laughslast

why doesn't this catch on more? lolz

thank you guys for adding to this. definitely the more awareness the better. i just read this article from the sydney morning herald. i will write my thoughts later. gotta head to work http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/timor-war-crimes-need-justice-20091025-hecp.html Australia should push for justice for war crimes in East Timor rather than accept excuses of good relations with Indonesia. ONE of the most compelling moments in the recent film Balibo depicted a no-holds-barred punch-up in a swimming pool between Australian journalist Roger East and the East Timorese independence activist Jose Ramos-Horta. It was late 1975, the Indonesian special forces had just murdered five Australian newsmen in Balibo and Jakarta was poised to invade East Timor, the tiny country on Australia's doorstep. Balibo, the movie, depicted the veteran journalist East as something of a washed-up hack who'd reluctantly come to East Timor at Ramos-Horta's insistence to run the East Timor News Agency. East was portrayed as being disproportionately obsessed at times with solving the murders of the five young Australians while comparatively inured to the broader injustices being perpetrated against the East Timorese. The fight between East and Ramos-Horta is a neat dramatic metaphor for anyone who has, over the years, pondered the horrible deaths of the five Australians – and the massive injustices and human rights abuses dealt to the East Timorese for 24 years from 1975. It flares after Ramos-Horta criticises East for caring only about the dead journalists when he should be concerned about finding justice for the East Timorese. It is a gritty, tense and immensely unsettling scene that forces viewers to confront the moral relativism through which we view the murder of the Australians amid the context of broader atrocity against the East Timorese. Ramos-Horta, I found myself thinking, has a point; what happened to the journalists was terrible but it was also part of a much larger Indonesian crime against the East Timorese. It was a brilliant scene in a remarkable film. But as the movie's consulting historian Dr Clinton Fernandes points out on his website about Balibo, the swimming pool scene was "entirely fictitious". "It was written into the movie partly to confront the audience with the obvious point: 'why care so much about five journalists when so many East Timorese are dying?' The fact is those who campaigned – and still campaign – for justice for the Balibo Five also campaigned for the independence of East Timor. The journalists were murdered because they were trying to tell the world the truth about East Timor," he says. Today, of course, Ramos-Horta is East Timor's President. The former guerilla fighter Xanana Gusmao is the country's Prime Minister. Many of their countrymen and countless individuals and human rights groups the world over, have a burning desire to bring to justice the Indonesian soldiers and intelligence officials who oversaw 24 years of atrocities. Ramos-Horta and Gusmao are more pragmatic. Gusmao's Government recently narrowly survived a no-confidence motion. It was moved in protest at the Prime Minister's extra-legal decision to free Indonesian militiaman Maternus Bere, wanted by the United Nations for his part in the massacre of women, children and priests in a church at Suai, East Timor, in 1999. Besides his alleged involvement in the Suai massacre, one of Bere's associates Egidio Manek abducted a girl, Juliana Dos Santos – known in East Timor as Alola – and forcibly took her to West Timor to be his wife. Under international law, Bere is also complicit in the abduction and sexual slavery or Alola. In 2001 the Alola Foundation, a charity to support the women and children of East Timor, was established in her name. Its patron is, somewhat ironically given recent events, Kirsty Sword Gusmao, the Australian-born wife of Xanana. Bere was arrested in East Timor on August 8 and was being held in pre-trial detention pending his criminal case. But on August 30, the 10th anniversary of the East Timorese independence vote, Gusmao took the extraordinary step of unilaterally freeing Bere. In his speech to the nation on August 30, Ramos-Horta didn't mention Bere but he made it clear "there will be no international tribunal" in relation to Indonesian war crimes. He asked the UN to disband its serious crimes investigating team in East Timor. He said: "As the nation knows, my position is clear and firm on this issue: as an East Timorese and head of state, as someone who has lost brothers and a sister, as someone who almost lost his life, as someone who has criss-crossed this beautiful island of ours in the past 10 years, and know what the vast majority of the people feel and demand today, I am saying let's put the past behind. There will be no international tribunal." On September 2 UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay wrote to Ramos-Horta, expressing deep concern about the release of Bere. "This decision is extremely regrettable as it has grave consequences for the prospects of accountability for the serious crimes which occurred in 1999. It would seem to violate ... Timor Leste's Constitution, as well as the country's penal code. It also counters successive Security Council resolutions which call for accountability for past crimes. You will equally be aware of the United Nations' firm position that there can be no amnesty or impunity for serious crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide," Pillay wrote. "I appreciate your Government's desire to develop healthy relations with Indonesia ... However, I trust you will appreciate your Government should not avoid its international obligations in the name of bilateral co-operation." Defending his decision to hand Bere to the Indonesian Embassy in East Timor on August 30, Gusmao said: "It was purely a political decision for our good relationship with Indonesia." In late 1975 when the ailing Whitlam government turned a blind eye to the murdered journalists and the continuing human rights abuses in East Timor, and implicitly supported Indonesian invasion plans, such pragmatism in the name of good bilateral relations with Jakarta was railed against. Not least by the likes of Ramos-Horta. For the next fortnight, UN diplomats will debate whether to establish an international tribunal to investigate and prosecute war crimes in East Timor. Australia has effectively said it is willing to abide by East Timor's wishes. While Gusmao's and Ramos-Horta's positions are seen as regrettable by many who continue to fight for justice, East Timor cannot be expected to take the international lead. Australia can and should play a pivotal role.

