Category:August 27, 2006

Category:August 27, 2006

By | February 28, 2019

? August 26, 2006
August 28, 2006 ?
August 27

Pages in category “August 27, 2006”

Media in category “August 27, 2006”

Israeli spy satellite launched by Indian rocket

Israeli spy satellite launched by Indian rocket

By | February 27, 2019

Monday, January 21, 2008File:Pslv-pad.jpg

Israel has today launched an advanced spy satellite, named TecSAR, into orbit on board India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. The PSLV successfully launched from Satish Dhawan Space Centre at 3:45 a.m. GMT today, with a successful cast off from the launch rocket at around 4:05 a.m. GMT. Israel Aerospace Industries report that the first signals were received 80 minutes after the launch, present at which were both Israeli and Indian space engineers.

The launch was delayed several times for unclear reasons. At one point, it was rumoured that the launch had been cancelled completely due to pressure from the US Government. Indian and Israeli authorities denied this, however, citing technical problems instead.

The satellite, also referred to as Polaris, is equipped with the latest in spy technology, including Synthetic aperture radar, which can be used to provide details information on ground cover. The BBC also reports “enhanced footage technology” – which allows Israel to receive video and images at any time of day or night, and under any weather conditions. Israeli defence officials have said that the satellites main purpose is to track events in Iran, the countries’ number one foe. The events that they wish to track include the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as military happenings in Iran and Syria.

The satellite is capable of a maximum resolution of 10 centimetres, of which the first images wil be available in “a few weeks.” Development of the satellite has been quoted as “tens of millions of dollars” – and India is benefiting from a major boost in the commercialisation of the countries’ 45-year-old space program – which hopes to compete with the US, Russia, China, the Ukraine and the European Space Agency in the satellite launch service field.

Interview with US political activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky

Interview with US political activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky

By |

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Noam Chomsky is a professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Linguistics and Philosophy. At the age of 40 he was credited with revolutionizing the field of modern linguistics. He was one of the first opponents of the Vietnam War, and is a self described Libertarian Socialist. At age 80 he continues to write books; his latest book, Hegemony or Survival, was a bestseller in non-fiction. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index Professor Chomsky is the eighth most cited scholar of all time.

On March 13, Professor Chomsky sat down with Michael Dranove for an interview in his MIT office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

((Michael Dranove)) I just wanted to know if you had any thoughts on recent NATO actions and the protests coming up at the 60th NATO conference, I know you’re speaking at the counter-conference.

Could be I give so many talks I can’t remember (laughs).

On the NATO conference, well I mean the obvious question is why should NATO exist? In fact you can ask questions about why it should ever have existed, but now why should it exist. I mean the theory was, whether you believe it or not, that it would be a defensive alliance against potential Soviet aggression, that’s the basic doctrine. Well there’s no defense against Soviet aggression, so whether you believe that doctrine or not that’s gone.

When the Soviet Union collapsed there had been an agreement, a recent agreement, between Gorbachev and the U.S government and the first Bush administration. The agreement was that Gorbachev agreed to a quite remarkable concession: he agreed to let a united Germany join the NATO military alliance. Now it is remarkable in the light of history, the history of the past century, Germany alone had virtually destroyed Russia, twice, and Germany backed by a hostile military alliance, centered in the most phenomenal military power in history, that’s a real threat. Nevertheless he agreed, but there was a quid pro quo, namely that NATO should not expand to the east, so Russia would at least have a kind of security zone. And George Bush and James Baker, secretary of state, agreed that NATO would not expand one inch to the east. Gorbachev also proposed a nuclear free weapons zone in the region, but the U.S wouldn’t consider that.

