Fri, 16 May 2008  The Medical Journal of Australia recently published a paper entitled, Unplanned admissions to two Sydney public hospitals after naltrexone implants.
The conclusion relating to the use of implants in blocking opioid
receptors thus the effect of opiates such as heroin, in treating
addiction, was straight forward:These severe adverse events challenge the notion that naltrexone
implants are a safe procedure and suggest a need for careful case
selection and clinical management, and for closer regulatory monitoring
to protect this marginalised and vulnerable population.
An editorial critical of the TGA's failure to monitor the outcome of
what is essentially exploitation of the Special Access Scheme was
published in the same issue. The scheme is designed to allow access to
medication not otherwise available for terminally ill patients. The
medication must have a proven unique ability to manage the symptoms in
question. This is not the case for naltrexone implants which are being
used in unregulated settings as an alternative to other - proven -
treatments for opiate addiction. Indeed, it is this legal loophole via
the TGA that acts as a deterrent for naltrexone proponents to report
adverse reactions. From ABC's The Health Report April 21st, 2008:Paul Haber: My colleague Dr Nicholas Lintzeris and I are basically in charge of the Medical Drug and Alcohol Services at Liverpool and RPA hospitals. We realised that there had been quite a number of patients admitted to the emergency departments of both hospitals with problems after having these naltrexone implants. Norman Swan: What did you do? Paul Haber: We communicated with emergency department staff and with our own nursing staff to get a list of the patients that they had been consulted about and then got some information from the files and put it altogether. Now the important point is that there's no sort of red buzzer that goes off when this incident occurs so we don't necessarily have a complete listing of every case that came to our hospitals. Norman Swan: So what we're talking about here is a minimum? Paul Haber:
Absolutely, we've certainly had one case since completing this report
and we also know that not every case goes to hospital and certainly not
going to these two particular hospitals. [Source] A co-authour of the editorial commented. "It is concerning that the recent research on naltrexone implants in Australia has not followed usual scientific processes," Associate Professor Robert Ali, Director of the Drug and Alcohol Services Council in Adelaide, said. Reminiscent of Gibson, Degenhart and Hall's paper Opioid overdose deaths can occur in patients with naltrexone implants [MJA, 2007; 186: 152-153], this latest data caused similar responses and academic discussion over methodology. The responses to Gibson et al are interesting and indicate how difficult an area to clarify this is. Simply put, how does one die and what role - if any - does naltrexone play? I'd point out the following;
Hence, anecdotally there is some confusion regarding "deaths from naltrexone treatment", as it is often noted. However this paper did not deal with deaths - only admissions. And symptoms were quite severe, including metabolic acidosis, renal failure, dehydration, prolonged and profound withdrawal symptoms, vomiting, diarrhoea, confusion, delirium etc with some requiring Intensive Care. We can see from above we're talking about the failings of the implant, hygiene, monitoring and perhaps poor methodology in calculating naltrexone dose. It's done via Body Mass Index. Yet it may well be ambitious to think body size equates strictly to neurophysiology and genetic predisposition to neuropharmacodynamics - how drugs effect the individuals brain. Nonetheless as with all things involving naltrexone, the opportunity to observe abstinence proponents defend an ideology, in the face of evidence, presents itself. Close, chronological examination of one vocal proponent, in light of ongoing problems and previous fatalities is cause for concern. Dr. Albert Stuart Reece has been the focus of attention in the humble Firesnake Holeplex before. On this occasion another response to the denial of evidence relating to naltrexone implants. He offers no evidence - just promises. In looking for reasons why Reece may ignore contrary evidence one finds the theme of fundamental conservative morality. It's as if Reece wants to excise "immoral" Harm Minimisation and implant morality... In this episode, Firesnake looks at the rebuttal from Drug Free Australia to the MJA findings. Australia could be the biggest loser. You can read the response here. There's an extensive reply at the Drug Free Australia Watch blog. Citing "important contemporary evidence" and quoting Dr. George O'Neil
and Dr. Stuart Reece in support of the W.A. implant trials, we are
promised upcoming positive data in "the world's leading medical
journals". It has actually been submitted for review and it remains to
be seen as "a truly significant achievement", as Dr. Reece claims. In fact Reece has promised
these "radically superb", "brilliant" implants are the "best in the
world" and "statistically powerful results" will follow. However, he
said that 15 months ago in his submission to the Inquiry on the Limits of Harm Minimisation.
