Belated new armadillo introductions

As Roop Sandhu decided to post his first piece to TA before I woke up this morning, and Wendy James left hers until after I’d left for work, it’s only now that I’ve found time to post their respective biographical sketches (after prioritising appropriately and watching The All Blacks’ comprehensive but strangely unimpressive World Cup win over Canada).

Wendy James

Wendy James provides the following biograpgical details (sans photo):
My background is in fiction writing and teaching. I have a BA (Aus lit & Eng) from Syd, MA(writing) from UTS, and am currently writing a novel (historical, set in fin-de-siecle Melbourne) as a component of a PhD at Deakin. I’ve had a reasonable number of my stories published – in anthologies and journals (like Meanjin, Southerly, Westerly, Voices – should be available on-line through your library), and won several short story comps. I teach creative writing at the local writers centre (Armidale NSW), and do some casual tutoring and marking in the English department at UNE. Have done plenty of literary ‘slaveying’ – manuscript assessments for the Aust. Book Council, slush pile sorting for publishing companies (I’m responsible for several short-sighted rejections, actually). Last year and this, I’m on the judging panel (junior fiction) of the Australian Science Fiction – ‘Aurealis’ – awards. I’m 36, have four kids (from 1 to 14) a husband and a dog.

 

 

 

Roop Sandhu

Roop Sandhu sends this short, self-deprecating self-portrait:

Re my bio, there’s not a lot to say for this 23 year old law
student / pharmacist’s assistant. I worked in advertising part-time, hated
it, quit via email, and went back to uni to study law, which I’ve almost
finished [three weeks of classes to go]. Oh, and once I saw a blimp. I’ve
been applying for law jobs, and have suddenly realised that my life
achievements aren’t really very impressive, which would probably explain
the lack of job offers, creative CV notwithstanding.

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Uncategorised. Bookmark the permalink.
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wen
wen
2021 years ago

At 23 I’d done six weeks of nursing (just couldn’t handle the bed-bath bit) and had withdrawn from more uni subjects than I’d completed. And the only blimp I’d ever seen was myself when nine months pregnant.

Looks like you’re doin’ okay to me, Roop!

Stephen Marks
Stephen Marks
2021 years ago

hi roop,

I’ve just managed to track you down. I copied
the passage below from your comment on Kamm’s blog back in November as you seem to have demolished his position on UN resolutions and the war, on which I had a run-in with him at Ryan of Manchester’s ‘Beatnik Salad’ blog. Then, surprise surprise, he temporarily took the comments off his blog. On my copy of your comment obviously the links dont work, and he hasn’t reinstated the original on his blog.

Could you possibly supply me the missing links? And have you any ideas or feedback on the mysterious and convenient disappearance of the comments?

cheers

stephen marks

40 PM

The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq was grounded in Saddam’s defiance of the cease-fire terms that obtained at the end of the first Gulf War. He violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which codified those terms, and 16 others; his overthrow was an assertion of the integrity of international law in an anarchic world order. Chomsky deals with these pertinent historical data by not mentioning them.

unless you expect the excerpt that you read to cover every possible legal and moral argument for and against the war, the omission you cite here is meaningless. also, it’s funny that this search should turn up so many hits. for example:

I think that weapons inspectors should go back. There should be enforcement of resolution 687. The US has been trying very hard to prevent weapons inspectors from going back because they want to go to war. Remember what resolution 687 says — parts of it are quoted, but there are other parts that aren’t quoted. The parts that aren’t quoted are quite reasonable — [those unquoted parts] say that disarmament of Iraq should be part of a general program of reduction of armaments and delivery systems throughout the region. That makes very good sense. In fact, 687 should be implemented including the more specific parts about Iraq and the more general parts about the region. The US wants to go in exactly the opposite direction.
or maybe:

