Anthony's Web Site

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

-Sauce unknown

logged by Anthony at 2:03:02 PM Link

More reasons against the death penalty!

Beware Amrozi's death sentence

If the Bali bombers face the firing squad, many innocent people may die as a result, writes Greg Barton.

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword." It is hard to argue with this principle - and it is hard to feel too sorry for Bali bomber Amrozi. There are, however, good arguments for not executing him and his fellow terrorists.

There is, of course, the philosophical argument against capital punishment: an argument that, disturbingly, has gone missing in action in senior ALP and Liberal Party circles in recent days.

While it is understandable that some victims of the bombing, whether in Indonesia or Australia, speak of their desire to see Amrozi die for his crime, it is not clear why proclaimed opponents of capital punishment should be so untroubled by its application in this case. On what basis can we argue against the death penalty in, say, the US and China, and then support it in Indonesia?

Sure, Amrozi is not some poor, defenceless schmuck sentenced under dubious circumstances. Unlike so many on death row in America, there can be little doubt Amrozi is a murderer. But if the Indonesian authorities, which up until this point have been deeply reluctant to regularly carry out capital punishment, are now given a green light by friends and neighbours to call up the firing squads, how can we be sure that in future many whose guilt is far less certain will not also be killed?

And if this troubled nation should go the way of China and come to make a habit of regular executions in the thousands, we would be in no position to criticise.

But even if, in principle, we support capital punishment, there is another powerful reason for not endorsing it in this case. If the Bali bombers face the firing squad there may well be many more lives lost than just theirs. The bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta last Tuesday was a horrible reminder that we have a long way to go before we can outflank Jemaah Islamiah and be sure of preventing it from attacking again.

If the Bali bombers are put to death we risk losing valuable intelligence about JI that could help prevent future bombings. Amrozi himself, evidently a willing but low-level foot soldier, may not know a lot more than he has already revealed. His friends Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (Ali Gufron), however, are a different matter.

Hints of the story yet to be told emerged in late July when the defence case of alleged JI leader Abu Bakar Bashir was dealt a mortal blow after Malaysian JI operative Mohammed Nazir bin Abbas testified in Bali about his 15-year association with Bashir. He detailed how after first meeting Bashir in Malaysia in 1987 he and alleged Bali bomber and older brother of Amrozi, Mukhlas, were sent to Afghanistan to join the jihad against the Soviets. After this they studied at a military academy in Pakistan before returning to Malaysia to live with Bashir. In 1993 they helped him establish JI and set up a series of mantiqi, or operational spheres, across South-East Asia.

Up until now the unrepentant Mukhlas and Samudra have said little, and in retracting earlier admissions Samudra now seems determined to ensure his trial will yield little information of value. Even so, who can say that after months or years of incarceration the likes of Samudra or Mukhlas will not begin to talk? After all, Ali Imron, brother of Mukhlas and Amrozi, has already had a change of heart.

With a little more information of the kind provided by Mohammed Nazir bin Abbas, other JI operatives could be identified and apprehended before they act, and it might be possible to track down Hambali and the other masterminds of the JI network.

Without such information we face the near certainty of further attacks. Surely this is a good argument for not dispatching the few people we now have who can tell us more.

We should also be concerned about anything that might help Amrozi and his fellow criminals achieve their longed-for martyr status. This is not to say that any but a tiny proportion of Indonesia's 200 million Muslims would see them as martyrs. Most Indonesians feel exactly the same way about the bombers as do most Australians.

But as judicial executions often provoke sympathy for those who least deserve it, and as JI's perverted romanticising of jihad is, sadly, able to sway small numbers of the young and the vulnerable, denying them a dramatic denouement and instead leaving the terrorists to slip unglamorously into obscurity in jail seems a better course of action.

Another reason for not rushing to condone the execution of alleged terrorists comes from the troubled nature of Indonesian society. We can be pretty certain that those found guilty of heinous crimes by the court in Bali should be rightly condemned, but it is seldom the case that we can feel so confident about the Indonesian legal system.

The danger of establishing precedents in executing the Bali bombers is that in the months and years to come other young men will be arrested, charged with terrorism, found guilty and sentenced before they have the opportunity to tell their story. Given the track record of the Indonesian military and the present struggle for power in Indonesia, there is good reason to be concerned that the war on terrorism is not used as a mechanism for dispatching those who might have too much to say.

The military's involvement in the past with radical Islamist militia such as Laskar Jihad in Maluku and Sulawesi, where thousands have died, should be reason enough for caution now. Sooner or later legitimate intelligence investigations into JI and other terrorist groups are bound to intersect with stories that some in the military would rather not have told.

This is not a case for "megaphone diplomacy" - far from it. After all, even if we politely express our reservations about applying the death penalty in cases like this, there is no reason to believe that the Indonesian authorities would, or should, change their course.

Nevertheless, we delude ourselves if we argue that what we say has no impact. We are, in a myriad of subtle ways, participants as well as observers in this drama, and our statements, whether principled, consistent and sage, or otherwise, are not without consequence.

Dr Greg Barton is a senior lecturer in politics at Deakin University and the author of Abdurrahman Wahid, Muslim Democrat, Indonesian President: A view from the inside (UNSW Press, 2002).

Source The Age

logged by Anthony at 2:01:22 PM Link

Well now you can say sorry dear I have to stay back and have a drink with my workmates so I can get promoted.

A drink with workmates gets you the good oil

THAT glass of Guinness is not only good for you, it may also be good for your career. And so is any other alcoholic beverage, so long as it's shared with your workmates.

A new study has found that those who enjoy a drink with work colleagues earn more and have a better chance of being promoted.

The study, from Stirling University in Scotland, has found that, on average, moderate drinkers earn 17 per cent more than their teetotal comrades. And even men who consume more than 50 standard drinks a week - or 35 units for women - take home more than those who abstain.

Having slipped out of the office for a lunchtime tipple at the Occidental Hotel in Sydney yesterday, Jeremy Dell and Steve Priestman toasted the findings.

Dell and Priestman believe that the key to a successful career is the ability to communicate with colleagues. "Having a drink helps the informal discussions," Dell said. "You form friendships and networks outside the structured bureaucracy that really help you."

Priestman, 29, a marketing analyst, agrees: "Going out to have a chat and a beer with a key person from work can be the clincher for a promotion."

Priestman and Dell drink with other AAPT staff no more than once or twice a week. But should they regularly refuse the offer of a Friday afternoon beer, their chances for a promotion could be affected, they claim.

"It's not so much the alcohol as the social side, and being part of a team," Dell, 28, said. "It's a young and social place. And there's sort of an implied pressure to join in."

Jim Bright, a workplace psychologist at the University of NSW, said that so long as the pub did not become an alternative workplace, and that a culture didn't develop that expects alcohol consumption, drinking with colleagues can build trust and strengthen relationships.

"It's long been suspected that it's not what you know, but who you know. And what you know about them," Dr Bright said. "At the pub you pick up on all the important pieces of information you might otherwise miss out on."

By Drew Warne-Smith and agencies. Source The Australian

logged by Anthony at 1:59:44 PM Link

Just to show how much of a problem a viruses attack can be, one recent virus that taunts Bill Gates. A quick search of Google for the key words "Billy Gates why do you make this possible? Stop making money and fix your software" and as at the time of posting this article the virus had generated 420 news articles around the world within the last 24 hours out of a total of 464 since two days ago. Credit to CNET and ZDNET for being the first.

Click to see the current count

PS Get the patch

UPDATE: 9 Sep count now up to 1280.

logged by Anthony at 1:59:07 PM Link