"The outcomes of this trial are already very obvious. They will be
brilliant, and in addiction medicine, as radically superb as the HPV
vaccine has proven in infectious disease control in that discipline",
he said in his Parliamentary Submission. Methadone itself came in for
particularly vicious and unfounded criticism. Whilst Reece is prone to
claim the presence of drugs other than opiates causes overdoses in naltrexone
patients - when the implant fails - he's also prone to claim the
opposite applies to methadone. He reasoned that 78 methadone related
deaths were really 851 because the presence of other drugs meant "the
figure should be clarified". [Page 5]. Or rather, dismissed. "Therefore the problem is not one of evidence or safety assurances -
those determinations have already been made by the many reputable and
highly skilled clinicians who have used the devices, invariably with
superb results". [Pages. 14-15] How is progress going? Well, despite DFA's claims, Norman Swan noted on April 21st, 2008; Anyway going back to the alleged harm from naltrexone implants, this
isn't the first time there's been disturbing news about them. A paper
in the last few days from Western Australia has admitted to some long
term problems and last year Louisa Degenhart was a co-author of a
paper, again in the Medical Journal of Australia, which described deaths. [Source]
Firesnake has taken interest in the moral conservatism of the religious right and it's propensity toward abstinence. It's argued that fundamental religious beliefs can have an adverse effect in the public health domain in the quest to enforce morality over evidence. It's further argued the global involvement of certain naltrexone proponents in anti HM propaganda is well demonstrated and this conflict of interest makes for poor integrity and objectivity from DFA and their "fellows". Drug Free Australia don't so much present evidence on Harm Prevention successes, as present attacks on Harm Minimisation as the self evident cause of our drug problem. Attacking the signifiers of Harm Minimisation as malignant is done over and again, rather than promote the socially unpopular strict conservative moralism, that is the assumed alternative. We follow the loyal devotion to abstinence of Dr. Stuart Reece from 1990 quotes beloved by the International Abstinence Association on the moral decline of society [bold mine]; Clearly
the “way forward” is in some respects also the way back, to the
traditional virtues which have always been shared by stable,
self-perpetuating civilizations. Clearly we need together and
internationally to turn from the immature selfish and self-centred
hedonistic delirium which saw the explosion of various serious
disorders manifested by rising trend lines in many nations and were
heralded by unsafe modern contraception and followed by its many
ideological offspring and cousins including condoms, needles and
syringes, methadone and values-free value-less so-called “education”
programs in many fields, and begin to deal with the core problems and
the root social mythologies which support them and which are clearly
rooted in indulgent attitudes of the human heart.
[Source] Enduring the "hedonistic delirium" of modern democracies, Reece threatened the QLD government, claiming they'd "have blood on their hands" if he couldn't prescribe naltrexone - September, 1999. He got his way. By the last week of May 2001, 25 patients were dead and the QLD medical tribunal launched an inquiry into "gross negligence", also noting his breaching guidelines regarding pregnancy. From ABC The 7:30 Report - 4 June 2001: ANNE REYNOLDS: He was very, very passionate. He was very
enthusiastic about his program. He was very adamant that it was The
best thing available, nothing else was as good as Naltrexone. Six hundred days after his course of Naltrexone tablets, Paul Reynolds took heroin again. ANNE REYNOLDS: He's doing it without the right - enough support. Total Mortality per 1000 Episodes, 2000 - 2003 [Source]: Methadone: 102,615 treated. 282 related deaths. Total Mortality = 2.7 Naltrexone: 3,169 treated. 32 related deaths. Total Mortality = 10.1 Two years later the Inquiry was indefinitely adjourned, Reece had hurt feelings and claimed "vindication" from a "conspiracy between drug addicts and The Courier Mail". Three months later on September 14 2003, he was on Sunday Nights with the ABC, claiming Dr. God was the one in control and that "faith cures addiction". Remember, it's not what one believes we're noting. It's what one does with it. In Februrary 2007 Dr. Reece introduced himself to the Inquiry into the impact of illict drug use on families. He glossed over his tragic past with naltrexone; I have done 1,800 rapid detoxes, which
is one of the biggest experiences in this country. I was a naltrexone
pioneer in Queensland. I have only had two hospital admissions out of
1,800 procedures conducted, which is a world safety record....