Okay, so that was the basis on which then shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed. Well, Clinton came into office what did he do? Well one of the first things he did was to back down on the promise of not expanding NATO to the east. Well that’s a significant threat to the Soviet Union, to Russia now that there was no longer any Soviet Union, it was a significant threat to Russia and not surprisingly they responded by beefing up their offensive capacity, not much but some. So they rescinded their pledge not to use nuclear weapons on first strike, NATO had never rescinded it, but they had and started some remilitarization. With Bush, the aggressive militarism of the Bush administration, as predicted, induced Russia to extend further its offensive military capacity; it’s still going on right now. When Bush proposed the missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, Poland and Czechoslovakia, it was a real provocation to the Soviet Union. I mean that was discussed in U.S arms control journals, that they would have to regard as a potential threat to their strategic deterrent, meaning as a first strike weapon. And the claim was that it had to do with Iranian missiles, but forget about that.

Why should we even be debating NATO, is there any reason why it should exist?

Take say on Obama, Obama’s national security advisor James Jones former Marine commandant is on record of favoring expansion of NATO to the south and the east, further expansion of NATO, and also making it an intervention force. And the head of NATO, Hoop Scheffer, he has explained that NATO must take on responsibility for ensuring the security of pipelines and sea lanes, that is NATO must be a guarantor of energy supplies for the West. Well that’s kind of an unending war, so do we want NATO to exist, do we want there to be a Western military alliance that carries out these activities, with no pretense of defense? Well I think that’s a pretty good question; I don’t see why it should, I mean there happens to be no other military alliance remotely comparable — if there happened to be one I’d be opposed to that too. So I think the first question is, what is this all about, why should we even be debating NATO, is there any reason why it should exist?

((Michael Dranove)) We’ve seen mass strikes all around the world, in countries that we wouldn’t expect it. Do think this is a revival of the Left in the West? Or do you think it’s nothing?

It’s really hard to tell. I mean there’s certainly signs of it, and in the United States too, in fact we had a sit down strike in the United States not long ago, which is a very militant labor action. Sit down strikes which began at a significant level in the 1930’s were very threatening to management and ownership, because the sit down strike is one step before workers taking over the factory and running it and kicking out the management, and probably doing a better job. So that’s a frightening idea, and police were called in and so on. Well we just had one in the United States at the Republic Windows and Doors Factory, it’s hard to know, I mean these things are just hard to predict, they may take off, and they may take on a broader scope, they may fizzle away or be diverted.

((Michael Dranove)) Obama has said he’s going to halve the budget. Do you think it’s a little reminiscent of Clinton right before he decided to institute welfare reform, basically destroying half of welfare, do you think Obama is going to take the same course?

There’s nothing much in his budget to suggest otherwise, I mean for example, he didn’t really say much about it, about the welfare system, but he did indicate that they are going to have to reconsider Social Security. Well there’s nothing much about social security that needs reconsideration, it’s in pretty good financial shape, probably as good as it’s been in its history, it’s pretty well guaranteed for decades in advance. As long as any of the famous baby boomers are around social Security will be completely adequate. So its not for them, contrary to what’s being said. If there is a long term problem, which there probably is, there are minor adjustments that could take care of things.

So why bring up Social Security at all? If it’s an issue at all it’s a very minor one. I suspect the reason for bringing it up is, Social Security is regarded as a real threat by power centers, not because of what it does, very efficient low administrative costs, but for two reasons. One reason is that it helps the wrong people. It helps mostly poor people and disabled people and so on, so that’s kind of already wrong, even though it has a regressive tax. But I think a deeper reason is that social security is based on an idea that power centers find extremely disturbing, namely solidarity, concern for others, community, and so on.

If people have a commitment to solidarity, mutual aid, support, and so on, that’s dangerous because that could lead to concern for other things.

The fundamental idea of Social Security is that we care about whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. And that kind of idea has to be driven out of people’s heads. If people have a commitment to solidarity, mutual aid, support, and so on, that’s dangerous because that could lead to concern for other things. Like, it’s well known, for example, that markets just don’t provide lots of options, which today are crucial options. So for example, markets today permit you to buy one brand of car or another. But a market doesn’t permit you to decide “I don’t want a car, I want a public transportation system”. That’s just not a choice made available on the market. And the same is true on a wide range of other issues of social significance, like whether to help the disabled widow across town. Okay, that’s what communities decide, that’s what democracy is about, that’s what social solidarity is about and mutual aid, and building institutions by people for the benefit of people. And that threatens the system of domination and control right at the heart, so there’s a constant attack on Social Security even though the pretexts aren’t worth paying attention to.

