The Feast And The Fury puts history on the menu

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

Of course you know, this means war. Well, it did back in the mid-1700’s when France and Britain were fighting over North America, which is also why the Fortress of Louisbourg was built.

The Feast And The Fury, a new dinner theatre production scheduled for presentation this summer at the Louisbourg Playhouse and at the national historic site itself plunges its audience into daily life at the Fortress during a time of conflict.

“Canso has been captured and French privateers are out hinting British vessels,” Bev Brett, the writer and director of the show, says about its premise, “The audience becomes a group of prisoners who have been taken to the Fortress to be fed and entertained, in this case, to a traditional 25 course Ambigu meal.”

The Feast And The Fury grew out of a series of “mini-plays” Brett was commissioned to write three years ago.

With the sponsorship of the Fortress of Louisbourg Association, Brett re-wrote her earlier work into its present format.

“The Fortress was really helpful in making this play happen,” Brett notes, “They found us a big open warehouse where people can see the play more comfortably.”

Brett says the show is based on actual historical figures from all levels of Louisbourg society and uses a variety of theatre styles from “comedy to high drama to farce and melodrama.

Even a piece that started off as a puppet show, about two characters trying to find who is the most important person in Louisbourg, that we now do with real people.”

“We hope the audience will be drawn into the history through their emotions as they care about these people and what happens to them,” Brett explains.

“We have a cast of six actors, some of the finest on the island, who play 20 characters, and it’s a fast paced show so they’re jumping in and out of different costumes all the time,” Brett says.

The cast includes Joanne Donovan, George MacKenzie, Jeanne Matthews, Nick Sobol, James F. W. Thompson, and Lindsay Thompson.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

New pastor prepares to move church forward

Sunday, March 16th, 2008

By WILLIAM SMITH

wsmithwsmith

The Rev. Charles Downing loves to laugh. He has rows of Donald Duck figures on his shelves, some of which were given to him by his children. He even does a dead-on-impression of Donald Duck that sounds eerily similar to the rendition of the whacky water fowl made famous by Warner Bros. voice actor Mel Blanc.

And he’s never afraid to crack a joke.

“In the midst of laughter, you can learn something,” he said.

Downing will be giving his first sermon today as the new pastor for First United Methodist Church, which burned to the ground April 29. Since the fire, First united Methodist has been conducting joint services at First Congregational Church, which is without a pastor.

The Methodist church’s former pastor, the Rev. Dennis Tevis, has become a district superintendent and is serving on the cabinet of Iowa Bishop Gregory V. Palmer.

“I have to face the fact that there will still be grieving over the church. But many are ready to move on,” Downing said. “I will share a message of hope on Sunday. We’ve found ourselves at another church that has welcomed us, and that has been a gracious gift.”

Downing already has hit the ground running, meeting with Doug Anderson of the Bishop Reuben Job Center this weekend. Anderson has been taking the church through a two-day visioning process that will help Downing and the church board get a clearer idea of where they want to take the church in the future.

“He (Doug Anderson) has vast experience in helping churches and has helped other churches in the same situation,” Downing said. “This weekend is a key start to planning the future.”

Downing knew he was set to replace Tevis well before the church burned, and had even made some visits to the historic structure before the fire. He still remembers the call he got after the church fire.

“I said ‘What!’ I sat down and said ‘Tell me that again,’ ” Downing said. “I was devastated.”

Downing told his congregation at First United Methodist Church in Waterloo what happened that Sunday morning and joined them in a rendition of “We Are the Church.”

About 160 miles away in Burlington, members of the burned church gathered at North Hill Park that morning and sang the same song.

“God has helped me come to this congregation,” Downing said. “Out of the ashes, the Phoenix arises. There comes new life. I get to be here when that happens.”

As a native of Odebolt, Downing is in his 25th year as an elder of the Methodist church. His father owned an auto body shop in Odebolt for 35 years and made sure Downing had a religious upbringing.

“Church has always been there for me, and it has always been a place I can go,” he said.

Downing first started hearing the call when he was 12 years old, but wasn’t ordained as an elder until 1982. He recalled his decision to enter the ministry.

“I was 25, had three children and hadn’t finished college,” he said.

Downing moved on to become a graduate of Westmar College in Le Mars and earned his master’s degree in religious education and divinity from Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. He served as a pastor on the eastern shore of Maryland and was as an assistant pastor for Sioux City United Methodist Church, where he was responsible for the youth ministry and Christian education for children.

He found his Donald Duck impression to be quite useful with the young students.

“It makes a big impression with the children,” he said. “It is another way of teaching them.”

After becoming an elder, Downing served as an associate pastor for Iowa City First United Methodist Church for eight years and was then was senior pastor at Atlantic First United Methodist Church for 11 years.

Downing’s past six years have been spent as senior pastor for Waterloo First United Methodist Church.

He said he is looking forward to leading the church with the help of his wife, Karlee. The couple will celebrate their 40th anniversary this November and have four adult children and four grandchildren.

“I think it’s a wonderful change for the church,” said lay leader Jim Corder. “He’s at the family life stage where he is an empty nester and ready to focus all his efforts on the church. He’s a real people person and is quick to remember names and makes friends very quickly.”

Church office manager Melanie Lyon agreed. She has only been working with Downing for a couple of days, but is looking forward to his style of leadership.

“The only way to go is forward, and we can’t backtrack,” she said. “He is coming into a very difficult situation here, but I see good things ahead. Sometimes change is good.”

Tags: ,

Related posts

Everyone poorer if town’s heritage is allowed to be trampled

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

Under the current state planning laws, 900 new houses may soon
engulf Catherine Hill Bay. This idyllic Central Coast coalmining
town from the 1870s comprises 100 historic homes and intact
heritage streetscapes nestled in rolling green hinterland on a
pristine surf beach. The area is rich in social history and abounds
in biodiversity and endangered species.
Rose Property Group plans to build 600 houses there, and Coal
Allied 300 dwellings. Both proponents have signed memorandums
of understanding with the Minister for Planning to facilitate the
developments. If these plans proceed, “Catho’s” heritage,
environmental and aesthetic values will be obliterated.
A ministerial decision on the Rose Group application is expected
imminently. Public submissions on the Coal Allied plans close
this Friday.
Catherine Hill Bay’s significance has been recognised by a
rollcall of authorities. It is zoned as a conservation area and has
been nominated for state heritage listing. In 2006 the Land and
Environment Court rejected Rosecorp’s earlier proposal for 600
homes. That year the NSW Department of Planning recommended against
development on environmental and heritage grounds.
The developments are now being considered under Part 3A of the
NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which gives the
Planning Minister the authority to override environmental and
planning legislation and policies on projects deemed “state
significant”. The National Trust is deeply concerned about the
growing use of these powers. The application of Part 3A to green
light Catherine Hill Bay will set a dangerous precedent for the
coast, and other places of environmental and heritage significance,
raising developer expectations.
The role of the trust, the nation’s largest community-based
conservation charity, is to safeguard natural and cultural heritage
and to encourage Australians to appreciate that each generation has
a responsibility to the next.
Yet we are not anti-development, and are acutely conscious of
the need to provide housing and infrastructure to support our
population and economy.
However, the construction of 900 dwellings at Catherine Hill
Bay, with the inevitable impacts for infrastructure and the natural
and built environment, would represent the triumph of development
over the environmental and social values that the broader community
holds dear. What will our children’s children think of us when they
reflect on an irreplaceable heritage and environmental jewel,
trampled by the relentless march of capital over community and
culture?
Tina Jackson Executive Director National Trust (NSW)
Sydney
Apart from superwoman, 2020 vision looks blokey
I am a senior female human resources executive, specialising in
remuneration and organisational effectiveness. I have lived all
over the world and returned quite recently from nine years working
in New York, Istanbul and Europe. Australia has a reputation for
its blokey, misogynist work environment. My work has given me great
insight into how inequality (particularly in relation to pay)
becomes entrenched in organisations and cultures.
To have the Prime Minister include just one female in a
10-person leadership team that will discuss Australia’s future is
disgraceful (”Rudd’s summit slammed as a one-woman show”, February
27). It sends a message to thousands of women that it’s not worth
bothering. That the one female is a beautiful celebrity - an
actress - rubs salt into the wound.
Amanda Wilson Balmain
The businesswoman Catherine Harris apparently thinks that the
Prime Minister should understand “that most women are not actually
at home looking after the grandchildren or children %26#133; they’ve
got lots of other jobs as well”.
Mrs Harris appears to assume that a woman who looks after her
children or her grandchildren at home is incapable of contributing
to a significant national debate.
This attitude shows scant regard for the diversity of
circumstances in which many women find themselves.
Of course, there should be more women on this committee, but
they need not necessarily be drawn only from high-profile positions
in the business world.
That would be decidedly unbalanced.
Elizabeth Chandler Mount Victoria
After the very positive reception to Kevin Rudd’s announcement
that Cate Blanchett is one of 10 committee members guiding
Australia’s 2020 Summit, the following are other positions this
very versatile actress is being considered for by the Federal
Government: governor of the Reserve Bank; leader of the Australian
mission to the next round of Kyoto Protocol talks; Australian
ambassador for peace, Darfur region, North Africa; head of
emergency services, Royal North Shore Hospital; special rapporteur
for Aboriginal intervention, Northern Territory; astronaut on
NASA’s 2015 manned mission to Mars; and governor-general of
Australia.
Please note there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that she
will be the next premier of NSW. Some things just can’t be
fixed.
Ben Cardillo Epping
There may be only one woman on the 2020 committee - but boy,
what a woman.
Mike Doyle Darlington
The summit will be just like the great republic debate, where a
selection of high-profile (mostly) men participated. That debate
turned out to be a dog. Will the 2020 summit also be just a
propaganda exercise?
How many real people, such as the women at the grassroots of
local communities, will end up there?
Mary Jenkins Spearwood (WA)
Never have I heard so much whingeing and whining about so
little.
Each of the 10 chairwomen and men at the 2020 Summit can invite
99 women, and six of the groups will be co-chaired by women.
Marilyn Shepherd Kensington
Hollow promises for the north-west

