Category: Current Affairs (Page 77 of 78)

The story of the kidnapping of Sean Goldman has become much more widely known in the couple of days since the US Dateline report on January 30th.

For those who don’t know, Bruna Goldman took her son Sean ‘on vacation’ to her home in Brazil in 2004. She never returned. David Goldman has struggled ever since to regain custody of Sean.

Although David has US and international law on his side, and has made frequent trips to Brazil, Brazilian authorities have refused to allow him to return Sean to the US. The situation has been complicated by Bruna’s death in 2008, and subsequent battles for custody with Bruna’s Brazilian husband.

It is tragic situation in which David and his son Sean have been treated unjustly.

But one thing that concerns me a little is that nowhere on the Bring Sean Home website is there anything about what Sean wants, or what is best for Sean. In any custody dispute the deciding factor should be what is best for the child. Children are not possessions to be divided up.

Bringing Sean ‘home’ would in fact mean taking him from what he knows as home, to a country he does not know, to a father he by now barely remembers. There is no reason to think that David Goldman is anything other than a responsible and loving father. But there is also no reason to think that his step father does not genuinely love Sean, and certainly no reason to think that he cannot provide for Sean a safe home, medical care, education, etc.

Of course if Sean does stay in Brazil, then Sean’s stepfather will have won in the end by holding out for as long as possible. He is a lawyer, he knows the Brazilian system, and perhaps has been able to use the influence of his powerful family. This was wrong. It is unfair.

But the deciding factor cannot be what is fair or not for the adults concerned, but what is right for the child.

So no, don’t bring Sean back to a home he doesn’t know. Love him enough to let him stay in the caring home he has.

‘The mandatory disclosure of thousands of contributors to Proposition 8 on the secretary of state’s Web site has led to numerous acts of vandalism, boycotts and even death threats, lawyers for the Prop. 8 campaign said in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.’

Even if this is an exaggeration, and there’s no reason to think it is, recent history, and in particular the use of privileged personal information to target individuals, churches and businesses, suggests they are right to be concerned.

This is not about ‘hiding their shame’ as some gay news sites have suggested. It is about being protected from violent and abusive behaviour.

These words from a gay man who is a retired LA police officer:

‘I thought about the events that took place even before the election:

•The Modesto man who was beaten for trying to place “Yes on 8” signs on his lawn
•Five gay men arrested in Fullerton for the destruction of “Yes on 8” signs (they had just left a gay “No on 8” rally.
•A gay Palmdale man posted a message on MYSPACE which stated, “Burn down the Mormon Church!”
Even where I live in sleepy little Acton (California), I saw several young men destroying “Yes on 8” signs. After committing their crime, they ran to a waiting car with a “rainbow” sticker attached to it.

Earlier this week, a gay man in my circle of friends (a West Hollywood resident) used his Los Angeles City computer workstation to transmit an E-mail in which he suggested his intent to commit “cyber terrorism” against those who provided money and support to the Yes campaign. Many of the addresses he posted also were government addresses, and the City of Los Angeles has strict policies which prohibit the use of City equipment and computers for personal reasons. LA City employees and police officers have been disciplined and fired for the misuse of city computers.

Long Beach protesters were arrested for crashing through police lines. In Palm Springs, angry mobs forcefully ripped a plastic cross out of the hands of an elderly woman in a yellow dress. What COWARDS! What kind of courage does it take to attack an old woman and stomp her cross? As the hateful mobs of intolerant idiots stomped her cross into oblivion they nearly knocked the women down. Given her advanced age, any fall could have caused her serious injury.’

Obama tries to enter the Oval Office through a window.

To be fair, those look like they could be French doors, and he’s only just moved in. It sometimes takes me a few weeks to remember where the light switches are when I move house.

It is not the trivial mistake by a man in a new house that makes this worth mentioning, but the difference in the way the media has reported this – that is, not at all – and the delerious gloating that greeted President Bush’s trying to open a locked door when on a visit to China, in a building he’d never been to before.

‘The CIA’s station chief at its sensitive post in Algeria is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly raping at least two Muslim women who claim he laced their drinks with a knock-out drug.’

It appears there may be video tape of the alleged offences.

If this is true there will be massive trouble in the Islamic world. And if it is not true there will still be trouble, because there will be accusations of cover-ups and of the US protecting its own.

The fact that the accused Andrew Warren is himself a Muslim may moderate the rage a little. Or perhaps not – Al Jazeera’s version of the story is a straight lift from the ABC, except that it doesn’t mention Warren’s faith.