One might contrive a tortured legal argument to support U.S./UK claims, though no one really tried. Step one would be that Iraq has violated UN Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which declares a cease-fire “upon official notification by Iraq” that it accepts the provisions that are spelled out (destruction of weapons, inspection, etc.). This is probably the longest and most detailed Security Council on record, but it mentions no enforcement mechanism. Step two of the argument, then, would be that Iraq’s non-compliance “reinvokes” Resolution 678 (29 Nov. 1990). That Resolution authorizes member states “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660” (2 August 1990), which calls on Iraq to withdraw at once from Kuwait and for Iraq and Kuwait “to begin immediately intensive negotations for the resolution of their differences,” recommending the framework of the Arab League. Resolution 678 also invokes “all subsequent relevant resolutions” (listing them: 662, 664); these are “relevant” in that they refer to the occupation of Kuwait and Iraqi actions relating to it. Reinvoking 678 thus leaves matters as they were: with no authorization to use force to implement the later Resolution 687, which brings up completely different issues, authorizing nothing beyond sanctions.
i mean jeebus, google isn’t difficult to use, people.

Posted by: roop at November 19, 2003 03:19 PM

Stephen Marks
Stephen Marks
2021 years ago

hi roop,

I’ve just managed to track you down. I copied
the passage below from your comment on Kamm’s blog back in November as you seem to have demolished his position on UN resolutions and the war, on which I had a run-in with him at Ryan of Manchester’s ‘Beatnik Salad’ blog. Then, surprise surprise, he temporarily took the comments off his blog. On my copy of your comment obviously the links dont work, and he hasn’t reinstated the original on his blog.

Could you possibly supply me the missing links? And have you any ideas or feedback on the mysterious and convenient disappearance of the comments?

cheers

stephen marks

40 PM

The Anglo-American liberation of Iraq was grounded in Saddam’s defiance of the cease-fire terms that obtained at the end of the first Gulf War. He violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which codified those terms, and 16 others; his overthrow was an assertion of the integrity of international law in an anarchic world order. Chomsky deals with these pertinent historical data by not mentioning them.

unless you expect the excerpt that you read to cover every possible legal and moral argument for and against the war, the omission you cite here is meaningless. also, it’s funny that this search should turn up so many hits. for example:

I think that weapons inspectors should go back. There should be enforcement of resolution 687. The US has been trying very hard to prevent weapons inspectors from going back because they want to go to war. Remember what resolution 687 says — parts of it are quoted, but there are other parts that aren’t quoted. The parts that aren’t quoted are quite reasonable — [those unquoted parts] say that disarmament of Iraq should be part of a general program of reduction of armaments and delivery systems throughout the region. That makes very good sense. In fact, 687 should be implemented including the more specific parts about Iraq and the more general parts about the region. The US wants to go in exactly the opposite direction.
or maybe:

One might contrive a tortured legal argument to support U.S./UK claims, though no one really tried. Step one would be that Iraq has violated UN Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which declares a cease-fire “upon official notification by Iraq” that it accepts the provisions that are spelled out (destruction of weapons, inspection, etc.). This is probably the longest and most detailed Security Council on record, but it mentions no enforcement mechanism. Step two of the argument, then, would be that Iraq’s non-compliance “reinvokes” Resolution 678 (29 Nov. 1990). That Resolution authorizes member states “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660” (2 August 1990), which calls on Iraq to withdraw at once from Kuwait and for Iraq and Kuwait “to begin immediately intensive negotations for the resolution of their differences,” recommending the framework of the Arab League. Resolution 678 also invokes “all subsequent relevant resolutions” (listing them: 662, 664); these are “relevant” in that they refer to the occupation of Kuwait and Iraqi actions relating to it. Reinvoking 678 thus leaves matters as they were: with no authorization to use force to implement the later Resolution 687, which brings up completely different issues, authorizing nothing beyond sanctions.
i mean jeebus, google isn’t difficult to use, people.

Posted by: roop at November 19, 2003 03:19 PM