For years the Baulkham Hills Shire Council has been told to
increase densities in Sydney’s north-west to accommodate the
population growth on the promise that real infrastructure in the
form of heavy rail will be provided.
The targets for that growth through development were set and are
being implemented by council and enforced by the State
Government.
We’ve grown and the densities are clearly evident, but all we
are left with is the traffic chaos, empty promises and more
speculation about the removal of the rail line.
Unless there is absolute proof that the State Government is
going to provide the north-west rail line, the upgrade of
Showground Road and more buses, no increase in densities above the
absolute minimum should be approved by the local council
involved.
The people of the north-west have had enough of overdevelopment
based on empty promises.
Cr Peter Dimbrowsky Baulkham Hills
Metro rail systems work fine in highly built-up areas like
London and Paris (”Bye heavy rail, now for a north-west metro”,
February 26), but Sydney’s north-west is much more spread out.
If the NSW Transport Minister, John Watkins, needs proof of how
passengers shun the all-stops services for longer trips, he need
look no further than his electorate, where his own constituents
prefer to crowd out the Central Coast express services to travel to
Eastwood and Epping, rather than use the all-stops services.
People simply won’t use a first-stop-Rozelle service to get to
Rouse Hill.
Bruce Stafford Tascott
Clearly for certain key members of the NSW Labor family the
Light on the Hill only has a future if privately powered.
So maybe it’s time Frankie “The Dinner” Sartor, Mickie “Power of
One” Costa and “Macho” Morris Iemma (have you seen the size of his
water cannon? It’s huge!) left the True Believers and formed their
own gang: the ADP (Australian Developers Party).
Nick Franklin Katoomba
Yesterday in Parliament our embattled Premier stated that
Malcolm Turnbull (27 per cent) had an approval rating three times
greater than Barry O’Farrell (13 per cent).
He is clearly using the highly specialised Macquarie Street
mathematics system used by all past and present health ministers,
which does away with the usual customs employed in rounding numbers
up and down.
Perhaps arithmetic could be introduced as an optional elective
at the table of knowledge? Numbers don’t develop new relationships
with each other - their relationships are fixed. If I have two
kebabs, even if one is a tiny bit larger than the other, it would
be absurd to say I had three kebabs.
Jonathan Egan West Ryde
The concept of democracy is a myth. The definition of democracy
is “government of the people by the people”. But our only input
into government is once every few years when we vote for one of two
political parties. After that the winner does what it chooses
unhindered.
The best example of this is the current electricity
privatisation proposal, where three-quarters of the population of
NSW oppose the sale yet the Iemma Government is going ahead with
it. Is this democracy?
John Poleson Kingsford
Mind their own business

What a breathtaking piece of gratuitous advice from the Business
Council of Australia (”Freeze new spending, business tells PM”,
February 25). Its deputy chief executive, Melinda Cilento, needs to
tell the likes of Macquarie Group and many other Australian
corporations that executive salaries present a far more significant
issue requiring the attention of Australia’s businesses than
government spending.

Just imagine the added employment or the enhanced infrastructure
investment to be gained by applying just half a Macquarie Group
CEO’s salary to the economy in one year.
Russell Mills Redfern
Driven bats

Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens is just that: a botanic garden for
the protection, display, scientific study, education about and
propagation of plants, not a stinking bat colony (”Batanic gardens
to evict squatters”, Letters, February 27). The bats are destroying
very old and irreplaceable trees.
We have taken overseas visitors to the restaurant in the gardens
and had to speak loudly to make ourselves heard above the din of
the bats. Walking through the gardens, I have been shat upon from a
great height. It was pretty awful for me but dreadful when it
happened to my infant granddaughter, as bats are known to carry
disease.
We are coming up to the bicentenary of the gardens. The bats
must go.
Kate Chivers Epping
Tim Entwisle has been shirking his responsibility for the past
10 years by failing to act on the only advice that will move the
bat colony: plant some fast-growing, hardy natives in an
appropriate place in the gardens and then net the palm grove.
Instead he has been pursuing a policy that is guaranteed to
increase the amount of damage to the trees, that of noise
disturbance, which cause the bats to repeatedly take off and
land.
In the past 20-odd years, one successful colony relocation has
been undertaken, while dozens have not worked. Mr Entwisle is
wasting still more time to protect the palm grove by going down a
path which is all but guaranteed to fail.
Storm Stanford Lewisham
Responsibility ducked

It is impossible to quantify the role of public money and the
subsequent business goodwill that has underpinned the recent
adventures of ABC Learning. It is also very difficult to assess the
social impact of cherry-picking sites, the concomitant closure of
community-based child-care centres and alliances with other private
schooling initiatives.

Now a light is being shone on the folly of carelessly diverting
public responsibilities to the for-profit sector. Affordable child
care is always at the top of reasons for gaps in workforce
participation and lack of opportunities for women.
Governments should apply their resources to publicly managed,
staffed and properly supervised agencies and leave the private
sector to be just that.
Gus Plater Saratoga
Hey Dumbo, we’ve already got Morris in Blunderland

Mickey Mouse in White Bay? Wouldn’t work %26#133; too close to the
real thing in Macquarie Street (”Disney eyes White Bay”, February
27).
David Calvey Vaucluse
Who would contemplate besmirching our beautiful harbour with
this cultural Chernobyl? I had the unfortunate experience of
visiting EuroDisney last year. While I put on a brave face for my
children, I was paying $200 per person for the right to queue all
day and loiter around tacky souvenir shops.
We already have our own iconic home-grown harbour theme park -
Luna Park.
John Arneil Fairlight
A whole new ball game

Roy Masters may be right when he says the AFL will fail in western
Sydney (”AFL imperialism doomed to fail”, February 27) but he’s got
a nerve to call it “imperialism”.

It was the rugby codes that colonised NSW when the schools gave
them preference just after federation. Australian football was
quite well established here by then. So why is it the rugby league
claque pretends Australian football was never played in Sydney
until Warwick Capper arrived in 1982? Is Masters afraid the
indigenous game might really catch on if it is played in
schools?
Tony Barrell Balmain
Prelude to peace

Perhaps it is because the New York Philharmonic was part of a US
diplomatic plan that they were welcome in North Korea.

Whatever the background, once again the ability of music to rise
above economic or cultural imperialism and draw people together has
been demonstrated.
Let’s hope an invitation is extended to an Australian ensemble
soon.
Philip Cooney Wentworth Falls
It makes fashion sense

Allan Tieu (”Society grooms men who blush”, February 27) challenges
the norm that only females should wear make-up. He’s quite right to
question the fashion rules. I want to know why you have to be at
least 185 centimetres tall and no more than a few centimetres wide
to be a model. Do clothes really hang better on stick insects?
C’mon designers - be brave and use a variety of model sizes, so
that the rest of us can relate to your creativity.

Wendy Crew Lane Cove
Allan Tieu is correct in asserting that the wearing of make-up
by men no longer signifies “sexual orientation or subculture” - but
it does signify the resurgence of a loathsome beast that has
remained in obscurity since the Regency. Ladies and gentlemen, I
give you the fop.
Scott Hillard New Lambton
Lunch can spice up your life

David Breeze (Letters, February 27), I agree that making your own
lunch is the sensible option. So is wearing Clarks shoes, a spencer
in winter and chewing your food 20 times before swallowing. These
things are also incredibly dull. Feel free to wallow in a life of
mundanity, but please be kind enough to allow us risky people to
live on the edge and splash out on an $8 meal at lunchtime. Some of
us can even afford it without risking bankruptcy. Crazy, I
know.

Rebecca Gordon Surry Hills

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Text of Qadhafi’s speech at opening session of GPC

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

Now the People’s Committee have the money and you say give us housing, give us farms, give us education, give us health.

No, no, take the money and you develop the health service yourselves. You now have 80 hospitals and 40,000 medical staff. They are to take over these eighty hospitals. You take them over together with them and the Health Committee is abolished. It doesn’t have to exist and it has to go together with its organs and medical companies. All this is to be abolished and you manage your affairs yourselves.

You have 4,000 schools for intermediate and primary education. You have 400,000 teachers. They have to take over the business of a million primary and intermediate school pupils. They have to take over 4,000 schools and you manage your affairs with them. And this education secretariat is to be abolished because you kept saying that it has failed. Now you manage your own affairs.

