Monday, 30 August 2010
the unutterable tool Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (his latest wheeze is to publicly wish for Abu Mazen to be eradicated from the plane of existence) is clearly a horrible bigot with a despicable and total disregard for humanity.
reading the BBC story, an aspect of another one of Yosef's past announcements is particularly disturbing.
in the box about halfway down the page, they write
"Rabbi Yosef: Man of controversy
5 August 2000:
Said the Nazi Holocaust was God's retribution against Jewish sinners.
Later added that he believed all six million Jewish victims were pure and complete saints."
the second part of this formulation, about Holocaust victims all being pure and complete saints, is troublesome. (let's ignore the first part, which is standard wingnut fare.)
if you take this narrative to its logical conclusion, it could be used to imply only people of virtue are worth commemorating and fighting for when they fall victim to rights abuses, and such.
it could be used to imply that, for example, generally unpleasant people with some socially obnoxious views who may fall prey to rights abuses, are not worth seeking remedy for as much.
this is a departure from universal norms, which are the only true currency of human rights, and which are of course diminished by the likes of Yosef's words and some of the actions of Israel, just as surely as they are diminished by the words and actions of some of Israel's enemies.
speaking of Israel:
AUGUST 18, 2010
(Jerusalem) - The Israeli government should immediately stop demolishing the homes of Bedouin citizens in the Negev desert in southern Israel and should compensate those displaced and allow them to return to their village pending a final agreement that respects their rights under international law, Human Rights Watch said today.
it does seem, in many ways, that Israeli Bedouin Arab citizens have a similar lot to how Roma residents are treated in some European countries.
unpeople all.
reading the BBC story, an aspect of another one of Yosef's past announcements is particularly disturbing.
in the box about halfway down the page, they write
"Rabbi Yosef: Man of controversy
5 August 2000:
Said the Nazi Holocaust was God's retribution against Jewish sinners.
Later added that he believed all six million Jewish victims were pure and complete saints."
the second part of this formulation, about Holocaust victims all being pure and complete saints, is troublesome. (let's ignore the first part, which is standard wingnut fare.)
if you take this narrative to its logical conclusion, it could be used to imply only people of virtue are worth commemorating and fighting for when they fall victim to rights abuses, and such.
it could be used to imply that, for example, generally unpleasant people with some socially obnoxious views who may fall prey to rights abuses, are not worth seeking remedy for as much.
this is a departure from universal norms, which are the only true currency of human rights, and which are of course diminished by the likes of Yosef's words and some of the actions of Israel, just as surely as they are diminished by the words and actions of some of Israel's enemies.
speaking of Israel:
AUGUST 18, 2010
(Jerusalem) - The Israeli government should immediately stop demolishing the homes of Bedouin citizens in the Negev desert in southern Israel and should compensate those displaced and allow them to return to their village pending a final agreement that respects their rights under international law, Human Rights Watch said today.
it does seem, in many ways, that Israeli Bedouin Arab citizens have a similar lot to how Roma residents are treated in some European countries.
unpeople all.
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Juan Muñoz
June 17 1953; August 28 2001
'He once said his work was about a man in a room, waiting for nothing.'
Friday, 27 August 2010
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
House GOP leader John Boehner gave a speech today in Ohio about his policy demands as he limbers up for a shot at becoming Speaker.
the Daily Kos has gone to the trouble of fisking what Boehner actually said, and it turns out - i hope you are sitting down as you read this - that what he said was a load of old cobblers.
(i know, i know. me too.)
turns out the only time Boehner goes into much practical detail (as opposed to making absurd moon-on-a-stick requests in Obama's direction) it's to laud a set of proposals from GOP Congressman Paul Ryan.
unfortunately, as the Kos notes, this eventually brings us back to, well
In other words, far from being some brilliant new innovation, Ryan's Roadmap is basically the same sort of economic mumbo-jumbo peddled for years by the Bush administration and conservative Republicans.
And it's now the centerpiece of John Boehner's economic platform as he campaigns for Speaker, which brings us back to the central question voters will face this November: do they want to allow Democrats to continue trying to revive the economy, or do they want to give up on the Dems and go back to the Bush economic policies of the Republican Party?
(via.)
the Daily Kos has gone to the trouble of fisking what Boehner actually said, and it turns out - i hope you are sitting down as you read this - that what he said was a load of old cobblers.