At least 25 dead and 1,800 rapid detoxes - each taking days and
requiring intensive medical support - in eight years. And he "knows the
science"? Asked about naltrexone fatalities;I defeated the cream of the methadone crop in court in a long-running battle with the medical board, so I do know the science. [Page 31] That is an extraordinary question. Have
you asked the same thing of the methadone doctors?... I find your
question highly offensive. If Dr Wodak were here and I said, ‘Dr Wodak,
how many of your ex-methadone patients have died?’ do you think he
would give a quantifiable answer? [Page 60]
On August 7th 2007 Reece wrote to the Commissioner of Health in New Jersey, USA, lobbying against needle exchange programmes and also painted his experience with naltrexone as authoritative and positive. He also again attacked Wodak; Health department figures indicated
last year that in the years 2001-2006 I single handedly registered
11,000 of the 14,000 registrations for opiate detoxification in the
state of Queensland. I have also attained one of the three largest
numbers of naltrexone based rapid opiate detoxifications in the country
of Australia with over 1,800 procedures performed including 600
naltrexone implants. This was done with only two overnight hospital
admissions which is a world safety record. I have also submitted
evidence to several Government committees and leaders on the subject of
drug policy....
Furthermore there is a clear conflict of interest by some of the leading proponents of NSP’s . Dr. Alex Wodak is the International President of the Drug Law Reform Foundation which lobbies unceasingly for drug decriminalization [Source] We also note the support of certain overlapping elements of the religious right in Australia. Firesnake looks closely at this approach toward addiction "treatment" and asks just where the morality lies. How is it "morally correct" as some supporters claim, to place ones superstitions ahead of another's health in making clinical choices? It seems plain that ideology is what defines policy and procedure for certain practitioners. At some point we must ask ourselves which dynamic is really dominating here? The health of the individual or the cosmic duty of the practioner to expunge the aforementioned off-shoots of progressive societies "hedonistic delirium"? And ensure society finds "the way back" as the way forward solution to modern day problems? I must submit dear reader, that the latter is plainly demonstrated. When the gains of democratic society are so insouciantly insulted, we may conclude the signifiers of Harm Minimisation must terrify the morally conservative and appear as invitations to debauchery. More so, it is also plain identities associated objectively with Harm Minimisation, are justly discredited in spectacular evidence vacuums, by dent of their professional leanings. Naltrexone is the emergency adjunct to faith based
education and general "just say no" abstinence, employed when they fail. Evidence to the
contrary is simply ignored as is the option of respecting the best of
both approaches. The conflict of interest here is clear. Faith and superstitious
belief cannot be allowed to intercede in the treatment of vulnerable at
risk community members. When we consider also what certain proponent
will gain from "success" and lose from failure, we must remain highly
skeptical. The last word should go to Professor John Saunders who said in 2001 referring to the Reece deaths; The first tragedy is that now a large number of young people have reportedly died having had treatment with Naltrexone. All articles mentioned in the episode are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags. 1 hour. 3 min. 25 MB. Comments[0] |
Thu, 17 April 2008  On December 10th, 2006, globally recognised Humanist, Science buff, authour of at least ten books and captivating speaker, Robyn Williams introduced another excellent episode of Ockham's Razor
for ABC's Radio National. Entitled "Apocalpse Now" the subject material
was presented by Dr. John Reid, a Melbourne based neuroscientist. It dealt with the challenges humanity faces in managing exploding populations, dwindling resources and climate change in the face of human nature and our ability to minimise cognitive dissonance. Aussies are in debt to Williams for his dedication to excellence in science and the publics understanding of the actual role, methodology and value of all sciences. The Science Show is his baby and has run since 1975, seeing Robyn prove himself as a quick witted an effective Science journalist and broadcaster. Thus it is with considerable gratitude that many "in the know" look forward to his presence when introducing Ockham's Razor. The title is one many will immediately recognise and in doing so accurately predict the production style of the program. William of Ockham was a 14th century English monk. His contribution to scientific explanation is Ockham's Razor itself and is noted famously; Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, which translates as entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. The ABC website "About" page extends the philosophy to production technique clearly informing interested parties: 'What can be done with fewer assumptions is done in vain with more,'
he said. That is, in explaining any phenomenon, we should use no more
explanatory concepts than are absolutely necessary. Well,
for both broadcasting and for science, simplicity should never be
despised. Our program, named after William, consists of a short
introduction followed by a scripted talk. Just that, week after week. This
program allows thoughtful people to have their say without pesky
interviewers interrupting, or someone of opposite views turning the
exercise into a joust. There are times when a speaker needs a clear
run, some proper control, and this is what Ockham's Razor provides.
