Australia’s Cardinal George Pell Apologised & Offers Qualified Compensation to Victims of Child Sexual Abuse
Archbishop of Sydney, and a former archbishop of Melbourne Cardinal Pell testified at a parliamentary committee at Victoria’s child sex abuse inquiry, and apologised for the abuse committed by clergy.
“I’m fully apologetic and absolutely sorry,” he told the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into child sex abuse. That is the basis for everything which I’ll say now.”
Cardinal Pell said the church had dealt with child sex abuse “imperfectly” and had not understood the damage being done to victims.
Cardinal Pell said the sodomy of children was always regarded as totally reprehensible, and admitted that lives had been ruined as a result of the cover-ups.
But he said larger compensation packages reaching into millions, similar to payouts in the US, would not be appropriate in most cases.
“We are always ready to pay what the law of the land says in terms of compensation…”
He said he could only speak for the Sydney Archdiocese but would consider paying victims who had already received compensation more money if there was a good case.
“I don’t believe we have a moral obligation to match the unusual figures of the United States,” he said.
Cardinal Pell is the last witness to give evidence at the Victorian parliamentary inquiry.
AAP contributed to this report.
Unlocked: Poets, Police and Prisoners is a free festival event this week that showcases the groundbreaking poetry workshops in correctional centers across NSW.
Video recordings of poems written and performed by inmates in the original workshops will screen before and after the event.
A collaboration between Corrective Services NSW and The Red Room Company, the Unlocked workshops give inmates the opportunity to work with award-winning poets on reading, writing, publishing and performing poetry — often for the first time.
The Red Room Company’s spokeswoman Olivia Wright says:
“At first when we go in the response is like, ‘you’re kidding, poetry?’ but then they suddenly realise that poetry is also about breaking rules: you don’t have to have punctuation, good spelling or correct grammar.
“For those inmates in particular whose literacy is really poor, they are taken by poetry as a communication tool, and what we get is these deeply personal stories they may never have been able to express before.
“We’ve seen remarkable outcomes from Unlocked, not just with improved literacy, but with the inmates’ self-confidence and esteem as well…”
The ability to read and write is a freedom most of us take for granted, however the United Nations upholds education as a human right. While imprisonment may deprive an individual of the basic right to freedom, it does not follow that other human rights such as education are restricted or withheld.
In fact, given the high proportion of prisoners who’ve had very little successful educational experience, it’s only logical that education is a mandatory component in preparing prisoners for reintegration into society.
Reports consistently show that the majority or men and women in the criminal justice system either suffer with mental health issues, or lack basic literacy skills.
According to the report The Booming Industry: Australian Prisons,” by Eileen Baldry, at the School of Social Sciences and International Studies, as the University of NSW, the prison population consists of men and women who are of lower socioeconomic status, of poorer health and of lower levels of education than the rest of the population. For example:
- · 60% of inmates are not functionally literate or numerate; and
- · 60% did not complete year 10.
Despite the statistics, governments continue to invest in expansion, rather than education and reform. However expanding the prison system without an investment in reform is not only ineffective, but shortsighted.
If we are to produce a fairer and safer society, with lower rates of offending, governments need to address prison reform. Government must protect the human rights of prisoners by providing a range of study options: such as “Unlocked: Poets, Police, and Prisoners” or the art studio at Long Bay Correctional Center.
Art programs in prison are not without their skeptics, however too often prisons are viewed by society as universities of crime maintained by the state.
In addition to waging a war against crime on the street, governments need to take a broader approach, and reform the prison culture. A greater investment in programs that educate inmates to think above their reduced circumstance, also empowers them to break the cycle of recidivism.
Photo: City of Sydney, The Red Room Company, State of Illinois Prison.
Reports the Department of Justice DOJ had covertly conducted a large scale raid of Associated Press AP emails and phone records, has had a chilling effect on the media, and raised questions as to how wide spread is the government’s intrusion into the press?
It seems the DOJ has gone one step further, and not only targeted AP, but Fox News correspondent James Rosen, who has also had his records and private emails seized by DOJ investigators.
The warrant into Rosen’s personal emails was filed when a government adviser was accused of leaking information, after a 2009 story was published online reporting, that North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test.
The basis of the investigation in both cases was in and of itself legitimate. However, in the case of the AP the focus was on identifying the leaker, whereas in James Rosen’s case, the focus of the investigation was the reporter.
In order to get a warrant without notifying James Rosen, (thereby running the risk he would object) the DOJ inspectors needed to claim the reporter was involved in criminal activity.
All this subterfuge by the DOJ was not an attempt to find the leaker — a whistleblower they thought they already had — but to seize James Rosen’s records.
The DOJ seizure of AP and James Rosens’ records has not only raised serious questions about the government’s relationship with the press, but the ire of the AP CEO, and Fox News’ executive vice president of news, Michael Clemente who said,
“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”
Former Senior Advisor, and Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove points out that Attorney General Eric Holder testified before Congress last week, under oath, said he’d never been involved in the potential prosecution of a reporter. Holder had recused himself from the AP phone records seizure.
“He did not say that he recused himself from the James Rosen incident, and this subpoena asked for by the FBI, under Department of Justice guidelines, could not have been requested without the approval of the Attorney General, or if he does recuse himself, the deputy attorney general,” said Rove, questioning whether Holder was being truthful in his testimony.
After the Watergate scandal a US code governing investigators was created to protect the media from the government, so journalists could be free to keep government accountable.
In James Rosen’s case it appears to be the government who has broken the law, not the reporter. The fact is, the DOJ’s charge of criminal activity against a reporter is all part of an ongoing and alarming campaign by the Obama administration, to intimidate journalists and silence their sources — whistle blowers.
“The Obama administration came to power promising the most transparent administration in history … and began prosecuting [whistleblowers] every which way.”
In light of recent scandals in the Obama administration, it’s evident, despite championing historic whistleblower protection laws and freedom of the press, the President only upholds those freedoms when it advances his progressive agenda.