(i know, i know. me too.)
turns out the only time Boehner goes into much practical detail (as opposed to making absurd moon-on-a-stick requests in Obama's direction) it's to laud a set of proposals from GOP Congressman Paul Ryan.
unfortunately, as the Kos notes, this eventually brings us back to, well
In other words, far from being some brilliant new innovation, Ryan's Roadmap is basically the same sort of economic mumbo-jumbo peddled for years by the Bush administration and conservative Republicans.
And it's now the centerpiece of John Boehner's economic platform as he campaigns for Speaker, which brings us back to the central question voters will face this November: do they want to allow Democrats to continue trying to revive the economy, or do they want to give up on the Dems and go back to the Bush economic policies of the Republican Party?
(via.)
Monday, 23 August 2010
one of the many perennially awesome rolling threads on Dissensus is questions you are dying to ask but are too scared to b/c of music nerd cred?
New Jersey's gentlemanly Leo recently posed 'bashment...is it the same thing as dancehall? a form of dancehall? not related to dancehall at all?', which got a fabulous, short, informative reply from the lovely John Eden here.
(see also Tea, who has recently put up the self-explanatory Mr. Tea's Top 10 Badass Phenomena, an extremely freakin' brilliant piece of work.)
New Jersey's gentlemanly Leo recently posed 'bashment...is it the same thing as dancehall? a form of dancehall? not related to dancehall at all?', which got a fabulous, short, informative reply from the lovely John Eden here.
(see also Tea, who has recently put up the self-explanatory Mr. Tea's Top 10 Badass Phenomena, an extremely freakin' brilliant piece of work.)
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
UK benefits fraud debate *: "Only about 1% of all benefits are fraudulently claimed" (i.e. about one billion pounds, to which one can add about 460 million pounds of fraudulently claimed child and working tax credits)
this is not the impression you would get from following some of the country's right-leaning media.
the amount of tax evasion in the UK may be to the tune of about 70 billion pounds.
this is also not something you would glean from following the country's right-leaning media, although for totally different reasons to the first observation's occurrence.
tangentially, wrt that 1% figure above, David Osler makes an interesting and fair note when he points out
A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Even so, it is little more than small change in comparison with the £850bn spent on the bank bailout.
* by debate, i mean a public schoolboy Prime Minister - whose father was a stockbroker and whose business executive wife is the daughter of a land-owning Baronet - lining up to roll back the frontiers of the state, cheered on by the likes of certain misguided Guardian columnists, and the populist conservative nitwits that populate much of the British printing presses.
incidentally, if you think mentioning the guy's background is unreasonable, Cameron himself brought this into the terms of the debate w his recent 'i'm just a normal, sharp-elbowed middle-class guy' routine
this is not the impression you would get from following some of the country's right-leaning media.
the amount of tax evasion in the UK may be to the tune of about 70 billion pounds.
this is also not something you would glean from following the country's right-leaning media, although for totally different reasons to the first observation's occurrence.
tangentially, wrt that 1% figure above, David Osler makes an interesting and fair note when he points out
A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Even so, it is little more than small change in comparison with the £850bn spent on the bank bailout.
* by debate, i mean a public schoolboy Prime Minister - whose father was a stockbroker and whose business executive wife is the daughter of a land-owning Baronet - lining up to roll back the frontiers of the state, cheered on by the likes of certain misguided Guardian columnists, and the populist conservative nitwits that populate much of the British printing presses.
incidentally, if you think mentioning the guy's background is unreasonable, Cameron himself brought this into the terms of the debate w his recent 'i'm just a normal, sharp-elbowed middle-class guy' routine
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
not that i should really have to say this, but, just, to be clear, yes, The Washington Times is a often kooky rag - which, apart from its excellent wire services in the print edition (good coverage of international stories from one particular continent each day, IIRC, no?), still has (last time i checked and all, etc), i gather, a sketchy rep - but the following August 5th editorial is worth a read in full, you know, Lord Halifax, The Daily Telegraph, all that.
below is its final paragraph
Propaganda aside, brutalizing the population is a key Taliban tactic. They are not a "popular front" but an armed extremist fringe group that imposes control by terror. This was evident during the period when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Even minor violations of their bizarre, extremist Islamist creed were punished by torture and death. For them to attempt to portray themselves as friends of the Afghan people requires the world to forget the charnel house that was Afghanistan in the 1990s and ignore the Taliban's ongoing brutality. Mullah Omar's order to his fighters to respect the rights of Afghan civilians is about as believable as if he ordered them to accept Jesus as their lord and savior
(via.)