More so, it is often the speakers role or intention to lay out hard
evidence, proposed solutions and respected findings or predictions they
have not made. At most a few sentences of reflection may be included.
Hence it is with something close to disbelief I find at Creation Ministries International an article,
viciously and slanderously "critiquing" the episode published on
Janurary 26th, 2007. Written by Aussie Creationist, Christian
Fundamentalist and enemy of reason Bill Muehlenberg, fallaciously attacking Williams, Reid and
exploiting the style of presentation to claim insouciant nonchalance on
Williams part. The title, Melbourne Atheist - chillingly consistent aplication of evolution gives
away it's intention to bolster the theistic position that evolution is
a malignant force. One that both hides the truth about "creation" and
applies genocidal ideologies fit for extreme Stalinists, Nazi's to
anyone who asks the hard questions and finds evidence to challenge the
worth of "Mans dominion over all the Earth".I had to chuckle. Reid opens with his skeptism - as a scientist - that humanity will find a way to manage our challenging future, through science. He claims so because people are adept at deluding themselves. Although Reid was referring to passive delusion leading to apathy and inaction - particuarly on the morally difficult issues - Muehlenberg grabs the ball and sprints over the line into the realms of malignant fantasy and reckless zealotry. All the time, trying to make the old "no God, no morals" claim. By the way I know what you're thinking. ABC Science Show, Ockham's Razor and Williams vs "Creation Ministries International" and Bill Muehlenberg? It's a no-brainer, and yes, Bill offers zero evidence to substantiate a solid refutation. But if you're interested read on. What became truly fascinating is that every piece of Muehlenberg's article is a false and deceptive construct, built upon demonstrably false claims and invented references to "arguments" that appear nowhere in Reids presentation. In fact, Reid actually argues the opposite to what Bill accuses him of on specific points. Muehlenberg misses this or intentionally ignores it because if one is not for God, one is indeed for evil and unspeakable deeds. Bill is a true believer. He takes the bible as absolutely literal and indeed favours the shiny new toy Creationists frequently play with: Biblical End Times. It is impossible to accept Bills piece as anything but comical, until one realises he not only claims Australia is at civil war over morality, but is also a worthy foot soldier. Jesus must return as the world ends. Why would any sensible person ignore an open invitation to paradise and attempt to save our wonderful planet? The scriptures are clear. Redeem or be damned for eternity. Could this be the basis for such a childishly and demonstrably false piece by Bill Muehlenberg? There are over twenty demonstrably slanderous and fallacious claims about Dr. Reid, Williams, science, the production piece itself and the existence of active dynamics seemingly bent on destroying humanity. All on a piece supposedly quoting from another on how to save humanity! "Reid is convinced that planet earth is grossly overpopulated, and unless we take
some radical steps, like culling the human race, we are all doomed. I kid you not."