It begs the question: is the Obama administration so drunk on power that it would use it’s full force to not only intimidate a news reporter who’s doing his job, but mark him as a threat to national security?
Equally, the broader question is how does this happen in America — a country that boasts of it’s open society to the rest of the world, and holds itself up as a democratic model to which other nations should aspire?
Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Royal Commission into Institutionalized Child Sexual Abuse, won her kudos from victims, the media and advocates of victims of sexual abuse.
However, the trigger for the Royal Commission has turned out to be a cruel hoax, and for no other reason than to make money.
Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Peter Fox, who supposedly blew the whistle on, what he called, ‘The Catholic Mafia’ in the Maitland, Newcastle diocese was lying.
In the witness box of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to Police Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations, Wayne Roser, SC, exposed DCI Peter Fox’s claims to be as double-handed as the police he claimed were protecting pedophiles within the diocese.
There is no “Catholic Mafia” as DCI Peter Fox called it, and there was no cover up by the NSW police force, on behalf of the accused pedophiles.
As it turns out, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox is not a whistle blower, but an author. He’s writing a book, and hoped to sell it by using these stories.
It beggars belief, that a law enforcement officer would exploit crimes committed against children, for no other reason than to sell books.
As a law enforcement Officer DCI Peter Fox, in the most egregious fashion possible, has breached the Police Force raison d’être, which is to serve the community — to serve the victims of crimes
Using the sad misfortune of victims of child sexual abuse to make money is as egregious as the crime in the first instance. Indeed, DCI Fox is as guilty of the institutional abuse over which he’s falsely charged his law enforcement colleagues.
So Kermit Gosnell turned out to be a baby killer after all – a verdict that’s sure to send a chill through the pro-choice community.
Effectively the court has recognized that the babies Gosnell pulled from the womb and then murdered with a pair of scissors were not just foetuses, but human beings with an inalienable right to life.
The number of children that Gosnell was accused of killing, after removing them from their mother’s bodies, (according to the court report) was in the hundreds. A practice that suggests more babies survive this procedure than Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice lobby would have us believe.
Across the United States stories of other abortion horrors are coming to light, such as the exposure of practices at a Bronx clinic, caught on a hidden-camera, the recent death of a patient in Maryland, or a Florida clinic that threw away a baby in a waste bag.
The Kermitt Gosnell verdict is a small victory, as Gosnell was found guilty of only three out of seven charges of first degree murder of unborn babies; and guilty of a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter of a patient who died from an overdose of anesthetic administered by an unqualified teenager. Nonetheless it’s a step in the right direction.
The Gosnell verdict has unquestionably opened up a wider debate about when human life really begins, and what kinds of legal protections life in the womb really deserves.
PolitiFact has upped the ante down under with the launch of an Australian Truth-O-Meter that will hold politicians accountable for their half truths and glib one-liners.
In the bewildering world of election campaigns politicians divide their time between intentionally misinterpreting their opponents, or getting outraged about being intentionally misinterpreted. All those humdingers, doozy’s and ripsnorters will earn ratings from true, half true, false to ‘pants on fire’ for ludicrous claims on PolitiFact.
Australia’s PolitiFact head, Peter Fray, former editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald, said PolitiFact Australia is a necessary addition to Australia’s journalistic scene because politics has become ”faster and noisier” and voters are overloaded with information. He said:
‘‘We are here to help sort out the facts from the fictions … we are not really out to get politicians, we don’t think they are all liars. But we do think they should be accountable for what they say.”
In the USA where fact checking sites have become famous for exposing political lies, several media fact checkers are left wing fronts. Indeed during the 2012 election campiagn the Obama administration communicated with the media matters journalists to get out Democrat talking points.
In any event, fact-checkers are unlikely to change people’s minds. If people care enough to find out what the fact-checkers are saying about an issue, the truth is their mind is probably already made up.
Still, let’s hope PolitiFact Australia, like the US site, inspires the main stream media to report on it’s findings.
Australia’s Postcard Bandit, otherwise known as the James Bond of the Australian bank robbing scene, was arrested and imprisoned for stealing over $5 million. Many famous bank robbers have escaped arrest, whereas others have met their fate and done time in the vicinity of 6 to 25 years for armed robbery.
Which begs the question how much time should a government get for breaking in and taking without permission, money from people’s bank accounts for no reason, other than the account has been inactive for three years?
That’s right — following legislation that was “rushed” through parliament, Australian bank accounts that have been inactive for three years will have their money seized by the federal government after May 31, 2013.
Treasury will grab money from accounts with anything from $1 upwards and transfer it into the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC).
The Australian Bankers Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg warned that unaware customers face having accounts frozen, and could face months of delays trying to reclaim their savings from ASIC. He says:
“It is very hard to see why this needed to be rushed through but there have been suggestions it was done more for the government’s own financial circumstances rather than customers needs.”
Experts warn this will have a negative impact on people that have put money away in a special account for their children’s education, holiday, retirement or unexpected illness.
It doesn’t take an economist to see this is a desperate grab for cash from a government that can’t live up to it’s promised budget surplus. This heist is expected to raise over $109 million this financial year, which economists warn is on track for a $15 billion budget deficit.
The recent bank crisis in Cyprus was a sobering reminder that you can’t trust politicians, and they will not only come after your money, but lock it up when it suits them.
May this government meet the same fate as that of the bank robbers of the 1930s.
NOTE: Banks are urging customers to make transactions on these accounts – adding or subtracting just $1 is enough to protect the account from ASIC. Interest payments, fees and charges are not considered transactions and will not prevent the balance of your account from being claimed.
The Government will continue to pay interest on all accounts claimed, so that their value remains the same. If your account is claimed and you discover it at a later date, you can reclaim the money if you can prove it is yours by filling out a form and writing to ASIC.
Photo: Courtesy Legendary Pictures — The Town
In addition to a federal government Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, authorities are also conducting an inquiry into the alleged cover up of child sex abuse by the Catholic Church within the Maitland, Newcastle diocese in Australia.