When you take your money and you have five children the matter changes. You tell your children this is our money and no one will build a school for us. Those who build schools for us or offer education locally or abroad, we give them the money. But now we have the money in our pockets let us come and manage the matter.

You ask every child what he would like to be when he grows up. Does he want to be a cook or a chef. If so he has to be trained as a chef. This will relieve you from primary and intermediate, secondary school, or even university education abroad. Anyone who wants to become a cook can be trained immediately. Then you come to another child. If he wants to become an artist he has relieved me from secondary school and university. He can go to such and such an institute or to an artist who will teach him how to sing and play music. Another son might want to become a doctor. This is well and good. You have to use your money for his education even abroad. No one is responsible for his education whether locally or abroad. You got your money in your pocket. The money is no longer in the hands of those who used to spend it in the past. If anyone does not want education it is relief from getting up early and examinations. If he wants to go and be a shepherd then let him do so. And so on.

This is okay. You now manage your own affairs and you no longer need a Ministry for Agriculture, Industry or health. Your money from oil will come to you every month and you manage your own family affairs. We no longer need local committees.

What happens next? Real committees are to be established afterwards. Real Peoples Committees, not established by anyone and sponsored by no one. And there is nothing behind closed doors. This will be over because these real committees are not like the present committees where there is a presence and government. These committees are managed by yourselves. Whatever you need people would come together in group of around 100 and say they want to form a peoples committee to import goods. We do not want to buy from the expensive shops. Therefore you will have a committee for imports in your name. And so forth.

You will have committees for health and education and other services. This is a spontaneous peoples action in every place and the responsibility is taken by those who form them. These committees have no relationship with the state and therefore there would be no state. The traditional state is over. This is Libya.

Deceit in examinations is there because there is no control and the questions are leaked. This will be over. If you want to study, then study. If you do not want to study do not study. You do not need to deceive anyone. You used to be deceptive in the past because of the state in order to bring a false certificate to get employment from the state. This is over. You do not have to deceive anyone. You only deceive yourself.

Why were the examination questions leaked in the past? In the past success was something official, employment was official and the salary was official. This will be over. This is a Libya. If you want to study then study and if you understand the lessons it is for yourself. In the past we used to learn the Koran with the scholars. There was no deceit or leaking of questions. If you studied that was for your own sake and if you did not that it also your affair. This is a subjective and irreversible. And if you back down you will lose your rights and there will be no questioning because it is the nature of administrative organs to steal and prevaricate. It is natural that there is a lot of favoritism.

All these banks are to be abolished because of theft and the companies which are public companies have been transformed into a possession for the general manager who spends the money on himself and his family. You have been wondering where the oil money went.. These public companies ended by the distribution of profits by the general manager who belongs to the state. Together with his family and his friends they use all the money and you used to call it a public company.

If you want to create Libyan industry and there is nothing Libyan it is because the general administration failed and no one could manage these matters.

I feel hurt to see somebody thanking another person because he gave him a house. Did that house belong to him. He only gave you a house from the petrol money.

You are stupid. Another one is thanking him because he gave him a car. Did that car belong to him? If it wasn’t filled with your petrol money and if he did not take your share he would not have given you a car. It means that the car is part of your share and it is yours. This will come to an end and we will be equal and everyone will take his share of oil revenues. There will be no more pensions and retirement funds. There will be solidarity. There will be no more official salary. You only take the petrol money and distribute it equally and that is it. There will be no more retirement funds and no more insurance. This is your money.

Why do we need a basic salary. Who can give you that basic salary. You better take your share of the oil money and that is it.

This heavy burden which weighed heavily on us and on the budget has consumed the money. But this no longer the case. We shut it down. There will be no secretariat except for defense and security. I still say ‘committee’ because if you ‘a peoples committee’ it might not become a peoples committee. People’s committees are those committees which are to be established and the state has no relationship with.

There will be people’s committees everywhere in every village and in every place. The people will form these committees themselves.

After you take your money you do what you want. Some people will say when you give them money the first thing they do is to travel abroad and buy so and so. This is your money anyhow and any consequence will be your own affair. This is your money.

When you do these things depending on a state you will have a salary and insurance and house and a farm. But this will be over because the state used to do these things when it had the money but now the money is given back to you. And the state relieves itself of responsibility and then you are free. You have your share of oil and you can do what you want and get drunk. But this your responsibility. You could live in a cottage and work on a farm and in a few years you could buy a house. Then you think about your own affairs. And now when you spend billions on electricity where are the energy generators.

This electricity is quite enough for us. You take the billions and you do your own thing. Someone may buy a diesel generator and offer electricity for the whole area. He can make deals with others who want electricity. Others may do other things.

Now the electricity is imposed on you. You are supposed to pay billions from the oil money and the electricity becomes yours. Electricity is just a generator. If there was industry in Libya you need a large quantity of electric capacity. But if there is no industry what do you do with electricity.

All this is a luxury and has to be reviewed. Everyone who has his money with him is free to live in the way he wants to with his family.

At the beginning you take your money like those who were given money by the European Union. I don’t know how many received funds. I am referring to the children in Benghazi who were infected with aids. Every family received one million. I don’t know what they did with it. Some families bought cars. You can also buy cars. They are telling me that in Benghazi everybody is saying I wish my son was infected with aids so the EU would give me a million pounds for my son. You may the cars you want and I don’t want to give publicity to any brand of cars. And I don’t want you to come later on and say we are mistaken, we have lost our money. But it will not be like in the past. If you lose your salary you have to wait for your next salary. This is your money. It could increase or decrease according to the oil revenue.

If we have half a million families and each family takes five thousand dinars monthly this means two and half billion a month. It also means 25 billion a year. Every month you take five thousand dinars which is oil money and you spend it as you like. If you want to educate your son abroad that is your own affair. If you want him educated locally or not at all there will be no more favoritism. You can use your money for health treatment abroad and you can use your money to get treatment locally. You are free.

Someone may say there will be inflation because there will be a lot of money in our pockets. What shall we do with the money? The prices may rise. This is expected but you have to manage your own affairs. If the prices rise they are raised by some of you. The shop owners or those who own the goods. If you bought it for ten it is up to you to sell it for twenty. If people do not want to buy from you then that is your affair. You can even send someone to import the goods for less, or for ten dinars and you get it for ten dinars. No one has the right to monopolize the goods or monopolize prices. You can establish the price of every product in the world. And when someone offers the goods at an exaggerated price you can use the internet to buy the products you want.

You may or you may not transfer your money abroad. Whatever you want to do with your money is your own business. No one is to claim that he has power or he is mandated to oversee other Libyans and that Libyans are like children and he is managing their affairs. No one can take their money or take their petrol money and put it in his pocket. Nobody will tell anybody to do so and so. This is over.

You have proved that yourselves. All the things you do and all this assessment you have and the message. You have written that and you have approved the paper.

The popular control or supervision issued a report which I saw and the first thing in that report was to summon the General People’s Committee for investigation and relieving it from its mission for its failure in implementing the resolutions of the Basic People’s Congresses etc And it contained a number of decisions. This means that there is no more trust. And you said the reports about the activities of the General People’s Committee are not identical presented to the Basic People’s Congresses.

That concerns the areas of education, health, construction, drainage, planning, budget, electricity, water, subsidies, local peoples security. It means that it has failed. This is not specific to the committee. Even the Mad Cow Disease Committee which we established last year was also ineffective. You said this and repeated it in subsequent years. Forty years and you still say this committee is a failure. It is not one committee or one person. You say in the report the committee issued decisions that undermine the principle of justice and equality and increase the salaries of some categories and not the others. We no longer have anything to do with that. There are more salaries. You take your money from oil.

Someone may refer to the security men, for example. Or the defense. These men will take something in return. They will take five thousand monthly. If there are three million individuals or half a million families every individual will take one thousand dinars a month meaning two and half to three billion. If he takes his share of the oil money then he has to leave his job as a policeman or as a traffic warden because he used to face the cold or the heat in return for a salary. And now, as long as he gets five thousand a month he does not need to work in the street. And he is free to do what he wants.

You have to think about that. You may come and say we still want policemen or we can do the job in rotation and through popular security. But if you want to remain officially with the salary and take your oil money on top you may agree and you can say I will take my share of the oil money and I will remain in the job and you give me a salary in return.

In this case you and all others who want to do so need these facilities and utilities such as drainage, roads, airports and whether we receive money or not we cannot do these things. These facilities and utilities have to be managed by others. We have the Utilities Committee. You may decide how much you give it. Now you have the money.

Okay this is quite simple. We give you one billion and you show us how you spent it. And there will be no more fuss. Those people who work in security take their share of the oil money but we want to give him in excess of that for being a security man. And we give to the policeman one hundred or two hundred or three hundred dinars a month. If we want to have one hundred thousand policemen and we give every policeman one hundred dinars a month that will equal ten million in a month and one billion a year. You can take one billion now for the security and you spend it on security.

We have given you one billion and you spent it on those utilities. We have given you another billion. You will spend it on security and we will hold you accountable at the end of the year.