There are other questions on the budget; the budget is called redistributive, I mean, very marginally it is so, but the way it is redistributive to the extent that it is, is by slightly increasing the tax responsibility to the extremely wealthy. Top couple of percent, and the increase is very marginal, doesn’t get anywhere near where it was during the periods of high growth rate and so on. So that’s slightly redistributive, but there are other ways to be redistributive, which are more effective, for example allowing workers to unionize. It’s well known that where workers are allowed to unionize and most of them want to, that does lead to wages, better working conditions, benefits and so on, which is redistributive and also helps turn working people into more of a political force. And instead of being atomized and separated they’re working to together in principle, not that humans function so wonderfully, but at least it’s a move in that direction. And there is a potential legislation on the table that would help unionize, the Employee Free Choice Act. Which Obama has said he’s in favor of, but there’s nothing about it in the budget, in fact there’s nothing in the budget at all as far as I can tell about improving opportunities to unionize, which is an effective redistributive goal.

And there’s a debate right now, it happens to be in this morning’s paper if Obama’s being accused by Democrats, in fact particularly by Democrats, of taking on too much. Well actually he hasn’t taken on very much, the stimulus package; I mean anybody would have tried to work that out with a little variation. And the same with the bailouts which you can like or not, but any President is going to do it. What is claimed is that he’s adding on to it health care reform, which will be very expensive, another hundreds of billions of dollars, and it’s just not the time to do that. I mean, why would health care reform be more expensive? Well it depends which options you pick. If the healthcare reforms maintain the privatized system, yeah, it’s going to be very expensive because it’s a hopelessly inefficient system, it’s very costly, its administrative costs are far greater than Medicare, the government run system. So what that means is that he’s going to maintain a system which we know is inefficient, has poor outcomes, but is a great benefit to insurance companies, financial institutions, the pharmaceutical industry and so on. So it can save money, health care reform can be a method of deficit reduction. Namely by moving to an efficient system that provides health care to everyone, but that’s hardly talked about, its advocates are on the margins and its main advocates aren’t even included in the groups that are discussing it.

And if you look through it case after case there are a lot of questions like that. I mean, take unionization again, this isn’t in the budget but take an example. Obama, a couple of weeks ago, wanted to make a gesture to show his solidarity with the labor movement, which workers, well that’s different (chuckles) with the workers not the labor movement. And he went to go visit an industrial plant in Illinois, the plant was owned by Caterpillar. There was some protest over that, by human rights groups, church groups, and others because of Caterpillar’s really brutal role in destroying what’s left of Palestine. These were real weapons of mass destruction, so there were protests but he went anyway. However, there was a much deeper issue which hasn’t even been raised, which is a comment on our deep ideological indoctrination. I mean Caterpillar was the first industrial organization to resort to scabs, strikebreakers, to break a major strike. This was in the 1980’s, Reagan had already opened the doors with the air controllers, but this is the first in the manufacturing industry to do it. That hadn’t been done in generations. In fact, it was illegal in every industrial country except apartheid South Africa. But that was Caterpillar’s achievement helping to destroy a union by calling in scabs, and if you call in scabs forget about strikes, in other words, or any other labor action. Well that’s the plant Obama went to visit. It’s possible he didn’t know, because the level of indoctrination in our society is so profound that most people wouldn’t even know that. Still I think that it’s instructive, if you’re interested in doing something redistributive, you don’t go to a plant that made labor history by breaking the principle that you can’t break strikes with scabs.

((Michael Dranove)) I live out in Georgia, and a lot of people there are ultra-right wing Ron Paul Libertarians. They’re extremely cynical. Is there any way for people on the left to reach out to them?