The only way to deconstruct Muehlenberg's Rally-to-arms against reason, is to go through his fallacious and insultingly personal attack on Reid and measure it against Reid's actual presentation transcript on ABC Radio National. This episode Firesnake does just that. Let's forgive Bill for deceptively slandering Robyn Williams: there's no way one can miss the intention of Ockham's Razor to be something more than succinct. Muehlenberg forgoes journalistic credibility to his detriment. Had Williams satisfied Bills need for hand-holding the show would lose it's impact. Bill's real gripe is that Robyn has no theistic persuasions. Acknowledging climate change is an easier topic than population control, Reid is then at pains to stress it is birth rate, not living persons, we must reduce if we do decide we cannot sustain present growth. Reid argues that he has little confidence in civil means solving the problems. Primarily voluntary abstinence from procreation, due to the urge to do so and the belief in an inalienable right to have children - more affluent than their parents. At no time does he claim he has an alternative solution. At no time does he propose so much as plucking a blade of grass. He refers to the findings and suggestions of international bodies and advances the calculations specific to population, ecological foot printing, sustainability and climate change. Just to be clear: all Reid's advances note the need to reduce birth rate as a documented strain on food and essential resources, land availability and care and climate change. Reid uses an entire paragraph thusly: "Let us canvass them", after noting theories and findings do exist. Yet Bill claims "Reids talk is
essentially a claim for the extermination of much of humanity". From
here he moves quickly to inventing that Reid is alluding to a Nazi plan
to exterminate Christians and asks if Reid will "pull the macine gun
trigger", "flick the switch on the poison gas." In fact he carefully
cherry picks pieces of the actual transcript to create the illusion of a
different argument, and dresses it in weasel wording: "culling",
"extermination", "Stalinist", "socialist", "coercive". Remember, not
one iota of a suggestion human beings should so much as be touched can
be found in Reid's piece.
"... will he pop a suicide pill, or take a more 'humanitarian' view, and try to take as many with him, as in a suicide bombing?", Muelenberg rants when Reid notes the redistribution of wealth would effect the affluent most and that Australia has a large ecological footprint. Does Muehlenberg understand that of course, those with more wealth will experience a greater change because of those living in abject poverty? Hard to tell, but "it all sounds good to me" he writes, before launching into textbook Wedge Strategy deception with "after all, we are no different to animals or slugs, or microbes, according to the accepted Darwinian wisdom. So, I guess there is no problem in treating human beings as a disease to be eradicated". This is a tired trick Creationists favour. Actually, Darwinian evolution by natural Selection explains the evolution of all life on the planet and our astonishingly improbable presence as a superior primate. I don't say "improbable" as in "unlikely". I mean to point out we can calculate the probability of being born, and this includes understanding the probability of our planet forming, genesis of life, the irrefutable march of evolution, the achievements and trials of our species over 1/4 million years and finally the fact our parents "dumped" billions of suitable gametes when only two came together to achieve conception. And, how many others could either parent have conceived with? Simply put, whilst we are just half a chromosome away from chimps and indeed higher primates, Evolution explains why we are certainly not in the same ball park as microbes, slugs or diseases. Bill has no idea of how evolution works. No religious fundamentalist can hold to their beliefs and hope to seriously comment on this brilliant scientfic theory nor the hard facts that support it. Evolution proves why Bill is deluding himself. And his response is not untypical. Other ridiculous offences include linking only to other similar pieces on the same site and claiming Dr. Eric Pianka urged dropping Ebola virus on 90% of humanity - to a standing ovation of people like Reid. It turned out to be one person who "certainly gained that impression". It is a false claim, period. He also links to other pieces which twist the words of scientists and criticise Robyn Williams. Consider this quote from another piece by David Catchpoole and Jonathon Sarfari, "Doomsday Glee": In other words, it seems: ‘let’s tell our young people that there’s no Creator, we’ve just evolved, and evolution is much more wonderful than if we’d been created’. Never mind the millions of years of death and suffering, as well as false starts