Paralipomena (1)

Helping the poor may be virtuous, but when the poverty industry starts losing “clients” because the market is performing good works, watch out.

Compartamos Banco knows what it’s like to have a tarnished halo. The Mexican bank specializes in microfinancing for low-income entrepreneurs in a country that never used to have a financial industry serving the poor. Compartamos not only figured out how to meet the needs of this excluded population, but also how to make money at it.

As a result, the bank has been growing fast. With an average loan size of only $450, it now has more than 900,000 clients – 15 times as many as it had in 2000.

This strong growth suggests that the bank’s for-profit model makes both borrowers and lenders better off. Yet the triumph is not good news for everyone. In the economic sector that Compartamos serves – those making about $10 a day – the international charity brigade is at risk of becoming obsolete. Perhaps this explains why people who make their living giving away other people’s money are badmouthing Compartamos for the vulgar practice of earning “too much” profit.

Lending to microenterprises took off some years ago as economists recognized that the poor, just like the middle class, can make productive use of credit. The most famous microfinancier is Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.

Compartamos got its start in southern Mexico in 1990 as a nonprofit providing working capital to small businesspeople like food preparers, vendors and handicraft producers. Its funds initially came from private-sector charity and governments, and its clients were – and still are – largely female. This group is often illiterate but it is also entrepreneurial and, as it turns out, a very good credit risk. In lieu of collateral, the bank typically accepts the credit of a group of entrepreneurs who effectively co-sign for a peer.

After 10 years, Compartamos was financing 60,000 microborrowers. But it recognized that the need for its service was much greater. In 2000, to raise new capital, it formed a for-profit company to utilize private-sector capital as well as loans and grants from government agencies and charities. In 2002, it issued $70 million in debt, and four years later its client base had grown to more than 600,000.

By 2006, bankers in the developing world who had traditionally ignored the “C” and “D” economic classes – with “A” being the wealthiest and “E” being the poorest – began to realize that lending to lower-income entrepreneurs is good business. One reason for the change was that computer software advances enabled banks to handle small accounts more efficiently.

What was once written off as an unviable market became a hot opportunity, and Compartamos was well positioned to capitalize on it in Mexico. Last year the company launched an initial public offering that was oversubscribed 13 times. That’s when the do-gooders stepped in to question the company’s ethics.

In a commentary published last June on the Compartamos IPO, Richard Rosenberg, a consultant for the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor – not part of the World Bank but housed on its premises – observes that the demand for shares in the company was driven, in part, by “exceptional growth and profitability.” He then ruminates for some 16 pages on whether Compartamos’s for-profit model is at odds with the goal of lifting the poor. A similar, though far less rigorous, challenge to Compartamos titled “Microloan Sharks” appears in the summer issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

In his “reflections” on “microfinance interest rates and profits,” Mr. Rosenberg writes that “overcharg[ing]” clients under a nonprofit model is OK because it is done for the sake of future borrowers. But when profits go to providers of capital through dividends, then there is a “conflict between the welfare of clients and the welfare of investors.” It’s not the commercialization of the lending, we’re told, but the “size” of the profits that must be scrutinized.

What seems to elude Mr. Rosenberg is the fact that there is no way for him to know whether there is “overcharg[ing]” or by how much. That information can be delivered only by the market, when innovative new entrants see they can provide services at a better price. This has been happening since for-profit microfinance began to emerge, and the result has been greater competition. Rates have been coming down even as the demand for and availability of services have gone up.

How much better it would have been, Mr. Rosenberg suggests, if Compartamos had raised capital through “socially motivated investors” like the “international financial institutions” – i.e., the World Bank and the like. How much better indeed, for him and his poverty lobby cohorts, but not, it seems, for Mexico’s entrepreneurial poor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478119445214333.html

India likes to boast of its flourishing democracy and the civil liberties enjoyed by its people. So why does the country regularly tolerate repressions of free speech?

The latest example comes courtesy of the Andhra Jyothi, a widely circulated Telegu-language daily in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. Local police arrested its editor and two free-lancers last week for “humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste” – in this case, a Dalit, one of the traditional underclass in India’s caste system.