I think what you have to do is ask, what makes them Ron Paul Libertarians? I don’t happen to think that makes a lot of sense, but nevertheless underlying it are feelings that do make sense. I mean the feeling for example that the government is our enemy. It’s a very widespread feeling, in fact, that’s been induced by propaganda as well.

So pretty soon it will be April 15th, and the people in your neighborhood are going to have to send in their income taxes. The way they’re going to look at it, and the way they’ve been trained to look at it is that there is some alien force, like maybe from Mars, that is stealing our hard earned money from us and giving it to the government. Okay, well, that would be true in a totalitarian state, but if you had a democratic society you’d look at it the other way around You’d say “great, it’s April 15th, we’re all going to contribute to implement the plans that we jointly decided on for the benefit of all of us.” But that idea is even more frightening than Social Security. It means that we would have a functioning democracy, and no center of concentrated power is ever going to want that, for perfectly obvious reasons. So yes there are efforts, and pretty successful efforts to get people to fear the government as their enemy, not to regard it as the collective population acting in terms of common goals that we’ve decided on which would be what have to happen in a democracy. And is to an extent what does happen in functioning democracies, like Bolivia, the poorest country in South America. It’s kind of what’s happening there more or less. But that’s very remote from what’s happening here.

Well I think Ron Paul supporters can be appealed to on these grounds, they’re also against military intervention, and we can ask “okay, why?” Is it just for their own security, do they want to be richer or something? I doubt it, I think people are concerned because they think we destroyed Iraq and so on. So I think that there are lots of common grounds that can be explored, even if the outcomes, at the moment, look very different. They look different because they’re framed within fixed doctrines. But those doctrines are not graven in stone. They can be undermined.

Selecting The Right Drug Rehab, 10 Key Questions Begging To Be Asked

By |

By Bill Urell

For most people, selecting the right alcohol or drug rehab program may be an intimidating and emotional task. This may be an area where they have little or no knowledge. It is important to select the most appropriate rehab program to increase the chances of successful engagement and cooperation in treatment. Selecting an incompatible or poor alcohol treatment center may do more damage than good. It may foster the idea that all treatment does not work. Here are 10 questions or areas of concern that will help to guide you to make an appropriate decision.

1. Is the drug and alcohol program appropriate for your needs?

It is important to match your needs to what the treatment center can offer. Is this the right level of care for you? Is the drug rehab capable of medical detoxification? Is their program age specific or gender specific? Can they handle any special needs you might have? Does it seem like you will ‘fit in’ with their typical patient?

2. Is the alcohol and drug treatment center accredited?

There are two major credential Lang organizations in the treatment field. The first is JCAHO, the Joint Commission on Accredited Health Organizations, and the next is Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). Certification by these organizations means the program has undergone site inspections and will ensure that the center meets national guidelines and standards for providing health services. I would not consider a program that is not certified by one or both.

3. What are the credentials of the staff?

The credentials to look for in counseling staff are either certified or licensed drug and alcohol counselors, preferably with master’s level degrees or above. Ask how will you matched or assigned to a counselor? An empathic patient counselor relationship is critical.

YouTube Preview Image

4. What is their treatment approach and philosophy towards addiction?

There are many different treatment approaches towards alcohol and drug addiction, only a few are in the mainstream and have statistical evidence of being effective. Is their approach medical, psychological, Religious, or spiritual? If they use words you do not understand asked for an explanation, remember you will be restructuring your life based on their suggestions.

5. Ask to see a weekly schedule of patient activities

Note how many individual sessions with counselors are included on a weekly basis as well as the number of group counseling sessions. Do they have groups or counselors they can deal with the issues of grief, dual diagnoses, and life skills? Are there supplemental activities.

6. Ask the rehab program what the recovery rate is for their patients. What is their success rate and how they define it.