and extinction, that evolution (and indeed any long-age view) entails. [Source] Muehlenberg's personal attack on Dr. Reid is unmistakable and very telling about the true nature of modern Christian charlatans. Muehlenberg has attributed an entire malignant mindset to Reid based solely on his own vile mess which he then leaps into for a further four paragraphs. Bill tells us that food prices are cheaper. Global crises are not to be considered as accurate and it is actually a "birth-dearth" that has supposedly led to the challenges we face on our very trouble world. He denies globally accepted findings on climate change and insists we can easily continue to feed a population of 12 billion. His offerings include: The overpopulation orators ignore the simple calculation that all the people in the world could fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each. Also, a real population expert, Nicholas Eberstadt, in an article ‘Doom and Demography’ (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2006), pointed out that the population growth of the last century was caused mainly by reduction of mortality, especially in infancy. Contrary to the doom-mongers’ diatribes, the real problem today is not over-population but a ‘birth-dearth’. The world’s total fertility rate has declined to 2.9 children per woman, its lowest level ever. This is down from 4.2 in 1985. Bear in mind that 2.1 is necessary for a stable replacement rate. There are now around 80 countries—representing 40 per cent of the world’s population—with fertility rates below replacement level. For example, Russia, Germany and Italy now fill more coffins than cradles. Italy’s fertility rate is an amazing 1.24. In Australia the rate is 1.8. Not surprisingly we have the "anti-Christian" theme of Reid's piece invented, and then explained to us, by Bill. He peppers his piece with taunts and insults such that one finds it hard to follow his train of superstition. Even though Dr. Reid notes that the "three horsemen of the apocalypse - war, famine and pestilence" would be both cruel and inefficient at reducing the population it is the following Muehlenberg seems to have really reacted to: Our global footprint is worldwide. Meanwhile, people like the Federal Treasurer promote population increase. Sorry, Mr Costello, your 'One for the wife, one for the husband, and one for Australia', will have to be changed to 'None for the planet'! My plea is that we should face reality and begin to discuss the unspeakable. Humanity must undergo a mind-shift. If you must have a God, at least recognise he/she/it did not give humanity licence to trash the planet, whatever the Bible may tell you. Indeed, humanity has been all too compliant with the Biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.
Right now these men mainly propagate their ugly belief systems in the public arena.
Pray that they do not take control of the political processes, or we may see their
Brave New World forced on us all a lot sooner than expected.
As Dr. John Reid correctly notes; Human beings are self-deluder's. We can convince ourselves, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, that black is white and heat can flow from a cooler to a hotter body. It is this power of self-delusion that leads us to believe that somehow we will find a way to fix the problem of our unsustainable consumption of the Earth's resources. Or as Stephen Hawking noted in January 2007: "Humankind must Understand The science that rules our life. Otherwise how can we meet the future if we don't know our options?" Firesnake awards a Clear and Present Danger To Critical Thought to Bill, with a brilliant entry score of 9.2/10 for:
All articles mentioned are here. Music: Garageband. Gags, 1 hr, 4 min 25 MB Comments[0] |
Wed, 9 April 2008 
Paul Mullett is like tinea. No mater how many exhaustive feats one
tries to avoid reinfection, he can reappear with a vengeance. More so -
putting odour aside - it's painfully irritating to look at and remove
traces of his presence. Finally, one moist, warm and dirty environment
in which he thrives is Melbourne's Herald Sun; aka
The Pulp and Print Court.Suspended from active duty, and remaining a force within the "police union" [website here] he is described fondly as the "embattled union boss" in the PPC. State Premier John Brumby is somewhat serious about his police corruption "watchdog", although experts point out only a seperate dedicated body will solve the full problem. Prior Premier Steve Bracks was a fool to yield to any of Mullett's demands - many of which arose after investigations revealed his illegal ways. Please feel free to reacquaint yourself with Paul Mullett and his honest approach to power struggles. Flash Audio: OPI Police Phone Taps; Ashby, Mullett, Linnell. Explicit Language Direct Download - "save as" here. That his involvement in corruption, bullying of members, cowardice, threatening of