no doubt

check the reference section of your local library :)

Police: Madoff associate Jeffry Picower dies at 67 Jeffry Picower, a philanthropist accused of profiting more than $7 billion from the investment schemes of his longtime friend Bernard Madoff, was found at the bottom of the pool at his oceanside mansion and died Sunday, police said. He was 67. Picower's wife, Barbara, discovered his body and pulled him from the water with help from a housekeeper, authorities said. He was pronounced dead at Good Samaritan Medical Center at about 1:30 p.m. Palm Beach police are investigating the death as a drowning, but have not ruled out anything on the cause of death. Picower suffered from Parkinson's disease and had "heart-related issues," said family attorney William D. Zabel. He described Picower's health as "poor." Picower's body showed no visible injuries, said Joseph Sekula, spokesman for the Palm Beach Fire Department. "There wasn't anything noted as far as trauma or anything to the body," he said, adding that "it did appear that he was swimming because he was wearing swimming trunks." Detectives were still at the home more than six hours after the initial 911 call. The iron gate to his long driveway was open and several Palm Beach police cars were parked near the mansion. The home and property is worth more than $33 million, according to the county property appraiser's records. Picower had been accused by jilted investors of being the biggest beneficiary of Madoff's schemes. In a lawsuit to recover Madoff's assets, trustee Irving Picard demanded Picower return more than $7 billion in bogus profits. In an e-mailed statement Sunday, Picard said only that "litigation will continue." Zabel, the Picower family attorney, said in a statement that "there was progress towards a settlement with the trustee." Picower and his wife started the Picower Foundation in 1989, which has given millions to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Human Rights First and the New York Public Library. It also funded diabetes research at Harvard Medical School. The foundation, whose assets were managed by Madoff, said in its 2007 tax return its investment portfolio was valued at nearly $1 billion. After the Madoff scandal broke in December, the Picower foundation said it would have to cease grant-making and would be forced to close. But the trustee's lawyer said Picower's claims that he was a victim "ring hollow" because he withdrew more of other investors' money than anyone else during three decades and should have noticed signs of fraud. According to the lawyers, Picower's accounts were "riddled with blatant and obvious fraud," and he should have recognized that because he was a sophisticated investor. Picower had asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, saying it was unsupported by the facts. Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence after he admitted losing billions of dollars for thousands of clients over a half-century career that saw him rise to be a Nasdaq chairman. Madoff's attorney, Ira Sorkin, did not respond to a request for comment. Jonathan Landers, an attorney representing a large group of victims, said in an e-mail that it was impossible to tell what effect Picower's death would have on efforts to recover funds lost in Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme. "While there are allegations regarding his knowledge of the Madoff fraud and his possible liability to investors, none have been proven," he wrote. Landers added that even if such facts could be proved, Picower's "death could make it easier or more difficult to obtain and collect on claims." "It may cause those who have control of his assets to fight harder because there is no longer any personal dignity or desire to settle and move on," he wrote. Jerry Reisman, another attorney representing about 26 victims, said that Picower's death does make it more difficult for the trustee to recoup some of the money for the victims. "We won't be able to hear from his own words whether he was complicit," Reisman said.

excellent Al Jazeera interviews with various leaders and revolutionaries from East Timor to mark the 10 year anniversary of the vote of independence from Indonesia. please comment

lost vulvas lost wages sin city the city that never sleeps city of lights the desert shit hole glitter gulch entertainment capital of the world

i like the picture. funny cause.............he took opium himself and was also referencing the opium wars.

and seriously wikipedia?WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!! that is your source for the end of the world. maybe the end of intelligent thought

holy fuck. my roommate use to watch all those 2012 videos and tell me how the world was gonna end showing me fucking tsunamis hitting hawaii and shit. i dont need that stress. chill out on that. i can not handle this 2012 bullshit anymore.

super cute movie but there is waaaaaaaaaaaay to much hype

false peach optimos personally tpbm has tried clear papers

she should have bought him some curtains if she was that offended

false kind of a deal breaker tpbm thinks bush is ok

you tend to get caught up in a lot of bullshit from here on out. remember what you are and what you wanna be. dont get tied down in stupid shit. congratulations