This question is actually more important for the knowledge gained in how the drug and alcohol treatment program answers it rather than for a specific number they give. The fact is there is no standardized way to measure a recovery rate. It is very difficult to contact people who resume use. The statistics are almost meaningless because recovery is not a function of randomness or statistics. Your action and participation or lack of it will determine success or failure.

7. What is included in the cost of treatment? What are the extra charges? Is there financial aid available?

In many cases treatment centers we’ll do a financial means and income assessment. They may then base their fees on a sliding scale based on ability to pay, or offer a flat percentage discount. There are often extra fees that may be charged in addition to the basic treatment. Examples of these might be medical attention needed beyond basic detoxification, psychological services, specialized groups or therapies. The inclusion of these fees in the program cost is often negotiable.

8. Determine if your health insurance will cover all or part of drug treatment.

With a few exceptions, insurance companies will generally not cover inpatient alcohol and drug addiction treatment. It is usually a pitched battle to have insurance companies authorize payments for addiction treatment. Ask if your treatment center has someone specifically assigned to advocate on your behalf to the insurance company.

9. Determine the timeframe of the treatment program.

As addiction treatment centers develop a more individualized approach to treatment, the days of the standard 28 the inpatient treatments are fading. Different patients need different amounts of time to fully engage in treatment and maximize their benefits. The length of stay in treatment is usually continuously as assessed as is the level and length of aftercare. They will usually offer a range of a typical stay, such as 4 to 8 weeks.

10. Addiction treatment is a continuum of care, a process not an event. How will they assist in recommending and securing aftercare and help with the transition back into society?

What happens within the first year of abstinence and recovery can make the difference between staying sober permanently and suffering relapse. A good continuing care plan will generally involve a stepped down level of clinical treatment, take into account physical, psychological, family and spiritual needs.

Hopefully this article will provide you with a solid foundation for getting your questions answered. A positive treatment experience can make all the difference in starting a life of recovery, especially if you select the right drug rehab or alcohol treatment center.

About the Author: Tell your story! Pick up recovery tips and tricks to enhance your life in recovery. Bill Urell MA.CAAP-II, is an addictions therapist at a leading residential treatment center. He teaches healthy life styles and life skills. Visit our growing community at:


Permanent Link:

Surprise demolition of partially collapsed building in Buffalo, New York met with opposition

Surprise demolition of partially collapsed building in Buffalo, New York met with opposition

By | February 26, 2019

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Buffalo, New York —Wikinews has learned that, in a surprising turn of events, the city of Buffalo located in New York, has ordered and begun an emergency demolition on a three story 19th century stable which partially collapsed on Wednesday June 11 causing at least five homes to be evacuated. Residents are not happy, and despite the short notice of the demolition, nearly 30 people showed up to protest it. Demolition was not supposed to begin until Monday June 16.

At about 2:30 p.m. (eastern time) on June 13, demolition crew arrived at the stable located at 428 Jersey Avenue and began to unload heavy equipment which will be used to demolish the building. This came as a surprise to residents, as demolition was not supposed to start until Monday June 16.

During the early afternoon hours on June 11, the Buffalo Fire Department was called to scene after residents called 9-1-1 stating that part of the building had collapsed. Material from the building fell into the yards of at least three neighboring houses. Some of the bricks landed inside the building, while some fell into the yards of some houses behind homes on Richmond Avenue, leaving a ‘V’ shape.

At about 3:30 p.m. crews began to demolish a small portion of the stable located behind Joe Murray’s home, a resident who lives behind a portion of the building on Jersey and Richmond avenues. While demolition was taking place, the section collapsed into Murray’s backyard, prompting a call to police. Some residents who own home surrounding the building were inside Murray’s house holding a neighborhood meeting when demolition began. No one was injured when the section collapsed.

“[The building] can come down any minute,” stated Donna Berry of the Buffalo Police Department who also added that when police arrived on scene, they immediately put a stop to demolition, fearing the safety of surrounding residents and pedestrians.

“So many [of the] people [living around the building] are at risk, it makes me want to cry,” added Berry.