below is its final paragraph
Propaganda aside, brutalizing the population is a key Taliban tactic. They are not a "popular front" but an armed extremist fringe group that imposes control by terror. This was evident during the period when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Even minor violations of their bizarre, extremist Islamist creed were punished by torture and death. For them to attempt to portray themselves as friends of the Afghan people requires the world to forget the charnel house that was Afghanistan in the 1990s and ignore the Taliban's ongoing brutality. Mullah Omar's order to his fighters to respect the rights of Afghan civilians is about as believable as if he ordered them to accept Jesus as their lord and savior
(via.)
Monday, 9 August 2010
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
here's a link detailing just some of the dirty tricks that BP have been up to post-spill (sadly aided by the US govt in some cases, predictably of course), and the link also has awful photographs of affected (dead, stricken) wildlife, you may wish to know. (via.)
incidentally, a few weeks ago, when Obama maybe once or twice (a few, i don't know, i wasn't paying any attention) publicly used the words "British Petroleum" we suffered all sorts of tools in the UK (Toby Young, the mayor of London and so on) banging on and on about this.
this despite the fact that Obama had certainly used the term "BP" (i believe BP is short for Bernard Poots) beforehand and had appropriately excoriated other large companies involved in the spill concerned.
so, one or two no doubt calculated slips of the tongue made by a political leader under extreme domestic pressure, which were then corrected by diplomatic overtures, were blown up out of all proportion (he's just as bad as the Republicans, a populist goon, fat yankees in their gas-guzzling cars, god damn look at Bhopal, damn bloody yankees, after all the help we give them in Afghanistan, and that Mrs Clinton is mean about the Falklands, grr! etc etc etc), as the BBC's man in the USA sanely explains here.
from a (necessarily parochial) British observation viewpoint, this just goes to show (not that we need to be told), Tory cant must always be treated w the strident and utter contempt it deserves.
incidentally, a few weeks ago, when Obama maybe once or twice (a few, i don't know, i wasn't paying any attention) publicly used the words "British Petroleum" we suffered all sorts of tools in the UK (Toby Young, the mayor of London and so on) banging on and on about this.
this despite the fact that Obama had certainly used the term "BP" (i believe BP is short for Bernard Poots) beforehand and had appropriately excoriated other large companies involved in the spill concerned.
so, one or two no doubt calculated slips of the tongue made by a political leader under extreme domestic pressure, which were then corrected by diplomatic overtures, were blown up out of all proportion (he's just as bad as the Republicans, a populist goon, fat yankees in their gas-guzzling cars, god damn look at Bhopal, damn bloody yankees, after all the help we give them in Afghanistan, and that Mrs Clinton is mean about the Falklands, grr! etc etc etc), as the BBC's man in the USA sanely explains here.
from a (necessarily parochial) British observation viewpoint, this just goes to show (not that we need to be told), Tory cant must always be treated w the strident and utter contempt it deserves.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
so now Gillard is pointing out because there was not a full house voting in East Timor (about half its MPs were not present ahead of parliamentary holidays, although every single member who voted rejected Australian proposals), and 'we deal with the government', she can continue to explore Timorese options for her offshore processing centre plan.
she'll probably get somewhere with that. the top brass there want to keep their big neighbours onside after all.
still.
silly me.
be that as it may, i was under the impression elected representatives should have free votes in parliamentary systems that express their will, and this should count as equally as the view of any other representative, regardless of which party that representative happens to sit with.
ach. (nothing if not naive round these parts.)
ah well.
"Setting out the facts for Australians must occur in the long term and not just in the lead up to the election," said John Menadue AO, Center of Policy Development director and former Department of Immigration and Ethnics Affairs head.
Less than 2 percent of Australia's migration intake comes from asylum seekers. However, Essential Research reports that 38 percent of Australians believe that more than 10 percent are asylum seekers. Only 18 percent of the population were accurate.