Never mind that the article, detailing corruption in the town leadership, never mentioned the Dalits. Forget, too, that the 1989 act under which the journalists were charged does not apply to the press. It was intended to prevent the upper castes from publicly intimidating the Dalits, formerly known as “untouchables.”

Journalists in India frequently have to tread lightly – especially when writing about religious conflicts or powerful politicians. Also this month, Gujarat’s state government filed a criminal suit against a Times of India op-ed writer for criticizing the state’s police administration in the wake of the 2002 religious riots. In May, a blogger from the state of Haryana was arrested for creating an online group that criticized Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi.

Little wonder that Freedom House ranks India’s press as only “partly free” in this year’s global listings, awarding it a ranking of 77 of 195 countries surveyed. The limits on free speech are a blight on India’s otherwise vibrant democracy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121477367590414049.html

FACEBOOK, the popular social networking site, is becoming more than just a cyber meeting place as it turns into a powerful vehicle for social change.

Squeezing out MySpace as the site of the moment and with 75million users (more than the population of most countries), it appears to be the most popular meeting place in the virtual world.

And like other virtual endeavours, Facebook has no borders. Its reach is as wide as the reach of the web. Or, perhaps, as wide as the reach of those who attempt to control it.

Facebook, a site that offers a platform for the advancement of causes, political or otherwise, is quickly turning into a hotbed of activism: a cause for alarm to many autocratic regimes in the Middle East that attempt to curtail its reach by blocking it.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is considering blocking Facebook in light of its growing popularity among Egyptian youth. In April, one such group used Facebook to mobilise 80,000 supporters in protest against the rising cost of bread. The site also played a crucial role in broadening support and turnout for an April 6 textile workers’ strike and protest.

These instances could not have gone unnoticed by the Egyptian Government, which rules under emergency laws and doesn’t allow more than five people to gather unregistered. Ahmed Maher, a young civil engineer and activist who used Facebook to organise a second demonstration in early May, was kidnapped, beaten and put behind bars.

“I was taken to Lazoghli prison, where they stripped me down to my underwear, threatened to rape me with a stick, and continued kicking, beating and insulting me, and dragging me across the floor,” he later wrote on his blog. “I kept asking, ‘Why am I here?’ They just insulted me and asked me for the password of my 4 May Facebook group.”

In prison, Maher joined a growing cadre of other cyber and political dissidents such as Wael Abbas, a brave blogger who dared to post a video clip of Egyptian police sodomising a man with a stick.

In Syria, the Government banned Facebook after an anti-regime email spam campaign was channelled through the site last year.

But savvy Syrians, assisted by cyber colleagues abroad, succeeded in breaking through the censorship. Indeed, last November, when Facebook was blocked, it had 28,000 registered Syrian members. Five months after the ban, the number of Syrians with Facebook accounts had risen to 34,000.

Other Syrian sites were blocked following President Bashar al-Assad’s initiation of the Syrian internet in 2000; since then usage has soared by 4900per cent, threatening the stability of the regime by exposing the Government to greater domestic scrutiny.

In the Gulf states, a more sophisticated system of censorship attempts to block only the more threatening Facebook applications, such as those connected to video content, photographs and computer-based phone services. Iran lists 22,151 Facebook users but the site is mostly unavailable there because of government censorship.

Context is required to understand the Facebook phenomenon. The internet has provided Arab activist groups with a new medium of expression: it quickly has become the preferred domain for many opposition groups that have little or no access to traditional forms of media. Other groups - including women’s groups, minority groups and gay and lesbian groups - also have been quick to jump on the internet bandwagon. In addition to the Association of Arab Gays and Lesbians (glas.org), more than a dozen gay and lesbian websites have been created, including some in conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Add to that the growing number of political blogs that often use video streaming to expose the brutality of governments, political corruption or police violence, and it is easy to understand why governments are concerned.

Not surprisingly, these governments are responding quickly to the new dangers.

Last week Syrian blogger Tariq Baissi was sentenced to three years in prison for posting a six-word comment in an online forum in which he criticised the Syrian security services. He follows in the footsteps of previously imprisoned cyber colleagues such as Massoud Hamid, a 29-year-old Kurd who was charged with the crime of disseminating false news over the internet; Abdel Rahman Shaghouri, who emailed Levant News the newsletter of the banned website www. thisissyria.net; and Heitham Qatesh, who was charged with posting on his blog “illegal material that put Syria and its citizens in danger”.

Unfortunately, the response of governments in the Middle East appears much more efficient than that of the West, which barely acknowledges these brave voices of activists for freedom who dare to challenge the status quo and call for a much needed dialogue within and outside the region.

The same internet that allows them to speak should also encourage us to listen and raise our voices in support of their cry for a discourse free of censorship, brutality and oppression. The growing number of Facebook and cyber dissidents in Middle Eastern prisons should not remain unnoticed.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23928381-7583,00.html

THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you’re too stupid to know the difference.

Let’s lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.

A record to be proud of.

Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven’t suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.

Explain to me, please, how this shows we’re less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?

God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn’t. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.

By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?

Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.

Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.

If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq’s government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq’s major cities.

And our troops are coming home. Where’s the failure?

Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who’ve rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who’ve smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn’t take long to figure out that Tehran’s foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.

The people of Iraq don’t intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?

Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning.

The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe’s young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.

Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they’re sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO’s military side. Where’s the disaster, mon ami?

Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy - and John McCain’s too old to get it.

Hmm: Take a gander at Obama’s senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .

If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you’d land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.

More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.

You couldn’t assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.

Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.

Tell it to the Marines.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/liars_round_up_117549.htm?page=0

A constitutionally dubious campaign-finance law, passed last June by the New York City Council and signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has some residents up in arms. It may still be true that if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere, as Frank Sinatra put it. But how you make it will now determine which of your political rights the city will protect.

Under the measure, every citizen who “does business with the city” saw the amount of money that he could contribute to a city candidate slashed by 90 percent. These New Yorkers can now contribute no more than $250 per election to city council candidates and $400 to mayoral candidates. All other residents, though, will still be able to give $2,750 to council candidates and $4,950 to mayoral ones. The law capaciously defines those who “do business with the city” to include lobbyists, developers, and businesses with city contracts worth more than $100,000, as well as people whose contact with the city consists of nothing more than ironing out pending land-use and zoning issues.

Attorney James Bopp, Jr. has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of more than a dozen plaintiffs challenging the law’s constitutionality on First Amendment grounds. The measure, he argues, forces citizens to choose between their right to petition the government and their free-speech right to support their preferred political ideals, interests, and candidates through campaign contributions. Bopp, it’s worth noting, has won four campaign-finance cases before the United States Supreme Court.

The law is also unfair, since it exempts unions from the reduced contribution limits. As a result, Michele Russo, a plaintiff in the case who is the secretary for a registered lobbyist, now has fewer political rights than George Gresham, president of the powerful health-care workers’ union Local 1199. City council speaker Christine Quinn–who received more than $70,000 in union contributions–says the law is all about ensuring fairness. “The situation here is to require that everyone gets treated the same way,” she told the New York Times. “A union or a PAC can give one contribution, whatever the maximum is for the office in question. Someone who did business with the City of New York prior to this could have every person in the business give a contribution of the maximum level allowed to that office. So I think this in fact much more levels the playing field.”

Of course, individual members of unions, like employees of firms and corporations, are also free to give to candidates, a fact that Quinn conveniently ignores. In Bopp’s view, the law’s failure to apply funding restrictions to unions (and neighborhood associations) proves that it was enacted for “partisan political effect.” What’s more, like all campaign-finance laws, it favors incumbents, who already have visibility and name recognition.

By imposing regulations that give some citizens greater political rights than others, the new law transforms city government into a kind of political sound engineer–turning the volume of certain speakers up and of others down, according to how one chooses to make a living and where politicians’ interests lie. Such a role for government is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.

Source

A Florida teen whose arm was ripped from his body by an 11-foot alligator is blaming the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for not properly controlling the alligator population.

“It’s a problem that needs to be dealt with,” victim Kasey Edwards said. “The alligators — the population needs to be brought down.”

Edwards said he knew the canal was infested with alligators before taking a 2 a.m. swim at Nubbin Slough, a canal near Lake Okeechobee on Sunday.

“They said they pulled out over a dozen 12-foot alligators and they spotted 150 in that area,” Edwards said.

Meanwhile, frantic 911 calls made moments after Edwards lost his arm were released Wednesday night.

One of the calls described Edward’s condition.

“I just called about the alligator bite,” a caller told a 911 dispatcher.

“He got bit by a gator?” the dispatcher asked.

“His arm is gone,” the caller said.

“Do you have anything to hold off the bleeding?” the dispatcher asked.

“Yes, ma’am,” the caller said.

When paramedic crews arrived, they found Edwards was missing his left arm.

Police released a new photo of Edwards lying on the side of the canal being treated.

Edwards said he escaped the alligator’s death roll by poking his finger into its eye.

The teen’s arm was later found inside the alligator’s stomach but it couldn’t be reattached.

He is expected to remain in the hospital this week.

http://www.local6.com/news/16715344/detail.html?Derrr

During a press conference June 18, New York Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey spouted a repackaged conspiracy theory, instead of addressing the issue of the economic crisis caused by the rising price of a barrel of crude oil.

Mr. Hinchey said, “President Bush and Republicans keep talking about the need to open up more federal land for drilling, but they ignore the fact that there are 68 million acres of untouched federal land that oil companies already control. The oil companies are simply sitting on those 68 million acres until oil prices rise to $200 or $300 a barrel when they can make even greater profits at the expense of Americans.”

During the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo, the conspiracy theorists spread rumors that were very similar to Mr. Hinchey’s. Only then, the conspiracy theory was that there were tankers, full of oil, anchored only miles offshore from the United States, which would not dock, because the evil oil companies wanted to create more shortages and jack up the price of gasoline so they would make even more outrageous profits.

This theory was untrue as is Mr. Hinchey’s.

There is only one of two reasons for this claim, either Mr. Hinchey and his fellow “progressive” Democrats in Congress are intentionally trying to deceive the American people - or if they really do believe this - then they are woefully ignorant of the real world.

These are the facts, which you will not learn anywhere else.

The United States government provides leases for oil and gas production to private companies which, “… grant the right to the lessee to explore for and develop minerals or other products located on a specific tract of land. The lease instrument defines the duration of the lease; acreage covered by the lease; rental and royalty terms for each mineral; as well as any revenue sharing mechanisms.”

Note, the government gives companies the right “to explore for” oil and gas. The government does not guarantee there will be any. Nor does the government guarantee there will be sufficient quantities to be commercially viable. Nor does the government guarantee anything will be found during the term of the lease.

It is just one big gamble for the oil company. It is quite possible that at the end of the lease period the company has not found any oil.

As of 2007, there were a total of 66,232 leases and 91, 755, 078 acres for oil and gas. Of this amount, 37,982 leases for 67,055,715 acres nonproductive (so the Democrats 68 million figure is incorrect by 1 million acres).

These leases are expensive. Recently, Royal Dutch Shell bid $18,497 an acre for one tract. Not only are billions paid to acquire the leases, royalties and rents are also paid. For fiscal year 2007, the government received revenues of $11.4 billion. Furthermore, the duration of the leases can be only five to ten years, which are renewable, if deemed commercially productive.
So, for one to believe Mr. Hinchey and the Democrats, one has to willingly suspend disbelief. One has to believe that the oil companies are going to invest billions of dollars for unproductive land on the chance - the chance - that the price will increase.

However, even a price increase does not guarantee they would realize a profit. They must have all their equipment in place and begin pumping the oil from the ground as soon as they get their price - which could decrease as soon as their oil gets to market.

What Mr. Hinchey and the Democrats claim ignores the time value of money and basic laws of supply and demand. As wealthy as oil companies are, it would be insane to leave billions of dollars tied up in unproductive leases and to keep paying billions more in rent just for the chance of making more. These companies did not become wealthy by being stupid. Not selling an asset, when it is getting record prices, is stupid.

Listening to Mr. Hinchey and other Democrats, one cannot help to recall the words of George Orwell. When he heard the conspiracy theory that American troops came to Britain during World War II not to fight the Germans, but to stop a workers revolution, Orwell said “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Only the liberal intelligentsia can believe Mr. Hinchey and the rest. Average Americans are not fools.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19809681&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

FOR decades it has been the prized possession of many a Territory back yard or balcony - but the days of the beer fridge could be numbered.

The NT Government is recommending Territorians “retire” their beer fridges in a bid to tackle climate change.