In the lead up to the release of Windows Vista in January 2007, some 19 million computers were sold in the US with labels saying they were ‘Vista Capable.’ A distinction was made between ‘Vista Capable’ and ‘Vista Premium Ready.’ Computers which were ‘Vista Premium Ready’ were required to have more memory and better graphics peformance to enable them to run the aero interface. ‘Vista Capable’ meant the computer would run Vista Home Basic.

But now a class-action lawsuit has been filed demanding Microsoft pay the cost of upgrading plaintiffs’ PCs, on the basis that consumers were duped into paying higher prices for ‘Vista Capable’ PCs, when many of those computers are only powerful enough to run Windows Vista Home Basic.

But, duh, that’s what the label meant. That’s why there was another label for computers that were ‘Vista Premium Ready.’ If you wanted a computer that would run Home Premium, why didn’t you cough up for one in the first place?

‘Vista Home Basic is key to the lawsuit, which alleges that Microsoft’s Vista Capable program inflated the prices of PCs that could run only that edition and enticed users into buying machines that could not be later upgraded to any other version of Vista. Home Basic, the plaintiffs have contended, is not the “real” Vista, in large part because it lacks the Aero user interface.’

This is outright harassment. Even if Microsoft wins, it will still cost them millions to defend this action, not only in direct costs, but in diverting resources to providing documents, etc required by the court. And if the plaintiffs win, you have to wonder why any large business would continue to operate in the US, when this kind of vexatious and opportunistic litigation is a constant threat.

Federal Government handouts designed to stimulate the economy by taking money from people who earn it, and giving it to people who don’t (OK, I know that’s a generalisation) seem to be working well. If you make underpants, or run poker machines.

Otherwise forget it.

OK, I can see why they might be offensive. On the other hand the first described is moderately amusing, precisely because it isn’t true except as a stereotype of white Australians. The second is perhaps a natural over-reaction to unpleasant complaining about Australia, its customs and people, from some recent immigrants.

But even they if are offensive, why is necessary to describe everything as ‘racist?’ Which race is being belittled?

A patronising headline, but I agree. Victoria is possibly the worst run state in Australia, with chronic underfunding of essential infrastructure such as roads and water storage, a police force (sorry, service) which has been progressivley ninnified over the past several years, and ongoing financial difficulties. So in the midst of all this, to what what does the Victorian Attorney-General turn his mightly attentions? Why, a well run gentlemen’s club. Of course.

I have been fortunate to be a guest at gentlemen’s clubs in Adelaide and Melbourne, and found them to be nothing like Chris Berg’s description. They were relaxing and enjoyable places to be, with quiet if you wanted it, civilised conversation if you wanted that, good food, reasonable wine, and a decent cigar after lunch.

The fact is men are men and women are women, praise God. And just as sometimes women enjoy being in the company of other women, and have spaces, clubs and societies which enable them to do so, men sometimes enjoy being with other men. Why on earth should this be a problem?

You’re called to save the life of a teenage boy suffering a seizure. You can’t, or in any case, you don’t. Then when you find out who his family is, you try to blackmail them. Allegedly.

In an article on Real Clear Politics, Thomas Sowell wrote: ‘No one in his right mind would say that the Bush administration was flawless. But many of their worst political mistakes were the kinds of mistakes that decent people often make when dealing with indecent people, both domestically and internationally.’

The same could be said of Keith Windschuttle and the recent hoax of Quadrant magazine. Quadrant is an Australian magazine of politics, literature, history, art, etc – virtually anything that might be of interest to people who think. It has minimal staff resources. It is not a specialist journal.

The Jan/Feb edition of Quadrant contains an article by one ‘Sharon Gould’ entitled Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting. It is well written. It contains some rather odd views about the potential use of human DNA in genetically engineered crops, but one of the things that makes Quadrant a great magazine is that it has never been run as the editor’s personal newsletter. Views that diverge from the mainstream can get a hearing if they are well written, and carefully, interestingly and logically argued.

So when someone writes such an article, and then jumps up triumphantly and says ‘ Ha ha, I didn’t really mean it. And Sharon Gould is not my real name. And what’s more, I faked some of the footnotes,’  it is hard to respond in any other way than to say ‘So?’ or perhaps, ‘OK, you are a liar who writes well. How disappointing for your friends.’

As Keith Windschuttle has pointed out, in the case of a non-specialist, non peer reviewed magazine, there is a point beyond which editors have to trust their writers. Accepting the article was a mistake. It was the kind of mistake easily made by a decent person used to dealing with decent people.