Police, local politicians and area residents are concerned that demolition crews and the city are not taking the proper precautions to ensure the safety of residents during demolition.

“[There is] no protection for neighbors. [This is] appalling and beyond negligence,” stated Tim Tielman, Executive Director of the Campaign for Buffalo who was referring to the negligence of the demolition crew.

“[In order to stop demolition] citizens must demonstrate direct harm to themselves,” added Tielman.

The city’s preservation board held an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss the issue. Wikinews has learned that the owner of the building, Bob Freudenheim, gave the city permission to demolish the building because he would not be “rehabilitating the building anytime soon.” Freudenheim was part-owner of the Hotel Lenox at 140 North Street in Buffalo and was also an advocate to stop the Elmwood Village Hotel from being built on the corners of Forest and Elmwood Avenues in 2006 and 2007, which Wikinews extensively covered. He also financially supported a lawsuit in an attempt to stop the hotel from being built. Though it is not known exactly how long Freudenheim has owned the stable, Wikinews has learned that he was the owner while fighting to stop the hotel from being built.

Tielman states that he was in contact with Freudenheim this morning. Tielman states that Freudenheim “is not spending a dime” to have the building renovated. Tielman states that Freudenheim has offered to sell the building to any interested party for only one US dollar, but that he “flip flops [his decision] constantly,” sometimes wanting hundreds of thousands of dollars for the building. Wikinews has attempted to contact Freudenheim, but so far has been unsuccessful.

City building inspectors were also on scene evaluating the building and ensuring the safety of residents. Donald Grezebielucina states that “some people are on notice to vacate their properties”, but also stated that no other precautions were being taken other than placing “tires and scaffolding” onto the side of 430 Jersey, which sits less than eight feet from the buildings East side.

“The gas has been shut off in case we lost the building, so there would be no explosions or anything like that. It’s so unstable, the structural integrity is gone. The chemical composite of the trusses has changed dramatically and dry rotted. There are three vehicles in the basement which totally disappeared,” stated Grezebielucina to the press while protesters yelled “save our building, save our neighborhood.”

Wikinews has also learned that local residents have consulted a lawyer regarding the issue, and hope to petition the New York State Supreme court to issue an injunction to stop demolition. They states that Freudenheim should be “100% responsible” for his actions, and many are afraid that once the building is demolished, Freudenheim’s charges of neglect will be abolished. Freudenheim is facing housing violations for neglecting the building. Though residents are fighting, Tielman states that “an injunction is unlikely.”

“We had a letter of violation against him. He was supposed to have started work to stabilize the brick this Monday. We all hope this building could be saved. But we’ve got five houses evacuated and we cannot tolerate any further delay. We’ve got to get people back into their homes in a safe condition,” said Richard Tobe, Commissioner of the city’s Permit and Inspection Services.

Demolition is set to resume at 8:00 the morning of Saturday June 14.

Mike Lombardo, the Commissioner for the Buffalo Fire Department, believes that the building was built in 1812 or 1814, making it nearly 200 years old. It is one of only three stables still standing in the city.

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)

George Deutsch resigns NASA post after Texas A&M refutes his resume

George Deutsch resigns NASA post after Texas A&M refutes his resume

By |

Thursday, February 9, 2006

George Deutsch, a controversial George W. Bush appointee at NASA, resigned his post as press officer the same day that Texas A&M University confirmed that he never graduated from the school. The resume of the 24-year old had claimed he received a “Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003.”

Mr. Deutsch gained notoriety when it was revealed he had instructed NASA web site designers to insert the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang, on the grounds that it was a religious matter. “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA.” said Mr Deutsch in an e-mail.

Mr. Deutsch also told public affairs workers to limit reporters’ access to James Hansen, a top climate scientist and longtime director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen’s lectures and papers were also to have been censored by public affairs workers. Dr. Hansen stated he would ignore the restrictions, which came through the less official channels of phone calls.

Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA chief, appeared to back Dr. Hansen’s claims of internal censorship, when he sent a strongly worded email message to all NASA employees stating “It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff.” Several other NASA employees reported similar tampering after the incident. NASA personnel told the New York Times that “Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.”

Climate science has long been linked with the space program because many of the underlying mathematical modeling techniques were originally developed to help understand the atmospheres of other planets, such as Venus.

Mr. Deutsch was given his job in NASA’s public affairs office in Washington after working on President Bush’s re-election campaign and inaugural committee.

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)

Category:May 17, 2010

Category:May 17, 2010

By | February 25, 2019

? May 16, 2010
May 18, 2010 ?
May 17

Pages in category “May 17, 2010”

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)

Italy win with last kick against Australia; into quarter-finals

Italy win with last kick against Australia; into quarter-finals

By | February 24, 2019

Monday, June 26, 2006

A Francesco Totti penalty deep in added time put Italy through to the next round of the 2006 Fifa World Cup at the expense of Australia, Monday.

The Australian Socceroos had the ball more, but the more experienced Azzuri defenders created an impenetrable defence, limiting the number of Australian scoring opportunities. This was despite the Italian team shrinking to ten men after Marco Materazzi was shown a controversial straight red card in the 50th minute.

Australia looked to have gained an advantage when Marco Bresciano surged through the Italy defence and Materazzi slid in to trip him up. Though there was an Italy defender on Bresciano’s shoulder, Spanish referee Luis Medina Cantalejo deemed that the tackle was deliberately not aimed at the ball, and considered the foul worth more than a single yellow card. It would not be the only disputed decision in the match.

Both sides had a number of good opportunities to score, but the shots were generally too close to the box to beat the goalkeepers. The best save of the game was made by Mark Schwarzer from a Luca Toni effort 20 minutes into the game.

Guus Hiddink delayed making attacking substitutions against ten-men Italy likely because he expected the game to go to extra time, and so wished to keep a fitness advantage later on in the game. Hiddink’s only substitution, John Aloisi, came on at the 80th minute, while the Italian coach Marcello Lippi had made three, including the crucial one of Totti five minutes earlier.

In the attack Totti was a straight swap for Alessandro Del Piero, a fresh pair of legs which ensured Italy were a threat on the break right until the end of the regular period of play. It was a tactic that paid dividends in the end.

The second disputed referee decision was a penalty kick was awarded to Fabio Grosso three minutes into added time (and the last minute of game time). Grosso was running towards goal from out wide having avoided Marco Bresciano before being obstructed by Lucas Neill. The central defender had fallen to the ground early and Grosso, though not tripped, was impeded and dived straight over him. Medina awarded a penalty shot as this occurred within the penalty area.

Totti, dropped from the game in favour of Del Piero, grinned slightly as he placed the ball on the spot. The ball was struck close to the upper-right corner of Schwarzer’s box, the goalie could do nothing to stop the ball. It was the last kick of the game and the Italians celebrated.

The Budweiser Man of the Match was Gianluigi Buffon of Italy.

The prize was a quarter-final match against the lowest ranked FIFA team in their half of the knock-out tree, Ukraine.


  • 1 Round of sixteen
  • 2 Formations
    • 2.1 Australia
    • 2.2 Italy
  • 3 Officials
  • 4 Related news
  • 5 Sources

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)

U.S. Senator Larry Craig to resign

U.S. Senator Larry Craig to resign

By | February 20, 2019

Friday, August 31, 2007

United States Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) is announcing on September 1 that he will resign his post, effective September 30. Craig was involved in a scandal where he allegedly propositioned another man for sex in a bathroom at a Minneapolis airport. Craig has previously claimed he was “in the bathroom for its intended purpose.” The senator said in a news conference that “I am not gay. I have never have been gay,” and that he “pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in the hopes that it would go away.” This comes just before the Republican National Convention would have called on Craig to resign.