female officers, tipping off murder suspects and ethical breaches may secure a 25 year jail term is of no moment within Murdoch's pages. This is a paper in which police are perpetual "heroes", reporting on whom is biased milk-sop pulp fiction and who regularly run beat ups and campaigns based on fallacious claims they initially propose. It's a fertile ground for a conspiracy nutter to air his paranoia. Selfless heroes with a swan song "What About Me?". Sure guys, sure. It is the latest most recent association with Melbourne's only real rag-paper that beggars belief. A day after we learn from two other sources Mullett faces a challenge from within his own union, the PPC excelled itself. The paper forwarded a "survey" packed with leading questions to a one third minority of members, collated the predictable results and pretended to have a "news" story. Packed with distractions like "devastating", "shock findings", "graphic results", "pressure" on Chief Commissioner Nixon, readers were bound to lose their way. We hear primarily of the 69% who dislike Christine Nixon. We had to wait on the good Commissioner herself to hear that only 69% of one third of Victoria Police were suitably "pulped" - shall we say. Put another way, she's actually admired by the bulk of her members. The very fact the Herald Sun survey includes responses critical of Mullett's suspension when the reality is that even his closest confidants want him gone, and ask only questions about their beat up dynamic can't be ignored. More so, most of the detail is superflous. It's a Mullett vs Nixon beat up. The Police Association Magazine actually notified members of the impending survey. Disenchanted members and Nixon antagonists had pencils at the ready. Herald Sun readers can join in. Unaware of the world outside their boxes the uncritical readers had an opportunity to vote on her performance themselves. This was replaced by a "new" poll on whether these corrupt cops should have stun guns and automatic pistols. Ironically, it's other leading piece was coverage of a rally primarily attended by Police Association members and somewhat peppered with other emergency service members. In a nutshell Police supposedly want more members, more resources, less females and no "improper association policy". The final sticking point requiring police to reveal all social contacts of a criminally dubious nature. In this episode we look at how valid these concerns are in the present climate and in the context of Mullett's real history. The final insult was the "editorial". Remember, this entire story is nurtured by this newspaper. There really is no problem other than a demonstrably right wing appraisal of it's own delusion. It included: Sen-Sgt Mullett may be under a cloud, but he stepped out with
protesting police yesterday to say 650 to 1000 police were "missing
from the front line". It seems he has a point. The results of the
confidential, online survey may cause Ms Nixon to
think again about seeking a third term as chief commissioner when her
contract expires next year. It is time not only for police command to
explain itself, but for
the Victorian Government to take responsibility over a serious upheaval
in police ranks. Saying you have full confidence in the Chief
Commissioner and the
force is not enough, Mr Brumby. This is an issue that must be fully
debated now that Parliament has resumed. The thin blue line is in
danger of becoming thinner as each new case
of violent street crime supports the findings of the Herald Sun survey.
Ms Nixon and her close advisers need to ask themselves if they need to
do their jobs differently. The onus is on proponents of this rot to serve up some evidence. It's doubly offensive coming a day after we hear of a national youth homelessness crisis. These individuals present with dual problems of substance/medication use/abuse and psychological disorders of almost any magnitude. Certainly they come daily into police contact. Is brute force really what we want here? Or is it the skills of a well educated and properly trained compassionate person we need to step back to see clearly? The other annoyance is double standards. Victorian Police are certainly corrupt - charges have been laid, conversations heard. I actually think the "improper association" idea is going to be a logistical nightmare, possibly discriminatory and perhaps of limited value. I also think it's a great idea. Victoria has no Spent Convictions Policy. Our L.E.A.P. database is compromised. Our privacy is a joke in Police hands and to Police members. Today, Victorians can loose careers, homes, families and worse solely due to the brandishing of criminal "records" by insouciant police and their nosey assistants. In other words, you and I have no such "protection" in our relationship with authorities or indeed their flawed and discriminatory use of our own personal history. That we, as a community, pay taxes for this corruption to run