"What a story of misinformation. What an opportunity to exploit ignorance."
she'll probably get somewhere with that. the top brass there want to keep their big neighbours onside after all.
still.
silly me.
be that as it may, i was under the impression elected representatives should have free votes in parliamentary systems that express their will, and this should count as equally as the view of any other representative, regardless of which party that representative happens to sit with.
ach. (nothing if not naive round these parts.)
ah well.
"Setting out the facts for Australians must occur in the long term and not just in the lead up to the election," said John Menadue AO, Center of Policy Development director and former Department of Immigration and Ethnics Affairs head.
Less than 2 percent of Australia's migration intake comes from asylum seekers. However, Essential Research reports that 38 percent of Australians believe that more than 10 percent are asylum seekers. Only 18 percent of the population were accurate.
"What a story of misinformation. What an opportunity to exploit ignorance."
Monday, 12 July 2010
"East Timor's parliament has rejected a proposal by the Australian government to establish a regional processing centre for asylum seekers.
All parties of the East Timorese government were in opposition to the proposal floated by Prime Minister Julia Gillard last week, ABC Radio reported.
The decision to reject the proposal was unanimous among the 35 members of East Timor’s 65 person parliament who voted on the resolution...Ms Gillard was criticised last week for not consulting Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao on the centre proposal ahead of announcing her policy."
here.
thus:
Ms Gillard has in recent days backed away from suggestions the centre would be located in East Timor.
Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor has also left open the possibility of more than one country housing a processing centre.
now, from the bottom of that second piece (my emphasis follows)
"East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta said last week he had discussed with Ms Gillard the “possibility” of hosting a processing centre.
But he said the purpose of any centre in Timor would be to take in and process asylum-seekers who were in danger on the high seas and had not found safety in another country.
He also specified that any holding facility in East Timor would need to be administered by the UN, not Australia or Timor."
it's clearly fair to take that attitude in terms of the human kindness of first responders (such as the Spanish Red Cross tending to people who have made it across the Strait of Gibraltar) is always with us, and to codify that would be a welcome small step.
but the brass tacks of this situation - as in so many other similar situations elsewhere - are that a wealthy country is seeking to extend out its initial zone of exclusion for a handful (relatively speaking) of bedraggled people. so, indeed, even such codification would have a huge downside, an exclusionary and structural one.
the Timorese may be signatories to refugee conventions, which John Howard's Nauru dumping ground of choice wasn't, and Julia Gillard is far less barking than her opposition, but however you seek to dress it up, that is the bottom line.
do Julia Gillard and team have a preferable set of asylum proposals to their opposition?
sure they do; though opposition leader Tony Abbott's temporary visa plan is so mean-spirited that seems like damning w faint praise, TBH.
(incidentally, you can't blame Abbott for sniping his opponent w 'all at sea' gags.)
but in taking up this issue in the ways they have been doing, Gillard and team are shifting the debate ever further toward an increasingly populist-friendly viewpoint, thus opening up even more space for Abbott to feel emboldened as he goes about on his hectoring, insular way, and legitimising ways of thinking about asylum seekers that delegitimise those washing up on Aussie shores.
it's an old, distressing, predictable cycle.
P.S.: In a further setback for the Australian government, plans for Australian officials to discuss the plan in Dili this week seem pointless.
Mr Horta, along with East Timor's foreign affairs minister and the country's senior advisers will spend the week in Shanghai, part of a delegation of more than 100 people.
East Timor's prime minister Xanana Gusmao is, meanwhile, touring the country's remote districts all week.
"There is no one serious left here for them to talk to who has any authority on this matter ," said one East Timorese official.
All parties of the East Timorese government were in opposition to the proposal floated by Prime Minister Julia Gillard last week, ABC Radio reported.
The decision to reject the proposal was unanimous among the 35 members of East Timor’s 65 person parliament who voted on the resolution...Ms Gillard was criticised last week for not consulting Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao on the centre proposal ahead of announcing her policy."
here.
thus:
Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor has also left open the possibility of more than one country housing a processing centre.
now, from the bottom of that second piece (my emphasis follows)
"East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta said last week he had discussed with Ms Gillard the “possibility” of hosting a processing centre.
But he said the purpose of any centre in Timor would be to take in and process asylum-seekers who were in danger on the high seas and had not found safety in another country.