The probe is examining claims by abuse whistleblower Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox who claims he was directed by his superiors to stop investigating the allegations of abuse by two priests in the Catholic Diocese.
The commission of inquiry was announced last November to find out why Inspector Fox was told to stop his investigations, and whether senior Catholic clergy deliberately hampered police efforts to bring two Catholic priest paedophiles to justice.
From Rome down the Catholic Church has actively protected, denied and covered up repeated allegations of child sexual abuse, even to the extent of blaming the media for blowing some cases out of proportion.
Not helped by the fact so many Catholics haven’t found it easy to express their dissatisfaction with the response of the church hierarchy. Some parishioners simply feel it’s not their place to tell bishops or popes the truth.
But hiding pedophiles is a serious criminal offense, punishable by the law of the land.
It beggars belief how any institution, much less an entity that teaches compassion, forgiveness and the fruits of the spirit, allowed offenders within it’s ranks to repeat their iniquitous crimes.
In the context of church teaching, it’s not difficult to understand how the clergy have used repentance as a get out of jail free card. The foundational teaching of forgiveness has been misused in the most sinister way possible. It’s a dereliction of duty for a diocese to make provision for priests who are eager to get past their repentance and onto their next victim.
A sexual assault on a child is to be deplored, and any attempt by the church, in collusion with the police, is a reprehensible betrayal of public trust.
Hopefully, both the Federal Royal Commission, and the Commission in Newcastle will compel the church to reclaim it’s credibility by admitting it’s failures, and recompense those who have been damaged.
For the time has arrived for judgment to begin with the household of God … 1 Peter 4:17
Illustration: inkcinct cartoons
The new Liberal Party TV ad “The Headless Chooks in ‘The Gillard Experiment” was sure to ruffle a few feathers — some claim the Liberal Party have laid an egg, whereas others counter, what’s good for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Whatever the opinion, the fact is it’s no worse than the futuristic post card mocking Tony Abbott and Rupert Murdoch’s age, that was sent out by the PM’s press office twitter account (using the F*** word no less).
Advertising was never designed to appeal to the intellect, but the lowest common denominator. That’s advertising …and politics.
I wouldn’t have objected to Prime Minister Gillard’s announcement of the national disability insurance scheme [NDIS], but it’s the kind of emotional blackmail that implies, ‘You (Tony Abbott) have to do this for the disabled and the most vulnerable otherwise you’re heartless.’
Not that we would think there’s anything wrong with NDIS, as the scheme is worthy of praise, however the announcement is nothing more than dirty demagoguery.
When the Prime Minister announced that the NDIS depended on a new levy, she was unprepared for Tony Abbott’s qualified support for the levy.
Hardly surprisingly, since at the time of the announcement, Mr Abbott was on his annual pollie pedal, where he was riding to raise funds in support of Australia’s 2.6 million carers and help ‘Make Australia Carer Aware.’ Oops …
This issue should have been above politics, as disability care and mental health impacts millions of Australians every year.
However, Julia Gillard’s emotional blackmail and photo opportunities with the disabled as a political props, point to motivations other than a concern for the disabled.
A jury began deliberations this week on the capital murder trial of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is accused of murdering four live babies in his Philadelphia clinic, known as The Women’s Medical Society, by “snipping” their spinal cords after botched abortions.
The jury will weigh Dr. Gosnell’s murder counts, and a charge of third-degree murder in the death of a 41-year-old patient from Virginia. According to the grand jury report, one witness testified that, despite warning Gosnell the patient had no pulse, finishing the termination took precedence over reviving the patient.
Gosnell who is facing the death penalty, is also charged with racketeering; performing illegal third-term abortions; and failing to counsel patients and observe the 24-hour waiting period.
Along with Kermit Gosnell, an additional eight workers from the clinic have pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including Dr. Gosnell’s wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist who helped perform abortions.
According to a lawyer familiar with Pennsylvania law, who declined to be named because of the volatility of the case, it’s legal in Pennsylvania to abort a fetus up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, [sic] that it becomes murder if the infant is fully expelled from the mother alive and then killed.
A grand jury report of nearly 300 pages describes Gosnell’s clinic as a filthy, foul-smelling operation that was overlooked by regulators.
The report reveals state regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him, and made only five annual inspections since the clinic opened in 1979.
The Gosnell trial, which prosecutors called a “house of horrors” has undoubtedly drawn the battle lines between pro-choice and pro-life groups.
Dayle Steinberg, CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania, says Gosnell should be held accountable for his crimes, but also warns that imposing restrictions on abortions will drive them underground and make women — especially those who are poor — more vulnerable to disreputable providers.
Whereas vice-president of the Pro-Life Action League, Ann Scheidler said:
“I hope there will be more serious discussions on the value of human life and the rights of women to know what’s going to happen to them going into an abortion, and their child.”
Notably, Day Gardner, the head of the National Black Pro-life Union in Washington, tied the media’s initial avoidance of the trial to what she said was deeply ingrained racism in American society, noting that many of Gosnell’s patients were poor black women and the doctor himself is black. Gardner said:
“The national spotlight would have shown brighter if the victim had been “a blonde, blue-eyed child … It’s very obvious that passion across America is not quite the same when it comes to black children.”
The grand jury report suggests Gosnell knew he was preying on women who had nowhere else to go, and blames the state for failing to protect it’s most vulnerable citizens.
“Every aspect of that practice reflected an utter disregard for the health and safety of his patients, a cruel lack of respect for their dignity, and an arrogant belief that he could forever get away with the slovenly and careless treatment of the women who came to his clinic. The only thing Gosnell seemed to care about was the cash he raked in from his illegal operation.”
The report goes on to say:
“We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”
Despite the failure of the main stream media to adequately cover the Gosnell capital murder trial, a public back lash is challenging the pro-choice illusion, and catapulted the pro-life cause into the legislative battle ground across the United States.
Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser implores:
“What is the difference between killing a baby minutes before delivery compared to moments after? Only the barest of legal nuances.”
Sunrise co-host Andrew O’Keefe said in an interview with Dutch MP Geert Wilders, “every psychologist in the world will tell you, that the simplest way to radicalize a person is to alienate them, or marginalize them.”
However sweeping the claim, there are certainly many in the media over reaching in it’s search for a motivation behind the Boston Bombings.
In any event, the fact is the Tsarnaev brothers who were responsible for the bombings, lived lives that demonstrated they were anything but alienated from American culture. If anything they represented life in America today.
They both received welfare payments, attended college, participated in American sporting activities, and the eldest was an accomplished pianist who married at 26 at years of age, and fathered a little girl who’s learning to ride a tricycle.
According to Bloomberg News, Tamerlan even drove a C-class silver Mercedes-Benz, and “when he wasn’t wearing workout gear, he wore ‘boisterous, fancy clothes.’”
Their Americanization casts doubt on the notion their radicalization was the result of alienation from American society. Could the reason for their radicalization be closer to home — could it actually be the historical narrative the Tsarnaev brothers were raised on? Was it this narrative that predisposed them to the idea of violent jihad?
The Tsarnaev brothers emigrated to the United States from Chechnya and Dagestan, mostly Muslim areas in the Caucasus known for terrorist activity.
The Chechens are almost alone in the Muslim world in having an actual grievance. Chechnya was conquered by Russia in 1859, but after the Soviet Empire imploded, the Chechen sought independence. After a couple of bloody wars, the Chechens were subdued, but with incredible brutality by the Russian forces including shelling of civilians in the capital, Grozny.
The Chechens carried out a series of terrorist atrocities after the war, including one in Moscow in 2002 in which a group of Chechen militants took 800 people hostage in a movie theater. Chechens were also part of the forces that carried out an attack on a school in Beslan that involved the rape and murder of a number of the hostages, and the deaths of over 330 people, half of which were children. There was also al-Qaeda participation in Beslan.
Is it then surprising the brothers both evidenced significant support for Islamism and jihad in their social media pages, especially on YouTube and the Russian language site VK. There’s no doubt about their commitment to violent jihad against the infidel America.
Yet despite the evidence of their Islamic predisposition, just two weeks after the bombing, the politically correct media continue to rationalise the event by not calling them what they are: radical terrorists.
Alienated, marginalized, isolated, and angry are the afflictions the media apply to help shape a narrative that fits in with their progressive bias. For instance, former NBC news anchor, Tom Brokaw, said the terrorists are seeking vengeance because of the drone strikes. Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations was quoted in the London Standard, “Second generation Muslims in the West lack a sense of belonging in their adopted countries.”
These were not random acts of vengeance from kids that killed random people. These are young men, who, despite enjoying the benefits of American society, observed the fanatical law of Islam. A law that’s in direct conflict with the American touchstone of democracy and freedom.
The Boston bombings were radical; they were inhumane, anti-American, and anti all that is not in consonance with Islam. So radical in fact, the bomb was placed beside a child.
Essentially America is a character-driven society, which is an outcome of the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage. The belief of commitment to one’s fellow man has traditionally under-girded American values perhaps more than anything else.
Whereas adherents of Islam claim the right to behave contrary to the laws that protect our fellow citizens. Extremists [not moderates -- not all Muslims] practice pedophilia, pederasty, misogyny, wife beating, stoning to death of daughters and wives for fornication, for being in a vehicle without a male family member present, or countless other behaviors the male Muslim community perceive is in violation of strict Islamic law.
In the case of the skilled boxer Tamerlan, his record of domestic violence against his non-boxing wife is consistent with the wife beating encouraged in Islamic law.
While America is far from perfect, like any other nation, the reality of why these young men did what they did is far more complicated than the standard narrative of alienation put forth by the politically correct media.
Supposition and conjecture aside, the only reasonable starting point are the facts, which are, these acts were in violation of American law, and Americans have every right to bring to justice anyone who breaks American law; or commits acts of terror against it’s citizens.
While the true victims of the Boston bombing rebuild their lives, undoubtedly life in prison will bring to bear on the surviving brother, the unvarnished version of alienation.
Photo: Tamerlan Tsarnaev by Johannes Hirn
It’s official: CareerCast.com has named the newspaper reporter the worst job in America, behind lumberjacks.
When CareerCast first started ranking the best and worst jobs in the U.S. in 1988, newspaper reporter was in the middle ranking at number 126. It slipped in 2012 to 196, before coming in last, behind lumberjacks, at number 200 this year.
This doesn’t come as any surprise, given newspapers continue to cut jobs as they compete with free news online. In some cities in the U.S. newspapers have almost bypassed journalists by moving to an online-only model.
Many question if newspapers will survive, slating papers must start charging for their web content in order to support print issues. Others say printed papers will soon go the way of the Studebaker and that newspapers are destined to become online-only entities. But what the future holds, no one really knows.
Chip Scanlan of the journalism think-tank, The Poynter Institute, argues the predicament the internet poses for newspapers today, is reminiscent of the Pony Express riders who in 1860 started what was meant to be a speedy mail delivery service, only to be rendered obsolete a year later by the telegraph.
They represented a great leap in communication delivery but it only lasted a year,” … “As they were whipping their horses into a lather to deliver the mail, beside them were these guys ramming in long wooden poles and connecting wires for the telegraph. It’s a reflection of what changes in technology mean.
Nonetheless, many still feel that newspapers continue to represent an unrivaled source of in-depth news, analysis and opinion, and that if papers disappear entirely, many feel there will be nothing to take their place.
Either way, journalists are not lumberjacks, and that’s OK.
While the media was preoccupied with the hunt for the Boston bombers, the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA, despite a White House veto threat and an outcry from privacy advocates and civil liberties groups.
The bill is in response to recent threats from Chinese hackers, and would essentially allow a free flow of information between private companies and the federal government.
