956 resultados para King, Howard
Resumo:
"Contract No. AF33(616)-310 RDO No. R-112-110 SR-6f2"
Resumo:
[Howard and King defending Grant Hill]
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Howard Barker is a writer who has made several notable excursions into what he calls ‘the charnel house…of European drama.’ David Ian Rabey has observed that a compelling property of these classical works lies in what he calls ‘the incompleteness of [their] prescriptions’, and Barker’s Women Beware Women (1986), Seven Lears (1990) and Gertrude: The Cry (2002), are in turn based around the gaps and interstices found in Thomas Middleton’s Women Beware Women (c1627), Shakespeare’s King Lear (c1604) and Hamlet (c1601) respectively. This extends from representing the missing queen from King Lear, who Barker observes, ‘is barely quoted even in the depths of rage or pity’, to his new ending for Middleton’s Jacobean tragedy and the erotic revivification of Hamlet’s mother. This paper will argue that each modern reappropriation accentuates a hidden but powerful feature in these Elizabethan and Jacobean plays – namely their clash between obsessive desire, sexual transgression and death against the imposed restitution of a prescribed morality. This contradiction acts as the basis for Barker’s own explorations of eroticism, death and tragedy. The paper will also discuss Barker’s project for these ‘antique texts’, one that goes beyond what he derisively calls ‘relevance’, but attempts instead to recover ‘smothered genius’, whereby the transgressive is ‘concealed within structures that lend an artificial elegance.’ Together with Barker’s own rediscovery of tragedy, the paper will assert that these rewritings of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama expose their hidden, yet unsettling and provocative ideologies concerning the relationship between political corruption / justice through the power of sexuality (notably through the allure and danger of the mature woman), and an erotics of death that produces tragedy for the contemporary age.
Resumo:
No. 3 of a volume of pamphlets.
Resumo:
In this chapter, John Howard’s policy speech to The Sydney Institute, a conservative think tank, on October 11, 2007 as the Australian Prime Minister of the day, is analysed within the frame of discourse analysis to make visible how the speech works in old ways to dress up neoliberal policy as new and reformist. Taking centre stage, Howard pointed to concrete steps undertaken to achieve what he called a “new reconciliation.” This cynical manoeuvre, which put reconciliation back onto the election agenda (after it was earlier derided for its divisive and muddle headed symbolism), constituted a “neoliberal quickstep” (Reiger, 2006) or quickfix of sorts. The speech was also used as a place to reintroduce the Northern Territory Intervention, which at the time was purported to be a response to child abuse and Indigenous community dysfunction.
Resumo:
As the paper’s subtitle suggests broadband has had a remarkably checkered trajectory in Australia. It was synonymous with the early 1990s information superhighway and seemed to presage a moment in which “content is [to be] king”. It disappeared almost entirely as a public priority in the mid to late 1990s as intrastructure and content were disconnected in services frameworks focused on information and communication technologies. And it came back in the 2000s as a critical infrastructure for innovation and the knowledge economy. But this time content was not king but rather an intermediate input at the service of innovating industries and processes. Broadband was a critical infrastructure for the digitally-based creative industries. Today the quality of the broadband infrastructure in Australia—itself an outcome of these different policy frameworks—is identified as “fraudband” holding back business, creativity and consumer uptake. In this paper I use the checkered trajectory of broadband on Australian political and policy horizons as a stepping off point to reflect on the ideas governing these changing governmental and public settings. This history enables me to explore how content and infrastructure are simultaneously connected and disconnected in our thinking. And, finally, I want to make some remarks about the way communication, particularly media communication, has been marginally positioned after being, initially so apparently central.
Resumo:
The Howard East rural area has experienced a rapid growth of small block subdivisions and horticulture over the last 40 years, which has been based on groundwater supply. Early bores in the area provide part of the water supply for Darwin City and are maintained and monitored by NT Power & Water Corporation. The Territory government (NRETAS) has established a monitoring network, and now 48 bores are monitored. However, in the area there are over 2700 private bores that are unregulated.Although NRETAS has both FDM and FEM simulations for the region, community support for potential regulation is sought. To improve stakeholder understanding of the resource QUT was retained by the TRaCKconsortium to develop a 3D visualisation of the groundwater system.
Resumo:
The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice
Resumo:
General perceptions of foreign aid commonly engender images of humanitarianism and altruism, whereby the humanitarian needs of the recipient of development assistance are of the utmost priority of the aid donor. However, the Australian governments led by Hawke, Keating and Howard often gave humanitarianism a low emphasis, frequently placing Australia’s own foreign policy and economic concerns at the forefront of aid allocation – often unashamedly. This self-interest met through aid meant that most was provided to Australia’s regional neighbourhood, neglecting some of the poorest, most struggling states, including South Africa. Other issues and events, including the Cold War, apartheid, terrorism and HIV/AIDS also affected Australia’s aid policy; mostly, they were used as excuses to limit aid to states like South Africa.