We now have the Security Committee and we are giving you one billion. Now we come to General Abdul Fatah and we ask him at the end of the year: We have given you one billion. Show us how you spent it. We now realize that he bought this and this and trained so and so and we hold everybody accountable. If they are up to the job fine, if not we transfer him to the court and if everything is okay we thank him.

But do not say if the things go that way then we need that for health us well. We cannot do without it. And the same thing goes for education and electricity.

Therefore this means we go back once again. And if you go back once again you should not complain and you can’t hold anyone accountable.

It is the nature of the administrative organ to corrupt money and to steal the money and they do anything in order to spend the money. And you have to see in which way you are going to tackle this octopus which haunts prevails in the administration of the country. This octopus is eating the money. They spend it on such a center or council organisation or society. All that soaks up the money. But all this has to abolished and after some time you will say we really need those committees but we need so and so which has to be administered by somebody, not individuals.

A thousand Libyans may come and say we want to construct an airport. Then we will construct an airport at our expense and it will be your ownership. The aeroplanes that land pay you like any other foreign company. Now it is the companies that own airports and they do not lose.

Once I was in a country and its defense minister came to the airport to bid us farewell. But they prevented him from entering. But they prevented him was entering. He was told that this airport belongs to a company and it said there are security reasons. As long as there is a president of a state we assume security within the airport and we do not allow anyone, even the defense minister himself, or the president. This means a company may own the airport and it will not be the loser because they take fees and the planes that land at the airport pay fees.

There may be one hundred Libyans or 500 Libyans who want to build an airport, Benghazi or Tripoli, or Sabha, or Misrata, or Ghat. This could be an airport owned by the Libyans and managed through their companies and they may involve foreigners. You may rely on any administration and you will have the money. This is final and there is no more discussion. This is your money, take it and manage your own affairs. I know you can manage your own affairs. And the evidence is there for the ability to be smart, to steal and to flout. We are now seeing witty and intelligent people capable of doing whatever they want to do.

If you are going to establish committees and companies that is your business. Nobody will control you. This has no relation to the revolutionary committees and people’s leaderships. It has nothing to do with control and does not need promotion or anything. It is left for you and you are free.

The watchdogs say at the beginning of their report that the administrative bodies are inflated. This is the first problem. We have abandoned the watchdogs. Their role is over now. There is no more administrative body. There is no exaggeration.

The report then says the general budget of the state depends to a large extent on oil revenues. Who will take care of the alternative. Is the state going to manage the alternative. No. You have to take care of the alternative. Those projects undertaken by the state because it is the public sector are still being financed.

The report says there is no system for internal monitoring of the administrative affairs in the Peoples Committees. Then what you have been complaining about is over and there is no system for monitoring peoples committees from outside or from within. These have failed and we consider them a failure.

The report also says the increase in dispensing of petty cash without the necessary procedures is also over. We do not need to dispense petty cash. Some people used to spend a night in a hotel at the expense of the state. If they go on a mission on behalf of the state you can give him the money and you may agree with him to give him 100,000 or a million. But all this is at your expense.

The report says some authorities that finance the general budget delay the transfer of the monies due in line with the law of the budget.

These are the problems of the administrative bodies as mentioned in the watchdogs report. It also says that the public organs are not committed to closing down their accounts. If you do not close down your accounts then you are suspected and now we do not need to hold you accountable.

The report also says that the lack of transferring the majority of payments following expenditure to the General People’s Committee For Inspection And Monitoring means they spend but do not transfer: total lack of the work programme for production transfers and the absence of the training programmes. There is no training programme. There is no production transfer. There is a lack of attention and follow-up by the productive units owned by the state and a lack of control and supervision mechanisms.

If it is a state project then there is no control and you have ruled that it is a failure and there is no need for it. It is totally inadequate. This is an attack against the companies for lack of control. The Mediterranean Company for Engineering Construction, the General Corporation for Construction, the General Corporation for Cables and Electric Products, the Investment Company - all those have been attacked by the control and are deemed a failure.

If the public sector companies have failed why do you continue with it? The lack of discipline in the school year, school books, the educational requirements and school laboratories, the curriculum and its development, the Koranic schools and madrasas - all these are run by the state. But they have no relation and it is not possible to run them. You yourselves must run the madrasas. They could be run by the scholars and anyone who wants to learn the Koran may do so. But is the state has failed it has to be relieved from such a mission. You take those Koranic schools and madrasas.

The sector has delayed the training of cadres. They delayed the establishment of new educational units in densely populated areas. They failed and they cannot do anything. You take your money and teach your sons in any place you like, whether densely or thinly populated. There is a delay in delivering the computer labs. You can buy your own computer and give it to your son. This is your money and you have it in your pocket.

With regard to school activities. It is reasonable that the state is responsible for the printing mistakes or the type of paper or the binding or bad writing. What is this? The state has nothing to do with bad writing and printing mistakes or the type of paper. You take your money and buy the books yourselves.

The lack of necessary controls and the lack of a system to preserve school books or returning them at the end of the school year from former students so that others use them. Could this be a mission for the state? These things have to be done by you yourselves.

The unsuitability of classes in some schools, some are mobile or dilapidated. This is your petrol. You take it and do what you want. The state schools are a failure so take your money and set up schools yourselves.

The lack of sports grounds. Are we to believe that the state is to be responsible for schools grounds in a country with an area of 2m sq kms which could all be playgrounds.

The phenomenon of deception and leaking of questions. The weakness of the examination control committees. I have told you there will be no examinations. If you want to examine yourselves, go ahead and your success is for your own.

The lack of psychiatrists and social workers in educational institutions. You have to look for the social workers on your own.

Lack of attention to hygiene cleanliness of most schools. Do you want the Secretary of the General Committee and the Secretary of the General Peoples Committee for Higher Education to sweep the toilets and clean the schools. Why didn’t you sweep and clean your schools?

The delay in opening credits for companies and co-operatives. The weakness of monitoring organs. Suspension of maintenance works. There is an attack from all sides on these bodies then why do we keep them. Let them disappear.

Despite huge allocations for the transformation budget in recent years it did not contribute to finding alternatives for oil revenues to finance the budget. You have brought the oil money and you said we want an alternative and there was no alternative.

Lack of annual reports by the administrations of the sector and a shortage of employees and other elements with experience in most cases and the increase in spending petty cash.

The presence of projects under construction without financial documents or lack of original documents. A large number of projects stopped or suspended for not receiving payments.

The delay by the sector in finding suitable sites for some contracted projects.

That means the failure of administration. I am just going through the remarks on various sectors and this is not a specific committee. This comments relate to various committees.

Regarding the National Center Vocational Training is failing to reach the goals for which it was established and the lack of solutions for the difficulties facing it. All this is to be abolished.

The deterioration of the situation in the employment fund and the weakness of collecting due payments on loans.

There are no more loans. Just take your money and do whatever you want with it. Haven’t you said that loans are made through intermediaries and favoritism. Some are given loans while others are denied. Those who receive loans do not pay them back. And the administration complains because the bank says you take a loan and do not repay it. All this is over. No more loans and the bank offering those loans is to be shut down because it used to take your money and give it to others who never repay. Now you take your money from the bank and you are not requested to return anything. If you like you can create your own bank.

Disregard for theatre and folkloric groups. Is it reasonable for the state to do these things. Is it the responsibility of the state to create artistic groups singing groups.

That is okay. The administrative body has failed. We ask the General Peoples Committee why did it fail the singers and artists. This is a farce. You can go to any country in the world and see what is happening there. You go to the largest country which is considered the richest and is taken as an example: America. The American government has nothing to do with those things. It is not responsible for any stadium or folkloric groups or the formation of a company. American has trillions at its disposal but does not handle these matters.

We are asking you where the money came from. The money is with the people, with the American companies, with capitalism. The capitalist class pay taxes for the government and the government uses the tax money to buy aircraft from Lockheed and aircraft carriers and tanks to go to destroy Baghdad. It is the people who give the money to the government. The people have the wealth. America has petrol and could spend 20 million barrels or something around that. It imports 50 percent from abroad and 50 percent local production. The fifty percent of local production which is around 10 million barrels is not the ownership of the American government. They are owned by the companies which are capable of extracting and selling oil. They sell oil to the government and others.

The government buys petrol from the company and the American government pays money to receive petrol to operate the aircraft carriers and the tanks, the rockets and satellites, all from tax revenues. From where did the American government get the money to buy petrol from private companies. It got the money from the taxes paid by the Americans. Everyone is paying taxes to the government. In this way you own the petrol and you take the oil revenue.

There are some who are afraid and say is it possible that we give the money to the people? Yes we give it to them. This is their petrol and this is their money. We get it from the Libyan soil.

You have heard this before. I proposed it in Sirte some years ago. I said this to you but you refused. This time the situation will not go on. Now the money will go back to you. This oil money remains with you.

The oil money in your pockets may be used in anyway you like and you can even donate for the administrations of utilities, security and defense. You may say take the money and do so and so. Take the money and buy an aeroplane or a tank. But now the state has all the petrol and deducts several millions in its interest which is eventually your interest and the remainder is given to you as a salary.