For example, the provision would allow the government to notify Facebook should they notice any threat of hackers, and similarly Facebook could share information with the government if they notice any strange activity on their site.
A liability clause essentially requires private companies to hand over private information in certain situations, where as the sharing of government information with the private sector is entirely voluntary. Furthermore, national security measures require the government to anonymize any information they share with third parties, whereas private companies do not have this protection.
CISPA has managed stay out of the news due to the fact that a number of major corporations and tech firms are actually in support of the bill.
Business groups say the privacy concern is overblown.
“When it comes to sharing, there are practical, business reasons why companies carefully protect” sensitive information, Tim Molino with the Business Software Alliance recently wrote in an online post urging lawmakers to pass the bill.
“At the end of the day, personal information is customer information, and maintaining trust with customers is a core business imperative,” Molino added.
In its veto threat issued Tuesday, the White House echoed that concern.
“Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable – and not granted immunity – for failing to safeguard personal information adequately,” the White House stated.
However, privacy advocates and civil liberties groups say the bill would open up Americans’ most private online records to the federal government. The bill doesn’t include a requirement that companies scrub data of sensitive information like health or credit records before sharing it with the government.
In its veto threat issued Tuesday, the White House echoed that concern.
“Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable – and not granted immunity – for failing to safeguard personal information adequately,” the White House stated.
Compared with SOPA, a bill that was thrown out last year that would have given the government the power to pull any “dangerous” website offline, CISPA is more directly targeted toward hackers, something that companies lose millions of dollars to every year.
Hacktivist group Anonymous, who organized the internet blackout to protest SOPA last year, is planning another protest. However, the only groups that feel seriously threatened by CISPA are libertarians and other privacy rights organizations.
Larger sites however, such as Google and Wikipedia, have respectfully declined to be part of the Anonymous organized protest.
The corporate interests are too large, and these multi-million dollar companies have too much at stake when it comes to internet hacking that a rejection of CISPA would go directly against their better interests.
Unfortunately, the biggest losers here are consumers and daily internet user, who now keep more private and sensitive information in cyberspace than in their basement filing cabinets.
The law requires the government to acquire a search warrant to come into your home and investigate your computer history.
With CISPA, that legal middleman is eliminated and the government can go straight to Google or Bank of America to acquire your online emails or bank statements.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Sky News Peter van Onselen self-serving account of a political comment he thought he overheard to a third party, at an A list event, has put the shoe on the other foot.
Van Onselen claims he “overheard” a comment by Tony Abbott’s senior Advisor, Mark Roberts, to Andrew Penfold, the CEO of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation .
According to this hard hitting, investigative journalist, the senior staffer was drunk and made a throat-slitting motion threatening to “cut the throat” of funding to the indigenous body.
Shortly after the incident Mr van Onselen tweeted “A Tony Abbott staffer told an eminent Australian that he would “cut his throat” once “we” are in government…. Much, much more to it…”
He followed up the next day with; “Wow the staffer in Tony Abbott’s office is denying the form of words that he used. A number of people heard it so that’s interesting.”
The kicker is, it’s Pete van Onselen who’s now withdrawn his claim, but not before his inaccurate and litigeous tweet hit the papers, and Tony Abbott’s senior Adviser was demoted.
Van Onselen now claims Mark Roberts did not “threaten that he would “cut his throat once ‘we’ are in government.” The threat was to cut the AIEF budget.
In one of his tweets van Olnselen took the moral high ground and said he was “totally disgusted” by Mark Roberts’ behaviour.
Actually Mr Onselen, what’s disgusting is a reporter publishing what he thought he “overheard” at a function where everyone is either on the way to getting drunk, or is completely plastered.
Even more abhorrent, is Mr Abbott’s staff member suffered a backlash as a result of Peter van Onselen’s titillating tweet-storm, while he himself suffers no professional consequences for his cock and bull reporting.
The fact is, it’s not just a breach of trust between political staff and media hacks, but a complete disregard for the public. It’s an election year so anything goes right…?
Sky News should take responsibility for their amateur ‘news pundits’, in particular Pete van Onselen and give him a demotion equal to Tony Abbott’s staff member.
According to a Liberal Party-aligned think tank the poor are to blame for Australia’s fiscal problems, and that killing off 20 percent of the poor would get the budget back on track.
Liberal Party strategist, Mr Ralph used his paper as an attack against the government’s planed superannuation changes that target the wealthy.
“in contrast to the fabulously rich, the enormously poor make little useful contribution to society.” ”They consume more than they contribute, putting tremendous strain on the national budget.
”A modest cull would strike at the root of our fiscal dilemma. If the least productive 20 per cent of citizens were decommissioned it would directly release a recurrent $25 billion, which would almost cover overspending by the Gillard government between now and September 14th, assuming Mr Swan maintains his long-term average rate of profligacy.
”This bold initiative would rid us of indolent students, hapless single mums, lower- order drug dealers, social workers, performance artists, Greenpeace supporters and the remaining processing personnel in our collapsing yet heavily subsidised manufacturing industries.”
In defence of the article, Tim Andrews, executive director of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance and a former vice-president of the NSW Young Liberals said:
”It’s a satire in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’ and, as such, I do not see any cause for persons to be offended.”
The 1729 essay a ‘Modest Proposal’ suggested the impoverished Irish could ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for the rich.
In addition to Treasurer Wayne Swan calling the paper a disgraceful rant, tweeters also condemned the broadside.
To the poor, poverty is no laughing matter.
Mr Ralph and his defenders would do well to remember former Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s words in his last speech:
“…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
Both sides of politics would agree that welfare is not the solution to empowering the poor, which is why we should use it as a last resort, and make welfare applicants jump through hoops to qualify.
However, no rational and clear thinking person believes that a welfare recipient is content with his lot in life. Or a person who lives in a “rat hole” in a dangerous suburb is happier than a person who gets up in the morning to go to work every day; or that an alcoholic or drug addict is a jolly carefree individual.