In a list of “practical actions for NT households”, printed in the Northern Territory News, the Government suggests residents “retire the second fridge or freezer”.

But it seems it could be a case of “do as I say, not as I do”, for Chief Minister Paul Henderson.

“I’ve got a beer fridge — as many Territorians do — and I’m keeping it,” he said.

“So one of the ways I am going to do my part to tackle climate change is look at its energy efficiency rating to see if it can be improved.”

A Power and Water Corporation brochure suggests Territorians can save up to $200 a year by doing away with their beer fridge.

But Jake McCauley, 24, said the extra money was well and truly worth it.

“It’s a small price to pay to be able to have a cold beer in the dry season,” he said.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23931215-661,00.html

A SMALL Territory community is still reeling with shock after four UFOs descended on their Outback homes.

Families spent hours in fear as what appeared to be three spaceships hovered in the distance with another just metres above their houses.

The drama at Marlinja, population 112 and 730km south of Darwin, began at 8pm on Sunday.

Resident Janie Dixon said it started as an “ordinary” night.

“The kids were on the basketball courts, shooting a few hoops, and I was indoors talking to my two nieces when we heard a strange, loud noise,” she said.

“We ran outside but at first we couldn’t see anything — it was really dark and we could hear the sound.

“The sound was horrible. It sounded like something was going past.

“We thought it was a jet. I saw what I thought at first was the evening star, the first star you usually see at night.

“But then we saw three red lights in the distance, and the sound kept getting louder.

“The ground felt like it was shaking, so we ran inside and shut the doors.

“My nephew and niece were looking out through curtains. The thing came closer, circled around the basketball courts and then came so close above our house.

“The kids at the basketball courts ran — two girls stood there looking towards the sky.

“They tried to see what it was but all they could see was this bright red light in the pitch black.”

Ms Dixon said the UFO hovered above the homes for what seemed like a couple of hours.

She said at one stage the phone rang, but went dead when she tried to answer it.

“Then the light in the house became so bright, it was like we were sitting in a football stadium,” she said.

“After a while, after the things all disappeared… I think it was about 11pm by then.

“We went outside and were just sitting around drinking tea and talking about it all. The kids were put to bed.

“We heard the noise again and it came back, but disappeared again moments later.

“We were all really frightened.

“It was a big shock and I couldn’t sleep.”

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/06/27/4503_ntnews.html

A GOLD Coast teenager who wore a T-shirt by English extreme metal band Cradle of Filth that reads ‘Jesus is a c**t’ has been charged with offensive behaviour.

Above the offensive slogan a nun is depicted masturbating.

A 16-year-old was arrested on Monday for wearing the shirt and was charged with offensive behaviour under the Summary Offences Act 2005 for public nuisance.

Senior Sergeant Arron Ottaway said the teen was walking along Hollywell Road, in Biggera Waters, when a officer saw him.

Police conducted inquiries at Australia Fair, where the teen said he bought the shirt, to find any shops selling it.

The Reverend Matt Hunt of the Helensvale Baptist Church said it was sad people spoke about the Lord in such a way.

“It’s fairly common language these days to express sadness, anger or hurt,” he said. “It’s a degrading word to use and Jesus is anything but that. It’s like calling white black.”

Mr Hunt said using the Lord’s name in vain was a serious sin.

“When someone comes to the point of saying Jesus is the devil or Jesus is ‘expletive’, the Bible does say be very careful because you’re on thin ice.”

Gold Coast lawyer Bill Potts said the arrest highlighted Australia’s need for a Bill of Rights.

“One of the great problems with our country is that we talk about rights such as privacy and freedom of speech and the like but they are not enshrined or protected in any way as they are in America,” he said.

“While there are always limits on freedom of speech, you can’t incite violence or anything like that, it seems to be now more than ever that our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be protected.

“A Bill of Rights which enshrines that protection is long overdue in this country.”

Mr Potts said charging the teen was ‘ludicrous’ and brought the law into disrepute.

“A shirt might offend some and might be amusing to others,” he said.

“If a person was wearing the shirt in a church or a religious rally where it was specifically intended to offend or cause disruption, then perhaps the prosecution might stand a chance.

“However, to criminalise juvenile or boorish messages is to bring the law into disrepute. The police are acting like the thought police and censors.”

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23919553-2,00.html