Why do we take salaries? Why do we take loan and never repay it. You better take it directly like this. All the fraud, the corruption and the trials you are talking about originate from the way we get money from oil revenues. But this is the manner. Now you take the petrol money directly and there is no place for corruption. We have people who stole the banks. They said this is our petrol. I found some people taking several salaries. There are 70,000 people taking more than one salary. Why? They said this is our petrol money. We need to educate our children abroad from our petrol. We need medical treatment abroad. This is our petrol. We need houses. This is our petrol. Some people go on haj at the expense of the state. Others get married at the expense of the state. All this is petrol money. Okay. That is so. You said what is right but this your money and you have to take it. You can use it to go to the haj or study abroad or build homes. You are free.

The rise in administration employment. Ordinary employment is much more in relation to technical cadres. All this has to be abolished. Everyone has to manage his own affairs.

There was spending on some work items but it was never carried out. This means that money was paid for a project and the project was not implemented. This means that the money has been stolen. All this re-affirms and supports this historic decision.

The lack of moderately priced transport. How do you judge a moderate price. What if the car you buy from Japan costs 20,000? Who will sell it to you for 15,000? And who is responsible for the 5,000. Is it Al Baghdadi? Is it Muammar? Who is responsible for that? Now the petrol money is available to you and you pay it yourselves.

The money you have can be used to buy and car and this is your own responsibility and there is no need for brokers or middle men.

The report on university libraries is characterised by reports of non availability. It says there is a disregard for the development of university libraries. Now you can buy the books on your own and everyone can buy a library for his children whether to place it in his home or in special universities. I have told you before that we have eighty hospitals and 40,000 medical staff. These are to take over the 80 hospitals and manage them.

The health secretariat is to be abolished and handed over to the people. This is property ownership. You will take it. Every five hundred medical staff may take over a hospital.

We have said four thousand schools with 400,000 teachers. They are to take over the four thousand schools freely and start teaching the million students. The families of those million students now have the oil money. Therefore all that is abolished. We abolish education. You take the money and teach your kids in the schools. The schools will remain and the hospitals will remain.

We have a quarter of a million students in higher education. We have nine thousand teachers in 12 universities. Those nine thousand teachers are to take over freely, 12 universities. They may receive a quarter of a million students and they negotiate with them. Every student has a family that takes petrol money so you manage your own affairs. We have 12 universities and the health institutions. You take it freely because it is your petrol money. Nobody is doing you a favour. This is your own money. You don’t have to return it to the state.

Security could be by volunteering since they have taken their share of money and that is it. There is no need for a salary for anything.

Defense could also be voluntary work. We all thank God we have our money (our share of wealth) and we would defend our country. And what is required for that? Well the people concerned with defense, they would tell you. For instance, Abu Bakr says I want 100,000 Libyans to be under arms every 24 hours. We would tell him okay we are 100,000. We take our share of our oil free of charge and take up arms for so and so. He would say for instance, for two months and what happens after two months? He would say another 100,0000 armed men come after you on a rotation basis. He would say okay we want to train us and explain to us the plans and we are ready. In this way you find every two months 100,000 Libyans each one of them getting 1,000 dinars per month or his family takes 5,000 dinars per month and we don’t need anything else.

This is the correct matter. This is the defense of our homeland, the responsibility of every male and female citizen. It is the national service to stay for two months for training if a war takes place we will fight and if nothing happens we go home after two months. Then another 100,000 come and all we need from you is to train us and to train the people and to lay down plans for them.

Security is also in this form. You may say we don’t want security, police or anything else. Well, when your car is stolen from in front of your house or when they break into your house or when you leave your house and you and your children are kidnapped, or when you are robbed and your car is stolen. They may even take your wife if she is with you in the car then you will say security is necessary and allocate money for it. And once the enemy comes to occupy your country defense becomes necessary. Now however you may say you don’t need security, let us get rid of the police.

Poor follow-up of students studying abroad. What do you have to do with him. Let his father take care of him rather than you following him up. Shortcomings in combating poor time keeping. Sir, This administration will be abolished altogether so there will be no shortcomings in this respect.

Lack of concern for student dormitories. Everyone has money so let him make arrangements how to live and dwell.

Some buildings and campuses are not appropriate for university education.] Manage your affairs, your money is in your pockets.

Delay in handing over sites and weakness in the supervising body and weakness of preliminary studies of most projects]. This means that the administration body is a failure. It cannot plan, follow-up or implement - it can only spend money. This means that the 37 billion from this year will be squandered as in the last year.

What did the report say about what happened last year? The report said that the allocations for salaries for 2004 were about three billion. In 2005 the figure was about four billion. In 2006 it was more than four billion. In 2007 it was seven billion. The allocation for transformation was about five billion then 11 billion then 14 billion and last year it was 19 billion and this year 37 billion.

From the last review we can note the increasing pace of allocations during the year’s which are the subject of comparison, that is between the years 2004 - 2008. Note the large increase in allocations. Salaries jumped from three billion to seven billion. As the salaries and the like increased by 165 percent. This is a big increase and causes bewilderment and surprise. It can also be noted that transformation allocations between 2004 and 2005 increased by five billion, that is by 112 percent. The increase between 2005 and 2006 was 33 percent. From 2006 to 2007 it increased by 29 percent.

However the large irrational increase is between 2007 and 2008. The draft budget for 2008 in which the increases reached 94 percent. These increases whether by absolute value or percentage. Whether pertaining to salaries and the like or interest transformation allocations. They are very large increases and have justifications neither in science nor in reality. Regarding the salaries, there has neither been an increase in civil servants by this size nor by their percentage, between 2004 and 2007.

Referring to transformation allocations there is no real of scientific justification for such increases apart from the existence of huge revenues from oil ( because there is so much money from oil the budget has increased or we increase the budget without justification. We must spend it. Reality, reason and various reports by the competent authorities such as the National Planning Council, the Financial Auditing Body and Secretariat of Planning all point to the weakness of the national economy to accommodate such huge funds and the weakness of the implementation tools available. There is a clear shortage in the required material, especially in the building sector. Most of the project sites are not ready for the implementation of the executive programmes).

The report tells you that these huge sums of money were spent without return.

This is a very bad report about all companies and industry. There fore why do we spend all this money? Shall we make a Ministry of Industry? Let us abolish it. You make your own industry by yourselves.

(Poor medical services at the preliminary health utilities) You take it yourselves.

(Delay in laying down solutions to the phenomenon of seeking treatment abroad). Once you have taken your money no one is responsible for your treatment at home or abroad. Your money is in your pocket and you are free to seek treatment abroad or at home.

(Failure of central air conditioning in some health utilities) Why Mohammed (Secretary of Health) did you not operate the air conditioning? Shame on you. We gave you the money!

(Irregular supply of reagants). Why don’t you take your money and send anybody to get these reagants and set up a clinic? The whole world is going in this way. In

the countries where you go for treatment the blood analysis is not the responsibility of the government but the private sector. When you go for treatment in Britain for instance, do you believe that the British government is the one which pays. No the hospitals, clinics and laboratories are private. They have a capital and you have capital as well. You have oil.

(There are no facilities for the procedure to get agricultural loans). Take your money and there is no longer agricultural loans. Take your money and if you want to make agriculture or industry do it by yourselves.

(Improving animal species) This has not been done by the state.

Veterinary services and pastoral wealth. The state is supposed to drill pastoral wells!

(Not taking care of the marine wealth) You take your money and fish in the sea. You want a secretariat even for fishing. The state cannot do that.

You view the so-called state which is this octopus that is peoples committees, public institutions, companies, corporations, centers etc cannot carry out these tasks.

It is very clear that you bestowed upon it confidence, you have chosen it and gave it the money but it proved unable (incapable). These files are fill of ‘incapable’.

This is a historic stand. Everything is based on the state taking the oil money and spending it on you. But you said that it failed. Correct. Then you take your money and spend it on yourselves. This issue is not subject to debate.

Tomorrow you will say to Al Baghdadi (Secretary of the General People’s Committee) or anybody else take the money and spend it on me. He will say no. Spend it by yourselves. This is a Libya.

Once you take the money and set up companies and partnerships, industry, farms, transportation, cars, utilities and investments they are all yours, you will accumulate capital and you will have money. Then you pay taxes to Al Baghdadi and you ask him to manage the administration which is still in existence.

If there are big things at least temporarily you cannot do it you can allocate some much money for this year. However if he wants to make airports, seaports and roads everywhere we do not need them.

You make the airports that you like. How? You know the people of Kufra are rich because of smuggling and moreover they will take their share of oil. They can manage Kufra airport for their own interests. That is the arrival and departure of aircraft. They can pay for them. And the airport becomes their property because there are airports in Africa and in other countries owned by foreign companies and not by the African state. They are run by foreign companies which means they are private individuals.

These utilities which we talked about, the utilities committee for which Al Baghdadi will be responsible. We will have some offices and apparatus to represent the peoples committee which will be abolished to audit their accounts. It would be responsible for public utilities and public services. That is to be responsible for utilities which you can
not manage yourselves at least in the near future.

You select a project or two and the limited strategic projects to allocate a budget for them only this year. I mean only strategic projects which you will open and achieve on the 40th anniversary of the revolution such as a giant road linking Libya with Africa. This is a great work such as the Great Man-Made River. This is a great work and the greatest of all is that by embracing the 40th anniversary oil will owned by the Libyan people as families and individuals directly. And this is the most important thing. And probably the strategic port or airport linking Libya with Africa and Europe.