unchecked in the largest law enforcement body in the second largest
city in a so-called "globally progressive democracy" is, objectively
speaking, utterly fascinating. Just how gullible are we? Fairly so, I'd
wager. In January 2007, in The Australian Don Stewart former Supreme Court Judge, Royal Commissioner and founding director of the NCA said the "deep seated and continuing corruption" will only be finally managed with a Royal Commission. He claimed at the time recent findings were "the tip of the Iceberg", describing the task of cleaning up Victoria Police as "herculean". "Only a wide ranging Royal Commission will do it". The article went on to report:
In March 2007 in an interview with Damien Carrick for ABC's The Law Report, Stewart noted,
Damien Carrick: The more things change, the more they stay they same. Don Stewart: They do. And it reflects the human
condition, and we can't change that. All we can do is our best to
minimise it.  This Episode Firesnake looks at
these fun times with audio grabs from the main players. We also award a
Clear and Present
Danger to Critical Thought to Paul Mullett himself. He slam
dunks a more than respectful score of 8.6
/ 10 for being himself. Of course, moaning about "weakening"
female officers, then using a picture of a "diminutive female"
disarming a shoddy copper during a rally to highlight the true evil of
these people we call women, was delightful. The real issue some say is this silly business of human rights and fear of "being sued". This "thuggery" - yes we're still on about a "diminutive" lass - demands we actually compromise our very definition of democracy such that law enforcement have unprecedented powers and limited accountability. Where have I seen that before? All articles touched on are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags, 51 min. 19.5 MB. Comments[0] |
Fri, 21 March 2008  Easter is a major event on the Christian calendar. Good Friday sees devotees being crucified and self flagellating in the firm belief Jesus died for their sins. Much like Christmas it has it's roots in Pagan beliefs and practices. The story it relies upon is also the story of many other deities beginning with Horus in 3000 BC. What is it about these features that see them endure in all ancient religions? Where do they really fit in Christianity? What role did the Nicaean Council Constantine formed in 325 AD play in cementing these practices and stories to Jesus? The entire story of Christ is identical to that of Horus. Born of a virgin on December 25th, began teaching at 12, baptised at 30, a miracle worker with 12 disciples, betrayed and crucified to name just some similarities. He also rose after three days. Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece in 500BC, Attis of Greece in 1200 BC. Mithra, Zoar, Beddrov, Adad, Mikado, Alcides, Thor, Hesus, Cadmus and even Bremmillah of the Druids are a fraction of the gods sharing these qualities. Similarly, we note Mises from Eqypt, Minos from Crete and Manou from India precede Moses and perform the same function. How does the age of Gemini or Taurus relate to Moses? What was his role in ushering in the age of Aries and what significance does Pisces hold to Jesus? What did Jesus say about this very topic and who does he identify? This episode, Firesnake looks at the evidence of an astrological allegory being the foundation of Judeo-Christianity. Some would argue the Sun is the "son of God" and point to Sirius, the Three Kings and the "death" of the Sun which begins to move Northward on December 25th. That Virgo is present when the Sun rises and the Crux is present on December 22nd when the Sun "dies" demands attention. There is overwhelming evidence showing that Christianity is a repeat of early Egyptian tradition with respect to these events. We also look closely at the astrological evidence in The Judas Gospel and review the brilliant science of the Antikythera Mechanism from 120 BC. Articles mentioned are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags, 42 Min 11.5 MB Comments[0] |
Firesnake
Critical Thought and the Moral Imperative
Mission Statement
Categories
Addiction
Deconstruction
Disability, discrimination
General
Justice
Religion
Scams
Syndication
Feed Catchers
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Synapse Sustenance
Skepticality: Podcast
Point of Inquiry: Podcast
The Infidel Guy: Podcast
James Randi Educational
RichardDawkins.net
Center For Inquiry
Critical Thinking on The Web
External Links
Online CBT
The Skeptic
Secular Party Oz
Visit Melbourne
Drug User Support
Counselling Online: 24/7.
Monthly Dose: Podcast
D&A; Minimum Data Set
D&A Service Data Brief: Nation Wide
Pretty Little Clock
Creative Commons
Archives
Jan 2007Feb 2007
Mar 2007
Apr 2007
May 2007
Jun 2007
Jul 2007
Aug 2007
Sep 2007
Oct 2007
Nov 2007
Dec 2007
Jan 2008
Feb 2008
Mar 2008
Apr 2008
May 2008
powered by
