a good idea for individual officers to be judge, jury and executioners, no matter what the risk.

So things are going to have to change. I probably won’t be able to listen to my iPod in public anymore - it might protrude from my bag(1) and then there’s the obvious visible wires(2). And as I’m not a great singer - I tend to mouth the lyrics (when I know them) but that could be misstaken for mumbling prayers(3). I also tend to space out a litte when I’m listening to music - so much so that I’m not looking to engage eye contact(4). Oh, and my ear buds seal my ear, drowning out all background noise (they are Sony MDR-EX71s, highly recommended) so I don’t normally hear unexpected calls, phone or person(5). 5 “anomolies” that could get me shot in the head for listening to my iPod. Am I really that weird?

I am kidding, a bit, but if these really are the critera they are going to use then it’s bound to happen to someone. (I was going to comment on Apple’s stock price but that would be in bad taste).

It’s pretty funny to think that the school immediately couldn’t see the humour in the situation but their administrations have failed to notice that forcing children to recite the pledge is not educational. Does an eight year old really fully understand the concepts of a nation, government, allegiance, freedom of expression? (If so, why can’t they vote?) But anyway, I digress.
The reason I’m posting is to point out a contribution from one of the commentors wo says:

You might find West Virginia St. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) to be interesting reading. There, the Supreme Court held that it’s unconstitutional for the government to require children to recite the pledge or salute the flag. Note that this was during the height of WW2, and the Court felt that one of the essential things that seperated us from our enemies then was that we could not require it. Note also that it has nothing to do with religious belief (though it was brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses), and that it predates the addition of the words ‘under God.’ Reciting a different pledge might be grounds for punishment if it’s disruptive. Doing nothing is protected, however. You can google for the opinion, or read it here:

Wikipedia has a great article on the history of the pledge - or you could Google it and find some ‘interesting’ sites..

I think this sums him up.