Re: COMPLIMENT THE PERSON ABOVE YOU - no homo youre looking pretty fresh

sometimes true tpbm ate at ihop recently

false tpbm will post a funny joke

stay home if youre gonna do it

like 30 seconds

Ok. I'm not exactly sure how to approach this response. Because at the core, I am an Anarchist. However, I think it is important to realize why our particular type of political system was developed. In such, it sprung from this sort of thinking about politics. Also, in this thinking it removed God or god from the reasoning as to why a political system gained its legitimacy. Not to say that you are referencing god but to clarify why I am using the Constitution as my point of reference. Also, the Declaration of Independence is quite a document but not the frame work for the political system I live in. It is a document that clarifies the political philosophy being pursued. To say you didn't contract with anyone is true in the sense that YOU didn't sign anything. Except maybe a wall. However, from the moment we are born or naturalized if you didn't pop out of a pussy here you become a part of the State. A recipient of its tools of coercing the people of the State into acquiescence of its control. Now to the Swiss argument. Good point. I personally am not a fan of solo force for the pursuit of goals politically because........well physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, now that I say that does that mean that you could eventually yield peaceful outcomes? hmmm... Well anyways. I just think that the guy wasn't trying to show political leaders who the boss was. He was trying to intimidate fellow citizens. But, I do think that with your Swiss argument sheds light on something a lot of Americans(I only reference Americans because...well, that is who I happen to interact with most) have as a misconception about Switzerland. That it is a calm, peace loving, and neutral country. Well, in reality every citizen is required to have a bunker and all that stuff. The people are required by the State to be the enforcement of the law. Which in actuality is way closer to democracy. Which the key to democracy is the demos, the people. I totally want pure democracy. I think you have a very good point. It's just.....I don't want to be intimidated. I really don't like cops walking around like I have to be subservient because they can shot to kill if I resist, and I don't like a guy walking around with an assault rifle to establish his point politically. Now me not liking it is completely different from saying something else, i.e. not allowed, illegal, should be banned. I just think politically....its intimidation. And kinda not cool. The thing is to reference how America should duplicate a system in another country is to remove historical, social and cultural points of significance that yielded both systems. Perhaps something to strive for? Yet.....its just not what we have to work with.

their**

that book is intense. the movie does not even touch on the insanity of the book. the part with the rodents was way nasty. excellent author and the depth of analysis in the book is impressive. the meticulous detail registry of thoughts and sensations in that book gives it a depth that is rarely paralleled. which on that note. if you liked that aspect of the book you may like PiHKAL: The Chemical Story, by Alexander and Ann Shulgin. The book is about two different perspectives on experimentation and the development of pharmaceuticals. One is from the scientists point of view and details his thoughts about when he is experimenting and the course of his trips. While the other is from the lady's perspective of using pharmaceuticals. There is like a love story aspect of it that I found lame, but the insight into the mind was awesome. Thick read, but very very good. Oh, and for the real science junkies there is an encyclopedia in the back of all the drugs listed, there chemical compound, definition of terms listed, and effects. Makes up about a 1/4 of the books thickness.

that was vicious

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 I really wasn't going to comment on this because of the simple observation that so many people have already covered most points. However, I must say that some of the basis for these arguments are very revealing about the basic framework we have crated in our minds as the reasoning behind the existence of government, the derivation of rights, and the purpose behind this Amendment. So in response to this...."assessment" of what I think people are trying to answer in their response to the initial video this is my answer. The reason I have deduced in my personal political philosophy as to why government in the form of the democratic-republic we have in the United States exists is because of the social contract. The social contract being where we as citizens give up a degree of control(such as immediate violent actions, to create nuclear energy in my backyard, and to wage war) to our representative in this particular government system for their protection. I think the reason government exists(that I have deduced in my own personal political philosophy as only applies to the US and should not be taken as "fact" even if derived from our own "Founding Fathers") directly implies where our rights derive from. Us. Not "god-given". I don't mean to be Nitzschean. Fuck, I mean to be Zarathustra. God is dead. At least as far as where you try and derive rights from a man made entity. You can pray to your god for mercy, but lets face it you are facing man. And man is a fucking beast. I get my rights because I stand up for it. At the very least I hope so, I hope I never regress to a neophyte plebeian. Which then leads to the purpose of this Amendment, which now the very obvious historical glaze over is: the Constitution would not have passed without this and 9 other Amendments. This Amendment and the others do not exist in vacuums of space and isolation. They interact with each one. That is the purpose of one document encompassing all this. Granted with flaws, but it is our framework that should be our reference point to our core arguments. Not the fire of our quick reactions of the heart and mind. The purpose I then see for this Amendment as per the necessity for a free State. Easy out. Same language as the Amendment itself. It is what it is. However, in response to the video. I don't think that the language of the Amendment in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution really supports what this and other people taking similar actions are doing. And lets be real REAL honest here. They aren't bearing arms to protect themselves from a State militarily threatening them. They are bearing arms to protest political actions at demonstrations through intimidation. Just not cool.