The philosophy of arm chair economists like Toby Ralph is nothing more than a class hatred that serves to further isolate people who are already dispossessed and marginalised.
In what’s been described as a “ house of horrors,” Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell stands trial, charged with the grotesque murder of at least seven infants, allegedly born alive after botched abortions, only to be brutally killed by Gosnell. Included in the charges is the death of a woman who suffered cardiac arrest after being given too much anesthetic from an unqualified staff member who’s job it was to answer the phones.
One Gosnell worker described the abortion clinic as “raining fetuses and blood all over the place.” and others reported that one babies’s screams sounded like a little alien.
In conjunction with a Planned Parenthood lobbyist’s recent admission, that this life-ending practice is justifiable, the Gosnell trial has put the spot light on the contentious issue of abortion.
Representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion, and her doctor. [see video below]
In an outcry on the floor of Congress over this gruesome courtroom drama, Congressman Andy Harris from Maryland, referred to a paper authored by two medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.
Their paper, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” argues that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.
Congressman Harris said, “apparently in Dr. Gosnell’s mind, there was little difference between a late-term abortion and killing a baby after birth,” … it’s essentially the same logic used by the ethicists of the paper.” “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”
“So why this may sound grotesque and shocking that they’re OK with killing a newborn, it’s merely an ethical, logical extension of the way we have been treating fetuses since 1973.” Mr. Harris said.
The Gosnell trial isn’t only a story of a rogue abortionist on trial for illegal late-term abortions, but is a collision of perceived rights. There’s more than one right at stake — who’s rights have priority over another’s perceived rights? This is no longer a question of reproductive health, which is the well-known euphemism for ‘abortion on demand’, but the rights of the most defenseless in our society; the unborn — in and outside the womb.
No one disputes the basic rights of women, or the foundational rights of individuals, but the question that divides us now, is how much right should the law accord to the unborn fetus or child? The Gosnell trial, in conjunction with the ideology of Planned Parenthood begs the question if the law has gone too far the other way, and protected women’s rights over the rights of another human being?
There’s a sense that all these issues converge on one critical issue, that’s pivotal to pro-choice and pro-life advocates. Is abortion murder — an act that involves the willful destruction of a living, human person?
This core question is singular, but has plural dimensions behind it — is the fetus alive? Is the fetus a living human person.
The question is one of moral equivalence. If Gosnell is charged for the murder of a child outside the womb, then was that child a viable living person two minutes, five minutes, an hour or day before it left the womb. If it is alive, is it human life, and if it is human life, is it the life of a human person?
Cancer is life, cancer is human life, but we don’t call cancer an individuated, human person in it’s own right.
If we all agreed that the fetus is life, is human and a person, that wouldn’t automatically solve all the questions about abortion. The question then becomes, when does the fetus become a living, human person?
Pro-lifers claim it’s at conception that a living human personal life begins. Others say, not until viability or quickening, or the first, second, or third trimester.
How do we reach the conclusion that a fetus is an alive human person? How do we discern when that life begins? How do we discern for ourselves what is ethically right and what is wrong?
The answers to these questions are crucial, as it’s those answers that determine whether a woman’s right over her own body includes the right to destroy a living human person.
The stumbling block is, in determining the answers to the most fundamental questions that divide us, we don’t agree on our sources of authority. The three major sources being the Bible, science, and the government.
The different view points of authority differ on what the bible teaches, not everyone’s conscience is held captive by the Bible; not everyone trusts government to protect human rights, and advocates of natural law are aware natural law is vague and difficult to discern.
The Gosnell trial has brought these questions to the fore, and rightly so, as it’s our judgements, our conclusions and ethics that are on trial.
Whatever position we hold, we need to examine it, and examine it carefully, because on the abortion issue there’s more heat than there is light.
Most of us rarely dissect an ethical question, or try to plummet to the depths of the question to get to the heart of the matter, but on the issue of abortion we must. There’s simply too much at stake to not wrestle with these questions.
On a social level we need to revisit the abortion issue rationally and objectively, as if we are a jury in a court room. Where, after listening to the evidence, and after serious deliberation, discussion and analysis we are compelled to answer the question — ladies and gentlemen of the jury where do you stand?
Who hasn’t experienced the sting of defeat? We’ve failed to win the coveted honor, suffered the ignominy of poor judgment, or moral failure.
In this life, the spoils go to the victor. The press, the public, and sponsors all want to know successful contestants. Winning is good for business — everyone wants to eat at the winners table. That’s life — no one wants to know a loser.
Though the truth is defeat is also a contest. We’re confronted with who we really are, and suffer a worse defeat if we’re un-reconciled or blame others for our derailment.
The loss of fair weathered friends sting, but it’s a greater loss if we don’t carry ourselves with humility and deportment.
The lessons learned in defeat can be gleaned from those who’ve passed before. Not the winners, but the losers …those who’ve failed in a big way. Their lives, their stories become our inspiration in times of defeat and despair.
One of the most public displays of dignity in the face of defeat was the resignation speech of President Nixon. Undoubtedly it would have to be one of the most underrated Presidential speeches in US history.
In a press conference at the White House, the President spoke off the cuff, and from the heart, about failure, and how to use it to propel us into the future.
Noting that he had lived through a turbulent period, he said:
Now, however, we look to the future Here is another one [quote] I found as I was reading, my last night in the White House, and this quote is about a young man. He was a young lawyer in New York. He had married a beautiful girl, and they had a lovely daughter, and then suddenly she died, and this is what he wrote. This was in his diary.
He said, “She was beautiful in face and form and lovelier still in spirit. As a flower she grew and as a fair young flower she died. Her life had been always in the sunshine. There had never come to her a single great sorrow. None ever knew her who did not love and revere her for her bright and sunny temper and her saintly unselfishness. Fair, pure and joyous as a maiden, loving, tender and happy as a young wife. When she had just become a mother, when her life seemed to be just begun and when the years seemed so bright before her, then by a strange and terrible fate death came to her. And when my heart’s dearest died, the light went from my life forever.”