He also specified that any holding facility in East Timor would need to be administered by the UN, not Australia or Timor."
it's clearly fair to take that attitude in terms of the human kindness of first responders (such as the Spanish Red Cross tending to people who have made it across the Strait of Gibraltar) is always with us, and to codify that would be a welcome small step.
but the brass tacks of this situation - as in so many other similar situations elsewhere - are that a wealthy country is seeking to extend out its initial zone of exclusion for a handful (relatively speaking) of bedraggled people. so, indeed, even such codification would have a huge downside, an exclusionary and structural one.
the Timorese may be signatories to refugee conventions, which John Howard's Nauru dumping ground of choice wasn't, and Julia Gillard is far less barking than her opposition, but however you seek to dress it up, that is the bottom line.
do Julia Gillard and team have a preferable set of asylum proposals to their opposition?
sure they do; though opposition leader Tony Abbott's temporary visa plan is so mean-spirited that seems like damning w faint praise, TBH.
(incidentally, you can't blame Abbott for sniping his opponent w 'all at sea' gags.)
but in taking up this issue in the ways they have been doing, Gillard and team are shifting the debate ever further toward an increasingly populist-friendly viewpoint, thus opening up even more space for Abbott to feel emboldened as he goes about on his hectoring, insular way, and legitimising ways of thinking about asylum seekers that delegitimise those washing up on Aussie shores.
it's an old, distressing, predictable cycle.
P.S.: In a further setback for the Australian government, plans for Australian officials to discuss the plan in Dili this week seem pointless.
Mr Horta, along with East Timor's foreign affairs minister and the country's senior advisers will spend the week in Shanghai, part of a delegation of more than 100 people.
East Timor's prime minister Xanana Gusmao is, meanwhile, touring the country's remote districts all week.
"There is no one serious left here for them to talk to who has any authority on this matter ," said one East Timorese official.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
oh jesus wept.
as you may have heard, Gillard wants to seize the initiative on asylum seekers (well there is an election coming up), because as any fule kno, the hugely over-crowded and physically tiny island-state of Oz is over-run with the grasping buggers, especially from notably peaceful and wholly uneventful countries Sri Lanka* and Afghanistan.
unfortunately, thenew offshore plan wholly-different-in-every-way-plan-from-what-John-Howard-did-plan-way-thing has had some people - tentatively - calling a spade an implement for digging: However, Gillard's announcement last week that she had discussed the issue with East Timor President Jose Ramos-Horta met with a mixed response, with some Timorese figures saying they did not want their country to become a "prison island."
why should East Timor have a processing facility for Australian refugee claims? is it a wealthier and more stable society than Australia? has there been any conflict there in recent history that might mean its infrastructure for this sort of thing might not be as good as that in a larger, more affluent society?
it is all very well for Gillard to rightly attack Tony Abbott on his simple-minded 'turn back these boats' bill-of-fare, but, as has been noted elsewhere, "she also called for an end to the extremes in the debate. My view is that instead of telling people it’s OK to be ‘anxious’ about boat arrivals, our political leaders should be educating people that fears about terrorists and stolen jobs are widely unfounded."
still, you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time, so at least focus on someone, eh?
Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s July 5 announcement that she would solve the refugee crisis by being tougher on refugees did what former PM John Howard failed in his 11 years of conservative rule. She has made former One Nation MP Pauline Hanson feel at home.
Hanson announced she wasn’t emigrating to Britain, as planned, saying she was in “total agreement” with Gillard’s plan to “sweep political correctness from the debate”, the Australian said on July 6.
(just want to add that, personally, i am shocked and truly surprised that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Australian should applaud such a straw-mannish approach to that damn politically correct NONSENSE.)
Gillard may be more humane sounding and attempting to keep the national conversation at a reasonably superficially civil level more effectively than her opposition, but we have seen before now in Anglophone economies what can happen when a centrist, left-looking government attempt to seize the initiative on asylum from further right opponents.
take New Labour Home Secretaries.
each iteration of that shower succeeded in royally shafting a lot of incredibly marginalised people (laudable schemes such as borough councils adopting refugees were admirable but also brought attention to many others left high and dry), whilst emboldening ever more those parochial quarters whose grip on reality was (and is) about as firm as my ability to play top-class international cricket.
so, nervy times indeed, though i don't mean for ALP strategists.
a closing note, then, from that third and final link above.
It is not clear that Gillard’s strategy will even work. Labor has shifted to the right on refugees, but the Coalition will probably win any race to the right on that issue.
The July 7 Sydney Morning Herald interviewed a voter from a marginal seat in western Sydney: “Good on her. I don't want the boats here. Won't change my vote though.”
Both big parties say refugees should have fewer rights. They both target refugees from particular countries
hmm.
* speaking of which: housing minister Wimal Weerawansa.
so, you held a, probably media-targeted, three day hunger strike (which has now ended), because you don't want the international community looking into (credible and seriously troubling) war crimes allegations your government should (but, realistically, will not) answer for?
i can think of ways to describe your stunt, but none of them are diplomatic. which is a laugh really, since your government is quite good at getting diplomats from lots of different nations a bit ticked off with you.
as you may have heard, Gillard wants to seize the initiative on asylum seekers (well there is an election coming up), because as any fule kno, the hugely over-crowded and physically tiny island-state of Oz is over-run with the grasping buggers, especially from notably peaceful and wholly uneventful countries Sri Lanka* and Afghanistan.
unfortunately, the
why should East Timor have a processing facility for Australian refugee claims? is it a wealthier and more stable society than Australia? has there been any conflict there in recent history that might mean its infrastructure for this sort of thing might not be as good as that in a larger, more affluent society?
it is all very well for Gillard to rightly attack Tony Abbott on his simple-minded 'turn back these boats' bill-of-fare, but, as has been noted elsewhere, "she also called for an end to the extremes in the debate. My view is that instead of telling people it’s OK to be ‘anxious’ about boat arrivals, our political leaders should be educating people that fears about terrorists and stolen jobs are widely unfounded."
still, you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time, so at least focus on someone, eh?
Hanson announced she wasn’t emigrating to Britain, as planned, saying she was in “total agreement” with Gillard’s plan to “sweep political correctness from the debate”, the Australian said on July 6.
(just want to add that, personally, i am shocked and truly surprised that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Australian should applaud such a straw-mannish approach to that damn politically correct NONSENSE.)
Gillard may be more humane sounding and attempting to keep the national conversation at a reasonably superficially civil level more effectively than her opposition, but we have seen before now in Anglophone economies what can happen when a centrist, left-looking government attempt to seize the initiative on asylum from further right opponents.
take New Labour Home Secretaries.
each iteration of that shower succeeded in royally shafting a lot of incredibly marginalised people (laudable schemes such as borough councils adopting refugees were admirable but also brought attention to many others left high and dry), whilst emboldening ever more those parochial quarters whose grip on reality was (and is) about as firm as my ability to play top-class international cricket.
so, nervy times indeed, though i don't mean for ALP strategists.
a closing note, then, from that third and final link above.
It is not clear that Gillard’s strategy will even work. Labor has shifted to the right on refugees, but the Coalition will probably win any race to the right on that issue.
The July 7 Sydney Morning Herald interviewed a voter from a marginal seat in western Sydney: “Good on her. I don't want the boats here. Won't change my vote though.”
Both big parties say refugees should have fewer rights. They both target refugees from particular countries
hmm.
* speaking of which: housing minister Wimal Weerawansa.
so, you held a, probably media-targeted, three day hunger strike (which has now ended), because you don't want the international community looking into (credible and seriously troubling) war crimes allegations your government should (but, realistically, will not) answer for?
i can think of ways to describe your stunt, but none of them are diplomatic. which is a laugh really, since your government is quite good at getting diplomats from lots of different nations a bit ticked off with you.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
northwest Pakistan double suicide blast attack death toll stands at at least 102 people (115 people wounded): 'Near the attack site, officials had been distributing wheelchairs Friday to disabled people and equipment to poor farmers, Amjad Ali Khan said. It was unclear how many participants in that event were among the victims.'
Friday, 9 July 2010
The Dreaded Cold Collation - Davey B with all your food review and recipe needs, including some mouth-watering photographs and a charming line in just being generally lovely, really.
i particularly enjoyed the sketch of Dough restaurant in Manchester's Northern Quarter.
"I'm not sure how long Dough has been there, because I'm not very observant and I'm not cool enough to be allowed in the Northern Quarter that often"
LOL
i particularly enjoyed the sketch of Dough restaurant in Manchester's Northern Quarter.
"I'm not sure how long Dough has been there, because I'm not very observant and I'm not cool enough to be allowed in the Northern Quarter that often"
LOL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)