Foreign companies will come to you such as foreign banks and investors. And you will deal with them by your own money which you have from oil.

We may find a number of Libyans in the future with stakes in Roma and Barclays Banks which used to be colonialist banks. And we find that Libyans have ownership in international companies. You will be partners in those companies. Since the money is in your pockets and you will have partnerships with those with money who want to invest it in Libya. Or you invest there.

When as a household you take 5000 per month I am sure that after a short time you will not spend it all and you will save. Probably in the beginning you are inclined to spend it quickly because you will have another 5000 in the following month. However later you will say that oil may finish and will no longer be guaranteed as before. So oil will probably decrease once the five becomes four or becomes two or one or zero when oil finishes completely.

Be mindful. We took five thousand of our share of oil this month. So we spent 2000 and saved 3000. In the next month you do the same as in the first month and you get used to saving 3000 every month and you end up saving tens of thousands in a year. Well you use such money to build a house, a farm, a truck or a fish processing plant or a stable for cows or educate your children abroad. Have a shop and shop brings income and the truck brings you income. So does the farm. And your incomes will be multiplied. So you take the oil money every month and you invest it and after a while you will all become rich and you must be rich why not?

I mean five or three million Libyans in who are not rich now (the others are probably rich) should be rich - why not?

You cannot accept in a country such as Libya where people have their only wealth in oil we find one is rich and the other is poor. Or one is in need and the other is subject to social solidarity or a basic salary or relying on a pension or on charity from another Libyan We cannot accept that.

All of you must be rich. This is oil, still present and its price has risen and this is for you and yet you always remain poor. Why? Since God bestowed upon you this wealth?! If you had taken my opinion years ago here in Sirte, in this very place. I have told you this and you have not taken my opinion. If you had applied it ever since that time you would have been rich now. However the billions which we say are spent or lost and nothing is left of them could have been with you and not lost.

You are educated and you have educated people. You can bring educated people from abroad and bring consultancy offices to consult them and bring management companies from abroad and ask them that you have an accumulation of money and we are afraid that we may spend this money on useless things. I will advise you to do so and so.

You may tell them for instance after we got the money the prices of goods in the market will increase. We will tell you to spend so and so and abandon the shops that increase the prices and go and buy your goods by yourselves. You set up groups or co-operatives.

Tomorrow genuine peoples committees which are not like what they are today will be formed. They are not part of the state and genuine co-operatives will be formed and we no longer need syndicates, parties, parliament, elections or anything.

You have seen the elections and the parties in the world and the farce lived by the world. The whole world will resort to the Libyan system, the communes, peoples congresses, peoples security, peoples capitalism or peoples socialism. The whole world will resort to the Libyan model.

I have seen the world, I have seen the people and now I have seen even the Americans. Is there any country beyond America which they used as model and example as I have said. Any candidate to get elected he is talking for change. Every day the world I talk about is change and change. That means to change America, to change the existing system. To change current life because it is not correct. He would say the whole system is failing. He would say that the administration is failing the government if failing and the elections are failing. So the American to get elected says he wants to make a change.

Up to now there is no system in the world which is ideal and can solve the problems. Conflict is everywhere. Up till now they say and wonder if Al Gore or Bush won the elections. If 49 percent of the electorate give their votes to a candidate and the candidate who got 51 percent becomes a president despite the will of 49 percent. Is this democracy? This is a farce.

Now only 30 percent at the most go to cast their votes in elections. All the people now do not want elections. They are bored at the election farce and rubbish bins which are allocated for voting.

There are no people who vote for a president or die for his sake. They will say whoever wants to rule he can rule.

We tell the Americans, how can you elect a person such as Reagan. A mad person. He proved to be mad indeed. They will tell me never. Is it rational that we elect a person such as him. Therefore who elected him? They say we don’t know. We didn’t elect him and we didn’t go to the ballot boxes. We did not vote and we did not know about him. Only a minority of the group went. He gave them money and went to vote.

If 30 percent at the most are the ones who go to cast their votes and all those who have the right to vote instead are ten million we find that seven million would say we are not going to elections. This is what is happening now. Only three million at the most go to the polls.

When there are ten million electorates and there are three candidates each candidate take of the two get one million and the third gets one million plus one. He wins and becomes a president. This means he rules nine million inspite of their wealth. This means the candidate with the very simple minority becomes a president. And I will tell you he is the one with the majority. Why? Because he got an extra vote. Is this democracy? How can you rule nine million who did not give you their votes? This is absolute dictatorship.

Scandenavian regimes which they call deocratic, and in which whoever wants to abuse the Prophet Mohamed can do, is the most arrogant dictatorships on earth.

These dictatorships which take peoples like sheep to war. They slaughter our sons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, and also in Vietnam and everywhere.

They take peoples like sheep to be slaughtered in losing battles. and they say this democracy. This the most arrogant capital-backed dictatorships that. Western capital creates dictator governments. Will a poor man ever win an election in the west?! Will Denmark allow a poor man to win?

They say Israel is a democratic society inthe midst of the Arab World. Their parliament which called the Knesset has 119 members representing millions of jews and 1 million Palestinians. They decide on everything and are hailed by the world as democratic inside the Arab World.

What would they say about the Libyan people whose 5 million population govern?. They say no this dictatorship. How is it a dictatorship?

You have Kenya, a tourist African country of which we are proud. Thanks to elections it turned into a bloodbath over who will win Kibaki or Rila. Thousands die.

What a farce, what does it signify if Kibaki or Rila wins?

Because of elections Algeria is still drenched in a bloodbath, they held elections in which FIS became the loser, they said there was a vote rigging.. take up arms and fight, and they are still fighting because of elections.

Georgia gained independence from the Soviet Union made democracy and created a parliament. Elections came, the attacked the parliament, driving it and the president away, they attempted to kill the president. weren’t you who elected the parliament?

Ukraine was an advanced industrial country, no one can touch it. The Orange Revolution came and said create parties and hold elections, it became a farce.

Now it said it either seek refuge in the EU or in Nato. weren’t you living in dignity, but now it became divided. It said we had been fooled into entering this whirlwind.

You have a peaceful country with a solid social system plagued by elections and parties that unravel its fibre.

From each continent you have a example of what parties and parliaments have done to falsify the will of the peoples.

They will return to the solution which is direct popular democracy.

Now that we decided to do without the peoples committees, do we really need the unions, associations or civil society organisations?

We all have turned into a civil society.

Now the secretariat of the General People’s Congress and the General Peoples Committee should hand in all responsibilities and return money to its owners and thanks for all you have done in service of the people in which you failed to deliver according to what’s written in the reports.

Yes hand over to owners and rest.

There is a huge task before us to select the half million families to take 5000LD a month, or 3 million Libyans to take 1000LD.

Everything is your possession, education is yours and so are health agriculture and the industry.

The utilities and Public Services Committee is for you to assign it to do so and so this year or temporarily until it vanishes.

What I care for is that there are 37 billion for you to sign up to, to be spent in 2008. These billions will disappear just like the previous year. They will not be devoured by the secretaries, but by the administration, the octopus. Nothing is left by the end of the year. there will be complaints about education, health agriculture etc..

You take the responsibility for agriculture. This your money, at your disposal.

Corruption will end so will favoritism and bribes. Every Libyan will be responsible for his family, how to care for it.

Dr Juheimi I would prefer you to lead the University of Garyounis this is important and you can do the job.

Seif al Islam will take care of the youth, all that matters the youth he will take care of, their clubs, their study in Libya and abroad, even their celebration of Christmas abroad.

He is getting along well with them. The youth do not want anybody to be master on them.

He made with them Libya Tomorrow, and if you wanted to allocate money for the youth do so, let them be treated like other Libyans.

Baghdadi and the others in the committee if you still need the General People Committee for Planning let’s say temporary, you assign Dr Zeletni to it. He is a specialist in economics, and had held the post of president of the University of Garyounis.

The people you selected to lead different department in the past are experienced and professional. we could grant each of them 1000LD, but if they work with foreign companies they will give them 20000.