Further developments to this story are available. See:
Republican leaders accused of double standard after Larry Craig’s resignation

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)

Australia silent on UN racism committee condemnation

Australia silent on UN racism committee condemnation

By | February 19, 2019

Monday, March 28, 2005

The Australian government has been keeping quiet about a UN committee’s repeated criticism of its record on race issues. A report issued over two weeks ago by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has not received comment from the government in the media, and domestic media coverage has been scant, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, and confirmed by a search of news search engine

According to Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) National Director David Cooper before the case was heard by the UN committee, “We fully expect the government is going to deflect it by criticising the UN process.”

In fact, this criticism was given in the session, and nothing has been heard from the Australian Federal Government since, on the committee hearing and report.

After reciting a list of Australian anti-racism initiatives, ambassador to the UN Mike Smith, described the 18 committee members’ work in the previous session five years ago as “cursory” and “unreasonable”. He said they had largely ignored progress being made in Australia, yet displayed “an unquestioning acceptance” of critics of the Government.

Regis de Gouttes of France called Mr Smith “exceptionally rude”.

Jose Lindgren Alves of Brazil told him, “As a veteran diplomat, this statement, with its language describing programs and attacks on NGOs, reminds me of the sort of statement from communist bloc countries and Latin American dictatorships that Australia used to condemn.”

The committee was positive about a number of improvements in race-related issues in Australia over the five years since its last report. These were,

  • the criminalising of acts and incitement of racial hatred in most Australian States and Territories
  • progress in the economic, social and cultural rights by indigenous


  • commitment of state and federal governments to work together on the issues
  • programmes and practices among the police and the judiciary, aimed at reducing the number of indigenous juveniles entering the criminal justice system
  • the abolition of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory
  • the adoption of a Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society to ensure that government services are provided in a way that is sensitive to the language and cultural needs of all Australians
  • and the numerous human rights education programmes developed by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).

However the report contained a large number of serious criticisms, and a reminder that the Convention prohibits direct as well as indirect discrimination. Australia was asked to report back on progress on a number of items within one year.

The criticisms were,

  • that there was nothing to stop racially discriminative Commonwealth laws
  • proposed reforms to HREOC that may limit its independence and hinder its effectiveness at monitoring Australia’s compliance with the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
  • the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), an elected body of indigenous representatives, the main policy-making body in Aboriginal affairs
  • a lack of legislation criminalising serious acts or incitement of racial hatred, in the Commonwealth, the State of Tasmania and the Northern Territory
  • that reported prejudice against Arabs and Muslims had increased
  • that counter-terrorism legislation may have an indirect discriminatory effect against Arab and Muslim Australians
  • reportedly biased treatment of asylum-seekers by the media
  • difficulty in gaining successful litigation under the Racial Discrimination Act in the absence of direct evidence
  • that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts since 2001
  • reversal since 1998 of progress made under 1993’s Native Title Act and Mabo case, with new legal certainty for government and third parties provided at the expense of indigenous title
  • diverging perceptions between governmental authorities and indigenous peoples and others on the compatibility of the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act with the Convention
  • that proof of continuous observance and acknowledgement of the laws and customs of indigenous peoples since the British acquisition of sovereignty over Australia is required to establish native title
  • very poor conditions of employment, housing, health, education and income for indigenous Australians, compared with non-indigenous
  • mandatory sentencing in Western Australia, which disproportionately impacts indigenous Australians
  • the “striking over-representation” of indigenous people in prison, and dying in custody
  • that indigenous women are the fastest growing prison population
  • allegations, accompanied by State denials, of discrimination in the grant of visas against Asian and Muslim people
  • Australia’s mandatory detention of migrants determined to be illegal, including asylum-seekers, particularly when it affects women, children, unaccompanied minors, and the stateless
  • that many have been in detention for over three years
  • lack of access by many migrants and protected refugees to social security
  • precariousness of circumstances, and denial of right of family reunion, for many protected refugees
  • that the Federal Government has rejected most of the recommendations adopted by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation given in 2000

categories Uncategorized | comments Comments (0)