That was T.R. [Theodore Roosevelt] in his twenties. He thought the light had gone from his life forever — but he went on. And he not only became President but, as an ex-President, he served his country, always in the arena, tempestuous, strong, sometimes wrong, sometimes right, but he was a man.
And as I leave, let me say, that is an example I think all of us should remember. We think sometimes when things happen that don’t go the right way; we think that when you don’t pass the bar exam the first time — I happened to, but I was just lucky; I mean, my writing was so poor the bar examiner said, “We have just got to let the guy through.” We think that when someone dear to us dies, we think that when we lose an election, we think that when we suffer a defeat that all is ended. We think, as T.R. said, that the light had left his life forever. Not true.
It is only a beginning, always. The young must know it; the old must know it. It must always sustain us, because the greatness comes not when things go always good for you, but the greatness comes and you are really tested, when you take some knocks, some disappointments, when sadness comes, because only if you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain.
And so I say to you on this occasion, as we leave, we leave proud of the people who have stood by us and worked for us and served this country. We want you to be proud of what you have done. We want you to continue to serve in government, if that is your wish.
Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.
And so, we leave with high hopes, in good spirit, and with deep humility, and with very much gratefulness in our hearts. I can only say to each and every one of you, we come from many faiths, we pray perhaps to different gods — but really the same God in a sense — but I want to say for each and every one of you, not only will we always remember you, not only will we always be grateful to you but always you will be in our hearts and you will be in our prayers.
Thank you very much. — Richard Nixon – August 9, 1974
Whether in failure or in success, defeat or in victories, in adversity or in prosperity— may we grow ever nobler, gentler, more unselfish, and more loving without losing heart.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who’s called on the US to end it’s ‘war on whistleblowers”, has unveiled a new search engine, that’s a portal to an archive of 1.7 million US diplomatic cables.
Using a search algorithm to rival Google, the search engine PLUS D makes it easier for journalists to search over 2,500,000 leaked State Department cables.
Though the documents were publicly available at the National Archives, they’re not easily searchable. Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson said, “… the inaccessibility and difficulty of accessing them is a form of secrecy, … so we found it important to get it to the general public in a good searchable database …”
The data comprises diplomatic records from the beginning of 1973 to the end of 1976, covering a variety of diplomatic traffic including cables, intelligence reports and congressional correspondence. Cables that have been made public during Cablegate, where memos of Henry Kissinger’s time as US Secretary of State.
The WikiLeaks cables have drawn attention to a chilling comment made by Kissinger in 1975 during a conversation with the then-U.S. ambassador to Turkey and two Turkish and Cypriot diplomats. Kissinger quipped:
“Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.’ [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that.”
Congress was quick to dismiss the Kissinger-era documents, in cautioning India’s Opposition BJP against making attempts to draw political capital from the Wikileaks revelation that former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was involved in an aircraft purchase deal with a Swedish company.
Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange also been nominated for the Global Exchange 2013 People’s Choice Award for Wikileaks vital role in enabling human rights activists the world over. Wikileaks has helped push stories hidden from secretive governments.
Examples of Wikileaks work include exposure of insider trading at JP Morgan and the censorship of UK media outlets including BBC and the Independent. Wikileaks also revealed the inner dysfunction of copenhagen climate negotiations and gave content to discontent that sparked the early Arab Spring protests. The shocking “Collateral Murder” video depicted allged war crimes by U.S. airmen, who appear to knowingly shoot innocent Iraqis from the air.
Julian Assange has mounted a run for a seat in the Senate of the Australian Parliament in the federal election on September 14, 2013.
I was born in England, so it’s with sadness and admiration I mark the passing of Baroness Thatcher. My parents left Northern Ireland for England when my father went AWOL from the Irish Army, so I don’t share the Irish Republicans hatred for Margaret Thatcher.
At 87 years of age, she lead a long and illustrious life and will be remembered as the most significant figure in UK politics in post war history. She will be remembered for her free-market economics, her close friendship with President Reagan and her role in bringing an end to the Cold War.
She wasn’t called an iron lady for nothing. Her move to confront Argentina over the Falklands was a major foreign policy highlight, to the extent it turned around her political prospects at home. She was there through the Falklands, through the fall of the Berlin Wall, and through the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc in the communist countries.
Right to the end she remained in the public eye as a leading figure in the Tory party, and was even portrayed by Meryl Streep in the movie “The Iron Lady”. Meryl Streeps’ elegant and even handed statement will no doubt get an Oscar for best Margaret Thatcher eulogy.
Margaret Thatcher was a pioneer, willingly or unwillingly, for the role of women in politics. It is hard to imagine a part of our current history that has not been affected by measures she put forward in the UK at the end of the 20th century. Her hard-nosed fiscal measures took a toll on the poor, and her hands-off approach to financial regulation led to great wealth for others. There is an argument that her steadfast, almost emotional loyalty to the pound sterling has helped the UK weather the storms of European monetary uncertainty.
But to me she was a figure of awe for her personal strength and grit. To have come up, legitimately, through the ranks of the British political system, class bound and gender phobic as it was, in the time that she did and the way that she did, was a formidable achievement. To have won it, not because she inherited position as the daughter of a great man, or the widow of an important man, but by dint of her own striving. To have withstood the special hatred and ridicule, unprecedented in my opinion, leveled in our time at a public figure who was not a mass murderer; and to have managed to keep her convictions attached to fervent ideals and ideas—wrongheaded or misguided as we might see them now—without corruption—I see that as evidence of some kind of greatness, worthy for the argument of history to settle.
Britain’s current Prime Minister David Cameron, said,
“We’ve lost a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton,” “She saved our country and I believe she will go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”
Margaret Thatcher served as the U.K.’s prime minister from 1979 to 1990. During this time her policies—some popular, some not—transformed Britain.
Making history in Australia, a Muslim woman has been appointed to the upper house in the New South Wales parliament.
Academic Dr Mehreen Faruqi won the Greens pre-selection following a postal ballot from the first field of seven women-only candidates.
Another first for the Greens party. Dr. Mehreen Faruqi, of Pakistani origin, will replace NSW upper house MP Cate Faehrmann in the new parliament later this year.
Dr Faruqi said her appointment was a “very progressive” move for Australia, and that she would seek to build a stronger community. Taking pride in her multicultural background, Faruqi says her Islamic faith is only “one element” of her background, that “I believe I might be the first environmental engineer in the NSW parliament as well.”
In 2010, Ed Husic, of Bosnian origin, was elected a member of parliament for western Sydney.
The deaths of two men at Sydney’s Silverwater Jail, aged 41 and 47, highlights the role prison education programs play in the rehabilitation of inmates. [The police are treating the deaths as either a murder-suicide or double suicide.]
Given the limited funding allocated by federal and state governments to the arts in general, one is left to assume the reason for the axing of the former Silverwater Arts Program was either limited funding, or worse, the arts are not viewed as a path forward for inmates.
The public know that prisons are required to punish offenders, however if they are to be socially rehabilitated, the public has a right to expect an allocation of resources for prison art programs to educate, improve and reform individuals.
Apart from the rewarding element in creative activities, art activities are both therapeutic and educational.
According to Alexandra Djurichk, author of the white paper, ‘Art in Prisons’, there’s no shortage of passionate individuals, artists and non-profit and academic organisations with the desire to affect a positive change for people who are incarcerated. Yet there’s no clear path for affecting that change (Brune 2007; Dean & Field 2003, 2-4).
Arts Access Australia report there’s value in prison art programs for educating, improving and reforming individuals, while contributing security and cost benefits to correctional institutions and, … to the society to which they will return to.
With an increasing prison population it’s critical that governments fund rehabilitation options that include, (among other initiatives), prison art programs. Despite the philosophical contradiction between disempowering offenders, access to art programs can positively affect inmates’ lives, and empower individuals toward self rehabilitation.
Following the multiple deaths of two prisoners at Silverwater Jail the public will be asking tough questions about procedures and practices in Sydney’s Metropolitan Remand and Reception Center.
Not least being, what is the Australian prison system doing to assist prisoners in the self rehabilitation process as they prepare to re-enter, and reconcile with society?
A recent BBC documentary, “The Town That Never Retired”, reveal unprecedented numbers of older people are staying in work longer. That since the start of the recession in 2008, the number of 16- to 24-year-olds in work has fallen by 597,000. Yet over the same period the number of workers over the age of 65 has increased by 240,000. A current trend in the western work force.
What do you think? Do you believe the old guard need to move over and make way for younger workers, do older workers have a choice, or has seventy six simply become the new fifty six?
Shoe Store in 8th Ave, between 40th & 41st Streets, New York.
Here’s to a better things in 2010
For the most part I buy quality and enjoy dining when assured the food is fresh, the kitchen clean and staff helpful. When I receive good customer service I feel affirmed at a basic level as a human being.
That said, I’m willing to sacrifice a few creature comforts while on the road in the USA for the next three months. I figure pennies saved on a few necessities equals more dollars to spend on those Manolo Blahnik shoes.
The Holiday Inn Downtown Columbus mixed reviews didn’t faze me, as clearly the Hotel had underfone a recent facelift. I was a happy camper when I landed in a double suite for the price of one.
For the most part the Holiday Inn staff are helpful, service agreeable and amenities comparable. But even a heated pool couldn’t cool my ire after a series of slights from one particular night staffer, boiled over into a loud run in.
Checking out in loud protest the next morning, I was ready to kick the Holiday Inn to the kerb. Hell hath no fury than a blogger offended, my campaign to send my blog link to every travel agent and Holiday Inn in sight was averted after the General Manager Tyson Schweitzer stepped up.
Using the occasion as an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive, Tyson not only provided me with two free nights at any Holiday Inn and their Associates, but put the Inn’s shuttle at my service for the remainder of my stay in Columbus (even if I had takenup lodgings with their competitor). A cute touch was was a little trick or treat goodies bag.
As a traveller in a foreign country I appreciated Tyson receiving the negative customer feedback as a positive. He not only turned the situation around to the satisfaction of both parties, but left no room at the inn for negative check outs.
As for me, I have two free nights accommodation in my pocket for emergencies, and an AMAZING deal on HOTWIRE with the Hyatt On Capital Square.
Traveller Tip: Blessings speak with fork tongue at fork on the road of life.
Never in the history of mankind have women over forty been more interesting, more educated and more empowered.
While I find this advertisement amusing, I can’t help wondering how women would respond to such an advertisement today?
Disclaimer: Before you get your hopes up, please know this ad is from WWII
I have a confession to make; coffee always tastes better when it’s made and served by a dishy Barrista.
It begs the question how does a girl go from drinking fresh roasted Italian Coffee to Michel’s Patisserie?
It was a Sunday morning walk, I was feeling energetic and walked further than my usual coffee stop at Belaroma. In no hurry, I was enjoying the sun, thinking of the future and unaware of the temptation lurking up ahead.
I’m not easily influenced by advertising, or sales men. In fact when my children were young I’d wait for a knock on the door from a vacuum cleaner sales man. Not that I didn’t have a vacuum cleaner, but busy mum that I was, my carpets always needed a quick clean.
Notwithstanding, no one was more surprised than me when I consciously allowed myself to be seduced by Michel’s Patisserie’s latest advertising. Added to which, I smiled with guilty pleasure as I drank a coffee I’d rank 6 out of 10 at a push.
I can count on one hand how many cups of Michel’s Patisserie I’ve drunk in my entire coffee drinking career. As far as coffee goes, this brand has never been on my radar, until now!
Michel’s Patisserie tag line should be “Michel’s Patisserie Coffee Is Ordinary, But The Sex Is Crafted To Perfection.”