Therefore do not underestimate their experience. They can be useful in the General Planning Council. You can as well employ them in the wealth distribution programme and other facilities connected to it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Pretty Woman turns earthmother

Saturday, January 19th, 2008

The last lush and glossy Julia Roberts film - a movie, in other
words, where she’s up there splashed on the screen, not the canned
voice of an animated character - was Ocean’s 12 two years
ago.
That caper was a male-bonding experience for the likes of Brad,
George and Matt. But the camera lingered on Pretty Woman
moments: it caught Roberts ambling coltishly in heels and tossing
her head back for her trademark cackle.
For such seemingly mundane human activity, Roberts’s small steps
and loud laughs are big-ticket items in Hollywood; like the dark
eyes and the gravity-defying grin they were part of the signature
style and body language of a certifiable screen queen: the highest
grossing female movie star in history.
It’s an understatement to note that, in the absence of another
high-yield Pretty Woman-type, the Hollywood money men have
missed her. But she’s not having any cheap, cloying sentiment
today. You need to be a celluloid supernova, sure of your orbit and
calendar co-ordinates, to take issue with whether two years amounts
to a career hiatus.
Either that or - for the busy mother of three small children
born in the past three years - time really flies. Throw turning 40
into the mix, as Roberts did three months ago, and you’re allowed a
little time/motion latitude.
“I don’t know what’s got into people today,” she says amiably
when I veer towards a welcome back-style remark. “It hasn’t been
like years and years and years and years since I’ve made a movie.
And I did do a season on Broadway in 2006. It’s not like coming
back from the dead, I just had some kids, the sort of thing women
do all the time. I have taken longer time away from acting than
these last few years.”
Obviously Roberts doesn’t want her new film, Charlie Wilson’s
War, to get put into the category of a “comeback” vehicle. Her
character is something of a departure from the usual; she’s older,
blonder and a good deal more wily than the coquettish types Roberts
has often played previously. And the film is something of a biting
social satire; it probably won’t be a hit like even a modest
Roberts vehicle from the late 1990s or early 2000s.
Says her co-star in the film, Tom Hanks: “Julia is the least
money and box-office obsessed person that I know in this business.
I think she resolved on that when huge sums of money floated around
her. But that’s not to say she doesn’t think strategically.”
Roberts and I are in a Los Angeles hotel, the ritzy Beverly
Wilshire near Rodeo Drive, and Roberts is here to promote
Charlie Wilson’s War, a kind of combined Washington satire
and morality parable. This hotel was the setting for much of the
action in Pretty Woman including Roberts in her thigh-high
boots.
She’s wearing a simple, practical wrap dress and flat, knee-high
boots and looks remarkably calm and composed: she has left
six-month-old Henry and three-year-old twins Hazel and Phinnaeus at
home with dad. The Pretty Woman stereotype, of course, is
young, footloose and fancy free. For most of her life that was
Roberts’s story, apart from her two-year marriage to Lyle Lovett in
1993. But Roberts finally fell for a cameraman, Danny Moder, on a
set. They married in 2000.
If Pretty Woman was a politically incorrect take on
conspicuous consumption, Charlie Wilson’s War is more
political. And it’s a true story. It is set in the late 1980s
against an earlier chapter entirely of the Afghanistan crisis. In
1989 the Soviets occupy the country and it falls to a womanising
and not especially ethical Texan congressman named Charlie Wilson,
played by Tom Hanks, goaded and aided by a right-wing Houston
socialite named Joanne Herring to organise covert assistance to the
country’s Muslim resistance. The freedom fighters eventually beat
the Soviets and become the country’s oppressive, fundamentalist
regime.
Joanne Herring, is similar to Roberts’s most acclaimed
portrayal, Erin Brockovich. They’re both real people, they’re both
still alive, they both became political activists, although its
doubtful they have much else in common.
In the late 1980s, Herring, then in her late 50s, was a rich,
conservative, often married Texas socialite and that, inevitably,
means the usually lustrously brunette to dark-haired Roberts is a
platinum blonde with something of a honeyed, Lone-Star twang.
Herring was born in 1929 so in the late 1980s, when the action
the film follows took place, she had to be in her late 50s or early
60s. It meant that Roberts had to do something she rarely had to do
in her Pretty Woman days: play older. Which gave her the
opportunity, she says, to ruminate on a subject that many facing 40
think about: plastic surgery. Not for herself, of course, but for
her character.
“I wanted to look as much like Joanne Herring as I could,”
Roberts says. ” She is very open about the fact that she’s had
quite a bit of cosmetic surgery. So I thought that gave me a way to
deal with the age difference. I was trying to do things with my
face to make it appear as though I was 50 but had had some work
done. I wore different tapes under my wig and tried to pull my face
in different ways. It was challenging.”
Roberts’s comeback in a political satire with a fairly acidic
point of view has enchanted some and perplexed others. In America,
they’ve been able to handle the sonorous accent just fine. Roberts
is from Georgia, got her first Oscar nod for playing a southern
belle in Steel Magnolias in 1889 and laid on the breathy
cadences again in 1995 as wronged southern wife in Something To
Talk About.
The last time Roberts departed quite so markedly from her
coltish Pretty Woman persona, all hell broke loose. And the
dreaded M-word, miscast, was conspicuous in the critical reception
of darker films like I Love Trouble (1994), Everybody
Says I Love You (1996) Mary Reilly (1996) and Michael
Collins (1996). It was quite the losing streak and Roberts only
got her mojo back when she did My Best Friend’s Wedding in
1997.
That time round it was her very likeable chemistry with British
co-star Rupert Everett, a gay man playing a gay character, that
charmed audiences back into the familiar pastures of easy, frothy
and contemporary romantic comedy.
Hollywood’s preferred take on Roberts has always been
relentlessly contemporary; virtually anything period was deemed a
bad fit: a misappropriation of her red-hot screen presence. Leave
the dowdy baroque outfits and chalky white make-up to Cate
Blanchett or Tilda Swinton; put Julia in a short skirt, a tailored
blouse and big heels so we can watch her strut her stuff for Denzel
Washington, Richard Gere or Hugh Grant.
“Getting older to me is nice,” she says. “You are released from
certain concepts. Plus, as one gets older and more complicated, the
parts that come are more interesting, complicated ones. And I’m
more intrigued by things that are so removed from my real
existence. The thing I like about my life in the past few years is
how quickly it has changed: marriage, motherhood, competing demands
on my time.
“Even turning 40 has taken care of a few issues that might have
been harder to deal with if some of the fundamentals had not
changed. I mean for one thing I can be more selective about working
and clearly I won’t make as many films as I used to be able to
do.”
Roberts certainly seems, physically and psychologically,
studiously unfazed by the arrival of what some might call middle
age. And if there is any private anguish, she’s got the poise after
20 years or more in media spotlight not to let on. Forty is, as
they say, just a number. But if anyone might have reason to take to
the booze or the Botox at the prospect of a jarring numerical
transition it would be the one-time Pretty Woman.
It’s also numbers, after all, that have been the best measure of
Roberts’s status as Hollywood’s most bankable and enduring female
star, given that the critics tend to blow hot and cold about her
skills as an artist.
Her 31 films have earned $US2.2 billion ($2.46 billion)
collectively and that includes a few experiments that made nothing.
Only a few of the big action boys such as Harrison Ford, Bruce
Willis, Tom Cruise and her current co-star, Tom Hanks, have higher
grossing resumes. Among Tinseltown’s top-paid women she’s
invariably way out in front, a one-woman inflationary spiral, but
also Exhibit A proving that women can “open” movies.
Her $US25 million in 2003 for Mona Lisa Smile, an
interesting but not particularly ground-breaking female-bonding
film set in a 1950s women’s college, is still a record. And she’s
amassed a personal fortune of $US140 million, according to
Forbes, from her high-wattage screen persona that pretty
much gelled in the public conscious with her breakout hit,
Pretty Woman, 17 years ago.
Roberts was paid $US300,000 for Pretty Woman which went
on to make close to $US400 million worldwide.
Money talks in Tinseltown and, more often than not, hers is the
first female name you come to on “power lists” in business and
trade glossies like Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter
(even while she was on maternal hiatus).
Yet Roberts has been singularly successful over two decades in
portraying herself as sensible, sane and grounded in a town full of
despotic divas. That’s probably because, for the most part, that’s
the way she is.
In a recent memoir, actor Rupert Everett described her on the
set as “a calm practical earthmother curled up on a director’s
chair in a Marilyn cardigan with knitting needles and bag of
wool”.
But Everett also discloses enough to suggest that Roberts,
particularly as a single woman, probably had to work hard to stay
centred and earth-bound as the world’s best paid movie actress. The
film, directed by Australia’s PJ Hogan, was shot in Chicago. When
it became clear that Everett and Roberts were burning up the screen
with an unexpected chemistry, Roberts would give him a ride back to
New York at weekends.
“She would give me a ride back on the Sony jet,” he wrote. “Then
I witnessed the whole machine grind into action. With a cocktail in
a cut glass, wearing a towelling robe, she would hop barefoot with
wet hair from the trailer to the car. The only baggage was the key
to her apartment and her newly acquired gay confidant [Everett].
Chatting intensely on subjects that a girl could only discuss with
a man not nursing a hidden erection, we huddled in the back of the
limo and sipped our drinks as we sped through the suburbs to a
private airport. Gates opened as if by magic and we drove towards a
huge jet in the middle of an empty airfield.”
But those days are a distant memory for Roberts. Today she
talked about potty training the twins. It’s a lot less salacious
than talking about drug abuse and drink-driving with Lindsay Lohan,
Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. “I’d like to install Britney in my
guestroom,” the earthmother says. “And feed her soup.”
Charlie Wilson’s War is released on January
24.
Source: The Sun-Herald

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Pretty Woman turns earthmother

Friday, January 18th, 2008

The last lush and glossy Julia Roberts film - a movie, in other
words, where she’s up there splashed on the screen, not the canned
voice of an animated character - was Ocean’s 12 two years
ago.
That caper was a male-bonding experience for the likes of Brad,
George and Matt. But the camera lingered on Pretty Woman
moments: it caught Roberts ambling coltishly in heels and tossing
her head back for her trademark cackle.
For such seemingly mundane human activity, Roberts’s small steps
and loud laughs are big-ticket items in Hollywood; like the dark
eyes and the gravity-defying grin they were part of the signature
style and body language of a certifiable screen queen: the highest
grossing female movie star in history.
It’s an understatement to note that, in the absence of another
high-yield Pretty Woman-type, the Hollywood money men have
missed her. But she’s not having any cheap, cloying sentiment
today. You need to be a celluloid supernova, sure of your orbit and
calendar co-ordinates, to take issue with whether two years amounts
to a career hiatus.
Either that or - for the busy mother of three small children
born in the past three years - time really flies. Throw turning 40
into the mix, as Roberts did three months ago, and you’re allowed a
little time/motion latitude.
“I don’t know what’s got into people today,” she says amiably
when I veer towards a welcome back-style remark. “It hasn’t been
like years and years and years and years since I’ve made a movie.
And I did do a season on Broadway in 2006. It’s not like coming
back from the dead, I just had some kids, the sort of thing women
do all the time. I have taken longer time away from acting than
these last few years.”
Obviously Roberts doesn’t want her new film, Charlie Wilson’s
War, to get put into the category of a “comeback” vehicle. Her
character is something of a departure from the usual; she’s older,
blonder and a good deal more wily than the coquettish types Roberts
has often played previously. And the film is something of a biting
social satire; it probably won’t be a hit like even a modest
Roberts vehicle from the late 1990s or early 2000s.
Says her co-star in the film, Tom Hanks: “Julia is the least
money and box-office obsessed person that I know in this business.
I think she resolved on that when huge sums of money floated around
her. But that’s not to say she doesn’t think strategically.”
Roberts and I are in a Los Angeles hotel, the ritzy Beverly
Wilshire near Rodeo Drive, and Roberts is here to promote
Charlie Wilson’s War, a kind of combined Washington satire
and morality parable. This hotel was the setting for much of the
action in Pretty Woman including Roberts in her thigh-high
boots.
She’s wearing a simple, practical wrap dress and flat, knee-high
boots and looks remarkably calm and composed: she has left
six-month-old Henry and three-year-old twins Hazel and Phinnaeus at
home with dad. The Pretty Woman stereotype, of course, is
young, footloose and fancy free. For most of her life that was
Roberts’s story, apart from her two-year marriage to Lyle Lovett in
1993. But Roberts finally fell for a cameraman, Danny Moder, on a
set. They married in 2000.
If Pretty Woman was a politically incorrect take on
conspicuous consumption, Charlie Wilson’s War is more
political. And it’s a true story. It is set in the late 1980s
against an earlier chapter entirely of the Afghanistan crisis. In
1989 the Soviets occupy the country and it falls to a womanising
and not especially ethical Texan congressman named Charlie Wilson,
played by Tom Hanks, goaded and aided by a right-wing Houston
socialite named Joanne Herring to organise covert assistance to the
country’s Muslim resistance. The freedom fighters eventually beat
the Soviets and become the country’s oppressive, fundamentalist
regime.
Joanne Herring, is similar to Roberts’s most acclaimed
portrayal, Erin Brockovich. They’re both real people, they’re both
still alive, they both became political activists, although its
doubtful they have much else in common.
In the late 1980s, Herring, then in her late 50s, was a rich,
conservative, often married Texas socialite and that, inevitably,
means the usually lustrously brunette to dark-haired Roberts is a
platinum blonde with something of a honeyed, Lone-Star twang.
Herring was born in 1929 so in the late 1980s, when the action
the film follows took place, she had to be in her late 50s or early
60s. It meant that Roberts had to do something she rarely had to do
in her Pretty Woman days: play older. Which gave her the
opportunity, she says, to ruminate on a subject that many facing 40
think about: plastic surgery. Not for herself, of course, but for
her character.
“I wanted to look as much like Joanne Herring as I could,”
Roberts says. ” She is very open about the fact that she’s had
quite a bit of cosmetic surgery. So I thought that gave me a way to
deal with the age difference. I was trying to do things with my
face to make it appear as though I was 50 but had had some work
done. I wore different tapes under my wig and tried to pull my face
in different ways. It was challenging.”
Roberts’s comeback in a political satire with a fairly acidic
point of view has enchanted some and perplexed others. In America,
they’ve been able to handle the sonorous accent just fine. Roberts
is from Georgia, got her first Oscar nod for playing a southern
belle in Steel Magnolias in 1889 and laid on the breathy
cadences again in 1995 as wronged southern wife in Something To
Talk About.
The last time Roberts departed quite so markedly from her
coltish Pretty Woman persona, all hell broke loose. And the
dreaded M-word, miscast, was conspicuous in the critical reception
of darker films like I Love Trouble (1994), Everybody
Says I Love You (1996) Mary Reilly (1996) and Michael
Collins (1996). It was quite the losing streak and Roberts only
got her mojo back when she did My Best Friend’s Wedding in
1997.
That time round it was her very likeable chemistry with British
co-star Rupert Everett, a gay man playing a gay character, that
charmed audiences back into the familiar pastures of easy, frothy
and contemporary romantic comedy.
Hollywood’s preferred take on Roberts has always been
relentlessly contemporary; virtually anything period was deemed a
bad fit: a misappropriation of her red-hot screen presence. Leave
the dowdy baroque outfits and chalky white make-up to Cate
Blanchett or Tilda Swinton; put Julia in a short skirt, a tailored
blouse and big heels so we can watch her strut her stuff for Denzel
Washington, Richard Gere or Hugh Grant.
“Getting older to me is nice,” she says. “You are released from
certain concepts. Plus, as one gets older and more complicated, the
parts that come are more interesting, complicated ones. And I’m
more intrigued by things that are so removed from my real
existence. The thing I like about my life in the past few years is
how quickly it has changed: marriage, motherhood, competing demands
on my time.
“Even turning 40 has taken care of a few issues that might have
been harder to deal with if some of the fundamentals had not
changed. I mean for one thing I can be more selective about working
and clearly I won’t make as many films as I used to be able to
do.”
Roberts certainly seems, physically and psychologically,
studiously unfazed by the arrival of what some might call middle
age. And if there is any private anguish, she’s got the poise after
20 years or more in media spotlight not to let on. Forty is, as
they say, just a number. But if anyone might have reason to take to
the booze or the Botox at the prospect of a jarring numerical
transition it would be the one-time Pretty Woman.
It’s also numbers, after all, that have been the best measure of
Roberts’s status as Hollywood’s most bankable and enduring female
star, given that the critics tend to blow hot and cold about her
skills as an artist.
Her 31 films have earned $US2.2 billion ($2.46 billion)
collectively and that includes a few experiments that made nothing.
Only a few of the big action boys such as Harrison Ford, Bruce
Willis, Tom Cruise and her current co-star, Tom Hanks, have higher
grossing resumes. Among Tinseltown’s top-paid women she’s
invariably way out in front, a one-woman inflationary spiral, but
also Exhibit A proving that women can “open” movies.
Her $US25 million in 2003 for Mona Lisa Smile, an
interesting but not particularly ground-breaking female-bonding
film set in a 1950s women’s college, is still a record. And she’s
amassed a personal fortune of $US140 million, according to
Forbes, from her high-wattage screen persona that pretty
much gelled in the public conscious with her breakout hit,
Pretty Woman, 17 years ago.
Roberts was paid $US300,000 for Pretty Woman which went
on to make close to $US400 million worldwide.
Money talks in Tinseltown and, more often than not, hers is the
first female name you come to on “power lists” in business and
trade glossies like Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter
(even while she was on maternal hiatus).
Yet Roberts has been singularly successful over two decades in
portraying herself as sensible, sane and grounded in a town full of
despotic divas. That’s probably because, for the most part, that’s
the way she is.
In a recent memoir, actor Rupert Everett described her on the
set as “a calm practical earthmother curled up on a director’s
chair in a Marilyn cardigan with knitting needles and bag of
wool”.
But Everett also discloses enough to suggest that Roberts,
particularly as a single woman, probably had to work hard to stay
centred and earth-bound as the world’s best paid movie actress. The
film, directed by Australia’s PJ Hogan, was shot in Chicago. When
it became clear that Everett and Roberts were burning up the screen
with an unexpected chemistry, Roberts would give him a ride back to
New York at weekends.
“She would give me a ride back on the Sony jet,” he wrote. “Then
I witnessed the whole machine grind into action. With a cocktail in
a cut glass, wearing a towelling robe, she would hop barefoot with
wet hair from the trailer to the car. The only baggage was the key
to her apartment and her newly acquired gay confidant [Everett].
Chatting intensely on subjects that a girl could only discuss with
a man not nursing a hidden erection, we huddled in the back of the
limo and sipped our drinks as we sped through the suburbs to a
private airport. Gates opened as if by magic and we drove towards a
huge jet in the middle of an empty airfield.”
But those days are a distant memory for Roberts. Today she
talked about potty training the twins. It’s a lot less salacious
than talking about drug abuse and drink-driving with Lindsay Lohan,
Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. “I’d like to install Britney in my
guestroom,” the earthmother says. “And feed her soup.”
Charlie Wilson’s War is released on January
24.
Source: The Sun-Herald

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts