Fairfax - Can A Dead Duck Be Revived?

About two decades ago, I bought Fairfax newspapers.  The Age, to be exact.  Back then, The Age was a darned good paper.  It appeared to be balanced and importantly, unbiased and generally, a good, informative read.

What happened to send Fairfax Media into its current state of irrelevance?   Was it because ex Woolworths Director, Roger Corbett took the reins?  Is it because of the overt attempts to push a putrid Green agenda onto people with functioning brain cells?  Is it because Fairfax Media continues to employ journalists who appear to have carte-blanche to write rubbish that appeal only to a handful of inner-city latte types?  Is it because there is no such thing as decent fact checking practiced by scribes on the Fairfax payroll any more and sub-editing responsibilities have been trundled offshore?

Yesterday, Advertising Entrepreneur, John Singleton announced he has dipped his toe into the Fairfax pond, picking up about 1% of stock and later announcing he and Mining Magnate friend, Gina Rinehart may be hitching their wagons together.  Good on them!   Rinehart with an 18% holding, or thereabouts at the time, should have received a seat on the board as a matter of course.  Powers behind the Fairfax throne were not having a bar of that.  They were frightened of losing journalistic independence or some such rot.  Journalistic independence at The Age and Sydney Morning Herald?   Where?  I must have missed that particular show.  

Major shareholders should have a right to voice their opinions – not forced to sign some sort of in-house document that effectively emasculates them before they can be ushered into the hallowed chamber that is the boardroom.

Soon after she was denied a seat at the long table, Ms. Rinehart divested herself of around 3% of her Fairfax portfolio.

Just look at the share price at close of trade on Friday (28/12/2012) - $0.47.  Over the past five odd years, Fairfax share prices have taken a gutser.  You would think somebody in a leadership role would have been cognisant enough to notice that something in the machine had seized up.  Nope, nobody did and that’s why Fairfax Media, in print form, will probably not be alive in three years.  Unless the Gina and John team can flush the obstruction out of the pipe and allow fresh water to flow again.

Can they do it?  I’m not sure.  The blockage in that pipe may be too dense.   Calling in a pair of experienced plumbers now might be a futile exercise when the whole thing should have been ripped up and replaced years ago.

Poor little Greens Member (for the next few months) for Melbourne, Adam Bandt is wetting his pants about the Rinehart/Singleton threat to the Green-sympathetic broadsheets which are losing money hand-over-fist before his and everyone else’s very eyes.  You would think those Green types might have progressed to the level of entrepreneurs themselves and organised enough Solar-powered Beanie Raffles and Lentil Drives by now to raise funds to buy into Fairfax themselves.

Here’s Adsie foaming up a bit at the prospect the daily broadsheet version of Green Left Weekly might be under assault!

…………………………………………………………..

Rupert or Gina? No thanks, say Greens

December 29, 2012 - 2:15PM

The Australian Greens are concerned that John Singleton and his long-time friend Gina Rinehart are teaming up to push for a significant say in Fairfax Media.

Mr Singleton and his partner, the venture capitalist Mark Carnegie, announced late on Friday that their Gutenberg Investments had purchased a stake in Fairfax, publisher of this website, and would align with fellow shareholder, Gina Rinehart.

However, Greens Acting Leader Adam Bandt said Mr Singleton's move was cause for concern.

"I'm very, very worried that up until now Gina Rinehart has been unwilling to sign on to some very basic principles of journalistic independence and if she's now joining forces with other Australian millionaires in an attempt to set the Australian media in a different direction, I think it's of great cause for concern," Mr Bandt told reporters in Melbourne.

"I don't want to wake up every morning and find that my newspaper choice is between Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart.

"I think that will be a bad state of affairs for Australian democracy."

Mr Singleton said in a statement late on Friday that he had already met with Ms Rinehart, but discussions are at a "very early stage".

"It was clear to me from the start that there was a mutual interest in working together," he said.

"However it is important to state that both Gina and I believe that the lifeblood of Fairfax is the integrity and accuracy of its journalism.

"This in no way would be compromised if Hancock Prospecting and Gutenberg Investments had a significant say in the future of Fairfax."

But Mr Singleton said the Fairfax Charter of Independence should be reviewed.

"I was on the board of Fairfax when Sir Zelman Cowen was chairman of the board some 20 years ago, when the existing Fairfax Charter of Independence was drawn," he said.

"There is no reason why a group of eminent and experienced Australians should not review the charter to ensure and enable its relevance for today, and the current very challenging times for the media."

He also took a swipe at the board and its effectiveness.

"I think the current board has struggled to come to terms with the new environment, which is there for all to see in the share price and the lack of direction at the company," he said.

Mr Singleton's decision to buy into Fairfax followed the board's decision to "definitively closing the door" on a sale or joint venture of their radio assets to his Macquarie Radio Network.

AAP

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rupert-or-gina-no-thanks-say-greens-20121229-2c03o.html#ixzz2GQpxkYuB

Freedom Of Speech In Australia Under Threat

This post is about western democracies and the threat to availability of what was once taken for granted.  In this case, freedom of expression.  Free speech, if you like.  It’s not just the right of citizens to free speech that is under threat from the Gillard Government in Australia, loss of this fundamental right seems to be going global. 

I have the utmost respect for ex radio broadcaster now brilliant blogger, Michael Smith.  My respect for this man grows every day.  He has an uncanny knack of bringing us all back to basics as he exposes the truth in an easily digestible format.  Michael Smith is an excellent communicator and clings on by his fingernails to the right to express himself, uncensored.  He is one small spark amid a rapidly decomposing mainstream media.  We rely on people like Michael to keep a steady hand on the tiller.

Please go here to read a recent post from Michael.  It’s important.

This is an issue I will be following up with the Coalition in the New Year.

The matter of our democratic right to free speech is very close to my heart.  I’ve had a gutful with the way commentators such as Andrew Bolt have been treated – and silenced due to ridiculous rulings via softcock Judges who feel they must pander to a minority viewpoint.  Stuff the majority view!  Their opinions don’t count a tinker’s cuss when socialist moral values have to be the main game and pushed accordingly.  Political correctness dominates.  It’s truly disgusting.

Australia’s Courts need a good hard look at themselves!   It’s long overdue.  

I’ve had a gutful with the way the Canberra Press Gallery and mainstream journalists prefer to remain mute rather than do some basic research on stories that may lead to copy that might possibly stand the chance of enraging the Red Queen, PM Julia Gillard or her 457 Visa holder, media advisor, John McTernan.  So we must accept without objection that Australia has a castrated Press.   Unfettered press freedom is not alive and well within Australia’s mainstream media.   So, let’s assume here and now that press truth,  press ethics and press freedom as it applies to most media arteries is buried in several meters of solid concrete.   An appalling and embarrassing state of affairs for a country that has thrived on democracy – until election of this current Socialist regime! 

I’ve had a gutful of the way we bloggers must tread ever-so-carefully in case we upset the sensitivities of Leftard fluffies and risk having our Blogs shuttered – or worse, face an inquisition of some sort.   You know the type of complainant, inner-urban dwellers with limited life experiences, influence in high places, perceived or actual and more often than not, latched firmly onto the public teat like a lamprey onto a shark. These are the people who tend to clog our Courts and agencies governing media with nasty and in the main, tedious cases or complaints filed under the wildly flapping banner of Political Correctness.  The lampreys need to make a political statement, you see – no matter how frivolous, inane, pointless.    Remember, we are living the Socialist sympathy dream right now.   A dream where only one school of thought is acceptable.  There are mindsets who are completely unable to comprehend there is a real, inhaling and exhaling world out there actually experienced in life that happens to see things in a different light to the fluffy little lampreys in their hand-knitted beanies and genuine sheepskin moccasins or nice – made in China – trendsetter sandals.  It’s the difference between a sheltered political workshop environment compared to a bit of genuine dirt on your hands.  The leftards don’t get that, however.

There are retreads who want some of us who dare think outside the square dead, please remember that!

I ask you – why should my right to free speech – and yours - be shackled?  Why should Andrew Bolt’s right to an opinion be dragged through the courts on spurious grounds, it has been alleged?  What civic/societal qualification is some goody-two-shoes assessed – and by whom – that bestows an authority to adjudicate over our current freedom to orally express or write an opinion?    Should  any of us who are free thinkers sit back quietly and watch our rights to express an opinion disappear?   Even more worrying – who is ultimately in charge of appointing these Thought Police?  Don’t tell me – I think I have already guessed the answer! 

Australia heads for the Polls sometime during 2013.  This is how it seems to me – and I hope I am wrong. 

We, the Australian people, will lose our right to free expression, oral or written, should we re-elect the Socialist Gillard Government

We, the Australian people, will forfeit our right to freely publish our thoughts online, if we re-elect the Socialist Gillard Government

We, the people of Australia  will be subject to censorship should we re-elect the Socialist Gillard government

The Australian people will be faced with a number of important electoral issues, least of which is just how much value we place on our right to freedom of expression; free speech.  We must cast our vote carefully.

And before we march off to the Polls, we need to know how seriously the Coalition regards our right to free speech, freedom of thought and expression.

Michael has pointed out the Coalition’s apparent spinelessness on this issue as has John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs who has written a heartfelt letter to the Coalition on the subject.

Under the Gillard Government, this country has lost its dignity. 

One sure-fired way to control your people is to remove their voice!  That’s exactly what this vile Socialist regime plans to do.

When Australians are being governed by people who apparently have the moral turpitude equivalent to that held by the Mafia of old – or the current Taliban, we really need to worry.

Tony Abbott et al – this is not good enough!  You must do something now and be seen to be doing something! This Gillard/ALP/Censorship rubbish legislation must be challenged and discarded accordingly.  Most of the voting public possess a functioning brain.  They will be watching how the Coalition shapes up to the issue of of an overt attempt by the Gillard Government to stifle free speech and impose censorship. 

Sceptics Should Die!

Richard Parncutt is, apparently, an ex-pat Australian with a rather interesting and not so flattering  academic history - if you can be bothered to research it!

Quite frankly, so-called academics such as this Professor do more to promote CAGW scepticism when they place their idiocies on the Internet and subject them to 'peer-review'!  You could call this one an own goal, if you like!

This man is not a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination, yet he would like to condemn to death scientists who are absolutely qualified to research in the field and express opinions.

It appears someone at the University of Graz, Austria recognised the good Professor's utter stupidity was potentially damaging to the University's reputation and removed Parncutt's inflammatory rant from his University website - possibly due to several violations not least violation of human rights!

This man, along with some other 'erudite' Professors not qualified in the field of climate science, such as Stephan Lewandowsky from the University of Western Australia, appear to be indicative of a systematic failure in quality education over the past couple of decades.

No wonder we worry for the fate of our children in the real world when there is a distinct lack of quality educators.

I am now going to prepare myself for impending execution because I have the unmitigated audacity to question the methods some people are applying to the 'science' of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and consequential ramifications to world economies!

The piece below is reblogged from Jo Nova's excellent science site.  See link below.
......................................................................................

Death threats anyone? Austrian Prof: global warming deniers should be sentenced to death

Richard Parncutt,  Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, reckons people like Watts, Tallbloke, Singer, Michaels, Monckton, McIntyre and me (there are too many to list) should be executed. He’s gone full barking mad, and though he says these are his “personal opinions” they are listed on his university web site.

For all the bleating of those who say they’ve had real “death threats“, we get discussions about executing skeptics from Professors, wielding the tyrannical power of the state. Was he paid by the state to write these simplistic, immature, “solutions”? Do taxpayers fund his web expenses? (And what the heck is systematic musicology?)

Prof Richard Parncutt says:
“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Consequences

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.

Recant you foolish deniers or we’ll kill you! Yeah. Welcome to modern scientific debate.

Who should die? Anyone named on Desmog:

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog.

So the denier database becomes the “death list”. The list decided by PR experts on a funded smear site, who profit from marketing Green corporations.

But it’s ok, he includes a caveat where he says he didn’t say what I quoted above, so he can later pretend he isn’t discussing real deaths of real people:

Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.

And we all feel so much better don’t we?

But seriously, Global warming deniers are the worst vermin on the face of the Earth, worse than holocaust deniers, tobacco deniers and worse than someone who bombs buildings and shoots children en masse:

I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.

Here’s how the deadly reasoning goes
How does he know we are facing disaster?
He knows, because he’s read a blog that pretends to be scientific and it says so. The same site resorts to ad homs, and kindergarden namecalling (like “denier” and “Christie Crocks”) and is debunked all over the internet, but the Prof is too poorly trained in reasoning to spot the cheap tricks, and he didn’t think to search for “SkepticalScience debunked”. Oops.

More at Jo Nova, including comments, here:-

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within (Part 2)

In this article reproduced from The Australian, (I didn't have to sign up for it!) we see just how low the ABC has sunk.  I would go as far as to say the ABC's reputation as a balanced broadcaster is irretrievable.  It's gone.

I do not believe Australian taxpayers should continue to employ Radio National "Science" broadcaster, Robyn Williams.  The man has proved more than once that he cannot produce a balanced programme when it comes to CAGW.
..................................................................................

It's OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman

BY: RICK MORTON From: The Australian December 18, 2012 12:00AM 102

Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman says the national broadcaster suffers from 'groupthink' when it comes to climate change. Picture: Nikki Short Source: The Australian
A COMPLAINT by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman over a radio program that linked scepticism about human-induced climate change to advocacy of pedophilia has been dismissed by the national broadcaster.

Mr Newman, who retired from the ABC's top job in March when his five-year term ended, said the broadcaster had been "captured" by a "small but powerful" group of people when it came to climate change groupthink - a claim rebuffed by the broadcaster.

He said comments by the network's science reporter Robyn Williams in a November 24 broadcast of The Science Show were indicative of a broader failure of the "public interest" test at the taxpayer-funded ABC.

"What if I told you that pedophilia is good for children, or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged?" Williams said at the top of the show, which was dedicated to discussing attitudes on climate change.


RECOMMENDED COVERAGE

ABC clique in control of climate

"You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science."

In his written complaint to ABC managing director Mark Scott, Mr Newman raised the issue of personally "offensive and defamatory" material and content that compared climate sceptics to pedophiles "more generally".

The radio segment had also referred to an article that Mr Newman had written in The Australian last month comparing climate change believers to the religious. Mr Williams referred to it as "drivel" and his guest, psychology professor Stephen Lewandosky, said that those who denied climate change were "driven by ideology rather than evidence".

Mr Newman objected to the imputation that he was a flat-earther.

"Speaking up publicly is not the sort of thing you do lightly," he told The Australian yesterday.

"I still have a deep affection for the ABC but at some point someone has got to make a stand. The ABC is not being frank and open about the way global warming is portrayed on its various platforms, although the sense of imbalance is becoming more overt, I feel."

Mr Newman said he was the first person to admit he was not a scientist and described himself as a human-induced climate change "agnostic". "I considered the report to be defamatory because it went on to discuss me personally and an opinion piece I'd written comparing some in the climate change camp to religious believers," he said. "In lumping me in with despicable flat-earthers, they also, through their introduction, likened people like us to pedophiles and drug-pushers."

An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have carefully considered the complaint, reviewed the program and assessed it against the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence which state in part: 7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context," the spokeswoman said.

"ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs have also sought and considered a response from ABC Radio. Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded that there has been no breach of the ABC's editorial standards for harm and offence." The former chairman said he had not made the complaint to the ABC to air a personal grievance; rather he wished to highlight that the national broadcaster had a duty to all taxpayers to provide more considered and balanced reports.

"In this particular segment, I don't think the issue received fair treatment," Mr Newman said. "It certainly wasn't open-minded and I believe it misrepresented the perspective of people who have considered doubt."

ABC policies also make note, on scientific and other matters, that standards must strike a "balance that follows the weight of the evidence".

"Who does the weighing?" Mr Newman said. "Who re-weights and when? Or, is it set and forget?"

The ABC spokeswoman said the network did broadcast and publish views from dissenting scientists.

"Unlike the BBC, the ABC acknowledges there are climate scientists who question the core thinking about climate science," she said.

"The ABC gives them and their views air time."

In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did "not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/its-ok-to-link-climate-denial-to-pedophilia-abc-tells-ex-chairman-maurice-newman/story-fna045gd-1226538690358

Climate Change - Allow The Facts To Speak

Here's an interesting piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal and written by Matt Ridley.
.....................................................................................

OPINION December 18, 2012, 6:09 p.m. ET
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.

By MATT RIDLEY

Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.

The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.

He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.

Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C.

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2°-4.5°C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization's record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

***
How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.

There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all other things being equal: about 1.1°-1.2°C for a doubling from preindustrial levels. The way warming from CO2 becomes really dangerous is through amplification by positive feedbacks—principally from water vapor and the clouds this vapor produces.

It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.

That assumption lies at the heart of every model used by the IPCC, but not even the most zealous climate scientist would claim that this trebling is an established fact. For a start, water vapor may not be increasing. A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that "we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." And then, as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: "We don't even know the sign" of water vapor's effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere.

Climate models are known to poorly simulate clouds, and given clouds' very strong effect on the climate system—some types cooling the Earth either by shading it or by transporting heat up and cold down in thunderstorms, and others warming the Earth by blocking outgoing radiation—it remains highly plausible that there is no net positive feedback from water vapor.

If this is indeed the case, then we would have seen about 0.6°C of warming so far, and our observational data would be pointing at about 1.2°C of warming for the end of the century. And this is, to repeat, roughly where we are.

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.

Mr. Ridley writes the Mind and Matter column in The Wall Street Journal and has written on climate issues for various publications for 25 years. His family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_2

Open Letter To Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki

(For those of you who have no idea who I am talking about – here’s Dr. Karl’s Wiki entry.)

Dear Dr. Karl,

For many years, I’ve had the greatest respect for you.  I’ve found you enlightening, entertaining and downright good value.

I’ve just seen your television appearance tonight on the ABC News 24 “The Drum” hosted by Steve Cannane.  I am re-evaluating my opinion,  regrettably.

I’ve always believed good science practitioners openly admit to being sceptical and, in their view must embrace scepticism in order to remain credible.    From your comments on perceived disinformation and the current meme of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), you rattled off stuff like 80% of the Arctic has melted during the past Arctic summer, permafrost is in a raging melt, releasing copious amounts of methane and a little ocean gastropod can’t reproduce its shell because of this thing called global warming due to acidification of the oceans.  All the absolute fault of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, of course.  Hellacious, any sensible person would agree – if it were true.

Right up front, I admit I am not a qualified, experienced scientist as I know you are, although I do work in the field, so to speak,  as a lay botanist and entomologist.  That qualifies me for nothing – and I accept that.  However, it worries me when a great mind such as yours slams shut.  I didn’t hear you state anywhere in your Drum segment that we must respect the diversity of qualified scientific opinion.  As you know, scientific opinion is constantly being reviewed.  I am not a flat-earther.    I regularly state that this Planet’s climate is changing constantly – has done since the Globe cooled down enough to establish life forms – and climate will continue to change until the Globe dies.

Dr. Karl, there is new information coming out pretty regularly which is challenging the dogma of man-made global warming.  Have you read up on any of it?   You are aware that Planet Earth has not significantly warmed for over 16 years – which is in direct contradiction to the hysterical reports from the IPCC that have influenced the economic policies of most of the affluent countries.  That fact in itself, deserves some serious scrutiny.  You are aware of the admission as to the numerous errors in the IPCC’s AR4 report, aren’t you?  You are aware of the considerable storms the Arctic has been exposed to during the past Arctic summer which is probably a more likely contributing factor to some melt rather than the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.  It’s going to be bad news if there is a big freeze during the Arctic winter.  Some people may have egg on face – but who am I, a poorly educated lover of all things natural, to comment – let alone criticise?  However, I am not one to follow the bouncing ball on instruction without questioning why the ball is actually bouncing.  I mean no offence.

Dr. Karl, you have a very good brain, there’s no doubt about that.  I had hoped you would have been slightly sceptical on such an important matter.  I’d have thought with your ability to actually conduct meaningful research, you should have found papers written by scientists who are not welded on to the notion man is entirely responsible for destruction of this Planet’s climate.  Scientists that are presenting empirical scientific research rather then reliance solely on computer models of dubious accuracy and created to scare the bejesus out of each and every one of us.  Computer models on which many of these so-called experts have hoisted their reputations and now watching their houses of cards crumble as fact blows a pure, clean wind. 

 I’d have hoped you might have taken a look at the role the Sun may just play in the Earth's climate; the role of the el Nino – la Nina phenomena.  I hadn’t thought you would slam your intellect shut to anything that didn’t emanate from people such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, both fairly well on the outer as “experts” in their field.  I had thought you would question the inane prophesies of people such as Tim Flannery and I had hoped I would not have to slot you into the same category as that sorely repugnant person, Robyn Williams who frequently inflicts his bias and absent research on unsuspecting listeners to the ABC’s Radio National Science Show.  Williams really did it when he donated ABC airtime to Professor Stephan Lewandowksy!   Oh – my – God.  That’s when Williams lost what small amount of credibility he’d managed to cling to and threw himself over the cliff.  Keeping people such as Robyn Williams on the payroll is why the ABC continues to sacrifice itself on the Alter of Biased Leftard Green Wanker group-think..  Blatant socialism within the ranks of the Australian public broadcaster. Adherence to the ABC’s Code of Practice doesn’t exist.   It's no surprise taxpayers who have to fund such bile are so disgusted and disillusioned.  They are paying for propaganda they do not support nor accept.  No wonder, ex-Chairman, Maurice Newman is so disillusioned!

Dr. Karl – I expected better from you.  It’s your job to teach us plebs how to question, how to evaluate, I would have thought.  You have no idea how disillusioned I am thinking you might be pushing a form of science that may well be revealed to be complete bullshit.   An utter con orchestrated by the United Nations.  They have to convince western democracies to embrace  their appallingly Socialist Agenda 21.  What better way than the manifestation of ultimate deception?  It’s shaping up that way right now.  I would be happy to be proved wrong, but somehow, I don’t think that’s going to eventuate.  We are dealing with the UN and each and every one of us should be awake at their post!

I despair for this Planet.  I really do.  When genius minds such as Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki’s are not prepared to visit the contra-science on CAGW and openly comment on it without fear nor favour (not that I have seen from this scientist, anyway) we must wonder what or who got to them!   Has the almighty dollar stretched so far as to influence the best and most brilliant minds involved in Australian science?

                     

The truth is out there, Dr. Karl.  It depends whether or not you have the cojones to step outside your comfort zone.

For a bit of extra reading, Dr. Karl – go here!  You might be in for a bit of a reality check with regard to the idiocy of some so-called experts who are sucking from the public teat.

Dr. Karl features in the last segment on this episode of The Drum.

The Disappearance Of Research Journalism

 It’s time we addressed malfunction, misinformation and a distinct lack of research and corrections in some sectors of our mainstream media – in particular,  printed and online newspaper publications.  I’m looking at you, Fairfax Media and the ABC online.

When one sings from a particular hymn sheet, one produces biased, blinkered tosh such as this from the ABC’s Science & Environment Reporter, Sarah Clarke:

I seem to recall Sydney Radio broadcaster, Alan Jones, was recently marched off to Re-education Camp because of some slight error he made with regard to actual global temperatures – as they were when his broadcast went to air.  I wonder if the ABC’s Sarah Clarke and Fairfax reporters, Ben Cubby and Tom Arup should also be systematically marched off to Re-education Camp because of their one-eyed reporting of climate related stories.  Research?  Where has it gone?   Clarke, Cubby and Arup and a heap of other so-called journalists would rather not open any doors that may challenge their CAGW religion, apparently.  Result:  Readers get bias, not the full story. 

Journalism by Press Release is commonplace nowadays.  No critical analysis, no research.   Are journalists too stressed or pressured to do a bit of old fashioned foot-slogging?   Can’t be too hard with the Internet, surely.  Perhaps they are too concerned about their tenure to go rocking boats.  Maybe that old saying “keep them in the dark an feed them bullshit” is applicable to today’s journalistic attitude to their readers.  What they (the readers) don’t know won’t kill them besides I’m too busy and too stressed to give a balanced perspective.  Is that the new norm we, the readers, are expected to accept?  It’s no wonder newspapers are dying and no wonder so many of us are gravitating to Blogs.  That’s where you find investigation and research being practiced these days. 

It annoys the hell out of me that a number of journalists publish without question the Gospel according to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.  There is actual science being published on the subject but it is being mostly ignored in the MSM.   Why is that?  Because it contradicts the faith?  How can readers make informed decisions when so much data appears to be deliberately withheld from the public? 

There are a number of internet outlets available for those wishing to evaluate for themselves where the truth lies with regard to whether or not this Planet is about to cook itself into oblivion.

Two award-winning Blogs worth mentioning are: 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://joannenova.com.au/

McTernan Penned Misogyny Speech ??

I'm reblogging from Catallaxy.  Steve Kates' link to Christopher Pearson's column goes to The Australian which is paywalled and I won't be signing up.

If Pearson is correct then it probably won't come as much surprise to those of us who see right through this disgraceful Prime Minister.  As I said in a previous post, nobody does sleaze as well as the Gillard regime.

I think McTernan is right on course to sink this rat infested ship and the sooner it goes down, the better.

This government and this Prime Minister are well beyond a joke.
........................................................................


Catallaxy Files
Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog
Gillard’s misogyny speech was written by a man
51 comments

I read this in Christopher Pearson’s column and even then it took me half a day to appreciate what it said. I had probably heard the same before but hadn’t really thought about its significance. This is what he wrote:

McTernan is credited with writing Gillard’s misogyny speech and with her gender wars campaign.

Gillard’s misogyny speech was written by a man! Come on, it was written by a man!

I had actually thought at the time that as much as I found her speech vile and divisive, that it had been her own true self finally exposed to the light of day. Not a bit of it. She was merely repeating the words and sentiments put there by some male, a male who saw political advantage in her saying what she said. If he did not think there was political advantage, she would not have said what she said. It’s the reverse of the politics of conviction. It is the politics of the con.

Pointing out the phoney outrage of the Labor Party has to be at the top of Coalition policy in the election to come along with an emphasis on how worthless their promises are. Their specialty is outrage and discontent. They do not have a platform so much as a plan of revenge on behalf of the bitter and envious combined with a series of plans to spend vast amounts of money they do not have.

They are the singularly incompetent. On no issue has this government been a success. Nothing they promise to do ever gets done.

They cannot stop the boats. They cannot balance the budget. They cannot maintain economic growth. They cannot build the NBN. They cannot improve our education system. They cannot maintain national defence. They cannot reduce carbon emissions. They cannot keep living costs down. They can’t even devise a tax on the mining industry that actually raises revenue.

All of their outrage is a pretence and none of their promises will be kept. This must be the theme for the Opposition and it must start now so that when the election finally arrives this will be the thought in every voter’s mind whichever party they choose to vote for. No matter what Labor promises, the reality, the true reality in everyone’s mind must be that they NEVER deliver on what they say they intend to do.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/12/17/gillards-misogyny-speech-was-written-by-a-man/comment-page-1/#comment-675197

Bowling For The Right To Bear Arms?

The killing of 20 innocent little kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newton, Connecticut on Friday the 14^th December, 2012 is truly heinous.  The US has form for these type of massacres.  Some deranged bastard walks into a building and fires up innocent people.  Each time one such pointless rampage happens, the issue of gun ownership gets another airing.

The second amendment of the US Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Americans seem to be paranoid about the possibility of invasion and if they were required to surrender their right to bear arms, then the population would be unable to defend if such a hostile takeover were to take place.

On the other hand, they have a fundamental belief they have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property from assault.  There is not much I can disagree with there.

Prime Minister, John Howard made sure Australians were mightily disarmed after Martin Bryant went berserk at Port Arthur in April of 1996.  Most firearms were probably handed in but heaps were not.   I well remember the PVC pipe and small trench caper.   We know you cannot remove every single firearm from the control of an individual.  It’s impossible.

Will disarming a nation solve the problem of mass murders?  No, it won’t.  The murder gene in humans will simply activate more creative methods.   Bombs and baseball bats work just as well.

Sickos have walked the streets of society since we came out of the trees.  They will continue unabated.  That’s the price we must pay for civilization.

Forceful disarming of a population is not the way to go.  Guns are readily available within communities and that will always be the case.   It’s not the gun that goes on a rampage, it’s the person behind the gun.

Meanwhile in quiet Tasmania, two people have died today as a result of a moron brandishing a gun.  Somewhere, every day, this type of event is a news story.

AR5, IPCC & The United Nations

I am linking to Watt’s Up With That because of the considerable material and discussion concerning the recently leaked AR5 2^nd Draft Paper at the site. 

I salute the leaker, by the way.  The IPCC will now be obliged to honour many statements they have previously made but circumvented about openness and transparency with regard to their dealings and reports. 

The time is nigh for intelligent leaders of nations to kick the United Nations to the kerb and deny them further funding.  Unintelligent leaders will, of course, kowtow to the UN, fawn to the Green Mafia and continue to send them buckets of money.  Australia is afflicted with such lack of intelligence in the form of the Gillard Government.

Remember, the United Nations want to control the Internet.  I think they will seriously pull every rabbit they can out of the hat now after release of the IPCC’s draft report.  I have no doubt they will make it their mission to ensure free speech is killed one way or another.   By the way, I wonder if our man Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and pusher of the Mandatory Internet Filter voted with the intelligent nations against Big UN Brother as the US, Europe and Canada have or did Australia vote with Middle Eastern and communist countries who want the Internet controlled?  I can’t wait to find out!

The United Nations are getting too big for their boots.  They are not the Government of the World.  Yet!

When It Comes To Sleaze...

… nobody does it better than the Gillard Government!  Watch a few of the grubs begin their desperate climb out of the decomposing maggot-ridden carcase that is the Gillard Government because of its embracing of Dodgy Brother, Peter Slipper.  This is the price of political stupidity when you try to be too clever by half and you are absolutely desperate to cling to power.  Sleaze knows no boundaries when it comes to the Gillard Government but the Slipper scandal must be seen as the ultimate in political self-sliming and this ridiculous mob of Union hacks and cronies will never be able to shake off the rancid goo.  Peter Slipper has carried a foul odour for many years and the morons knew it.

Justice Steven Rares tossed out of court a sexual harassment claim made by Staffer, James Ashby against defrocked House of Reps. Speaker, Peter Slipper yesterday, stating Ashby’s claim was politically motivated.   This decision, in itself, sets a new low for Australia’s legal system.  Political favouritism has overtly entered our court system.  I'm not suggesting Justice Rares hung his political sympathies banner along the front of his Bench.  Heavens no!  We know our Judiciary is impartial!  More will be written on Rares’ rather interesting determination later, once legal circles stop blinking and after we know whether Ashby intends to appeal the decision.   There may have to be a whip-around to help raise the necessary funds to mount said appeal.

Gillard Government Grubs (henceforth known as ‘G' Men.  And women.  Can’t forget the Handbag Hit Squad!) are having a field day.  They think they have been delivered a seriously smoking Magnum by Justice Rares that will surely blow to smithereens the Coalition’s  AWU/HSU/Thomson arsenal and cause the electorate to reel back on their heels uttering “golly”!   They have been handed a water pistol and the Socialist morons are on the slippery side of stupid.  I am sure Abbott, once elected, will rip the scab off the festering sore which is the Australian unions via an enquiry into corruption and dirty dealings dating back quite some time. 

The Federal Australian Labor Party (the inane little band of Union-controlled kiddies running this nation.  Currently.) expect the Opposition to stoop to the level they set some time ago; a cesspit never before seen in Australian Politics.  People – for in my opinion, they are not a politician’s backside – 

such as MP Craig Emerson hyperventilates; "This is a conspiracy of enormous proportions, and Mr Abbott will hope that it simply blows away and then he can get on to his next smear campaign,"   Emerson would love to farm it into a ‘conspiracy of enormous proportions’ to take the heat of his ex girlfriend and the same ex girlfriend of the crook, Bruce Wilson, of the AWU/Wilson/Gillard/Slushgate scandal.  Emerson’s ex-bonk is, of course, Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.   The ‘jobs for the boys’ bell has never peeled so loudly – from ministerial appointments to those of the judiciary.  Gillard has performed well in the way she has handed out appointments to protect her posterior!

The Gillard Government knew the risk they were taking when they appointed  Peter Slipper to the respected position of Speaker.  It was a blatant political move to hang onto power.  

There is another backfire coming and it will not be hitting the Coalition.  All Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, has to do is keep feeding out the ropes.  Yes - there is more than one!
………………………………………………………. 

Slipper 'conspiracy' likened to Australian Watergate

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Updated 2 hours 38 minutes ago

 Labor has stepped up its attack on the Coalition amid the fallout from the failed sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper, describing it as a "conspiracy of enormous proportions".

The Federal Court yesterday dismissed the case brought against the former parliamentary speaker by one of his staff members, James Ashby, declaring it was an abuse of process designed to cause "significant public, reputational and political damage".

Justice Steven Rares believes the predominant purpose of the case was to further the political interests of the Liberal National Party (LNP) and former Howard government minister Mal Brough, who has been preselected as the Coalition's candidate in Mr Slipper's Sunshine Coast electorate of Fisher.

Government frontbenchers are demanding Opposition Leader Tony Abbott disendorse Mr Brough and make a detailed statement about what involvement the Coalition had in the court case.

"This is a conspiracy of enormous proportions, and Mr Abbott will hope that it simply blows away and then he can get on to his next smear campaign," Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson told AM.

"Mr Abbott will probably want to continue circling the earth and not land and answer these basic questions: What did he know about this? What does he mean by 'no specific knowledge'?"

Mr Abbott is on his way to the United Kingdom after making an unannounced visit to the troops in Afghanistan.

Read “their” ABC’s UPDATED take on the rest of this sorry saga here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-13/labor-ramps-up-attack-on-slipper-conspiracy/4425520

Tweeting Is For Twits!

I don't "tweet".  I don't do Facebook.  I think both forms of this type of social media are fairly cretinous, designed for the imbeciles in our community who need their egos regularly massaged so they may validate their existence.  You just have to read the mindless rubbish the ABC's Q and A streams below the programme to realise there are idiots in charge of keyboards and mobile devices across the country and the viewer must suffer as a result.  I like the idea of sticking a black cardboard strip across the offending part of the television screen. But we should not have to take such drastic measures to protect our sanity.

And what does it say about our politician twits who insist on being party to the inane?  I would hope the good politicians would exercise a level of maturity.  The bad (inane) ones, of course, should go for it.  Make idiots of themselves.  That way, we know exactly who and what we are voting for.  So far, the ALP have outdone themselves when it comes to showing the country their mindlessness via their twittery.

If I was the leader of the federal Coalition, I would be taking a strong stand with regard to MPs and candidates holding these two types of social media accounts.  There is no excuse for stupidity.  Connecting with voters is important but not so important when there is the real potential to make a complete goose of yourself and your party.
....................................................................


Liberals gag twits
Date
December 9, 2012

Jessica Wright
federal political correspondent for The Sunday Age and the Sun-Herald.

Slip-ups … politicians have criticised each other on Twitter, leading to the Liberals' alleged clampdown.
LIBERAL PARTY candidates have been gagged before next year's federal election, with Coalition backbench MPs under pressure to close their Twitter and other social media accounts.

In an opposition bid to limit ''stuff-ups and scandals'', Fairfax Media has learnt of a directive from the head office of the federal Liberal Party to preselected candidates that ''strongly advises'' against using Twitter, and tweeting on behalf of the Liberal Party is ''not encouraged''.

Several Liberal backbenchers have confirmed the strict measure, which was decided at the start of last month, with one MP saying the party was sending a clear message ''that depending on your seniority, use a great deal of caution when tweeting, and it is preferred that most MPs closed our social media accounts''.

''It is a way to limit the stuff-up and scandals obviously but it seems a little draconian to me,'' the MP said. ''I wouldn't go as far as to say this is a free speech issue but if I was pushed to close my account outright, then you would hear from me loud and clear. On Twitter and elsewhere.''

Another MP said the decision was ''outrageous'' and a ''result of a bunch of nervous nellies in the head office who think we aren't capable of running our own offices without falling over our own feet''.

Calls to the Liberal Party federal secretariat for comment were not returned.

A spokesman for the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said this issue was a matter for the national executive branch.

It is understood preselected Liberal candidates in Western Sydney were the first to be told of the Twitter blackout and several have privately made their displeasure clear to local party branches.

Labor MP Steve Gibbons caused a stir in the last sitting week of Federal Parliament by calling Mr Abbott a ''gutless douchebag'' and the Deputy Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop, a ''narcissistic bimbo'' on Twitter.

The tweet caused immediate problems for Labor, given the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's, aggressive campaign against what she has called the Opposition Leader's misogyny.

In May, Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer defended controversial comments she made on the social media site about foreign workers and an overseas-born Labor senator as ''clearly ironic''.

In September, Liberal council candidate Matthew Hammon was forced to resign from the party when he sent a series of racially provocative tweets criticising Muslims in the aftermath of the anti-Islam film riot in Sydney.

The federal move to limit the use of Twitter is not the first time the Liberal Party has imposed a gag on candidates.

Last year, Queensland Liberal National Party candidates were encouraged to use Facebook rather than Twitter to connect with voters and avoid slip-ups before the state election.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/liberals-gag-twits-20121208-2b284.html#ixzz2EVPGDFJ8

ABC Self Policing - The Danger Within

Malcolm Colless has an interesting piece in Quadrant Online outlining the roughness of the media playing field as it stands today under the current Labor regime purporting to be running this country.  Into the ground - but that's another story.  There is nothing level about the media playing field when it comes to 'their' ABC.   Not 'our' ABC - although we all pay for the thing.

The socialist bias within the ABC is now no longer something to joke about.  There is not one conservative presenter on radio or television.  Programme presenters such as Jon Faine (Local Radio 774)  Leigh Sales  (7.30) and Tony Jones (Q & A) no longer feel shackled by the ABC's Code of Practice and fly their political preference flags with gay abandon.

Should commerical media fall victim to constrictions and, by definition, censorship if the government of the day gets its way, then the powerful media outlet, the ABC, should be subject to the same regulatory controls.  Why should the ABC be treated differently?  It is in the media business afterall, although taxpayer funded, which is all the more reason the ABC should be accountable.
...........................................................................................

QED
The ABC's indecent advantage
by Malcolm Colless

November 30, 2012

There has been a lot of whinging lately by the free-to-air TV broadcasters about lopsided competition rules. Free TV Australia, the commercial television lobby group, has urged the government to impose tax penalties on the major international online companies to create “a level playing field”. The FTAs should know all about this, as they have enjoyed years of unfair advantage over any competition in their patch.

But the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with the help of its owner, our Federal Government, is well positioned to take advantage of a very uneven playing field in the future digital delivery of news and opinion online.

The reason is quite simple. While traditional commercial media companies, particularly print operators, are finding it increasingly necessary to build pay walls around their digital content, the ABC can, and presumably will, continue to provide its content for free, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

On a “share of voices” meter, which measures across-the-board media impact, the ABC leaves the rest of the industry for dead -- and it always has via the sheer number of its taxpayer-funded outlets.

The spectre that this raises is of ABC dominance on the news and current affairs digital platforms already battling for market share and advertising revenue as traditional media outlets attempt to cope with a seismic shift in community reading and viewing habits. The fact that the ABC does not need to worry about establishing pay walls to underwrite the value of its content puts it in a very powerful and potentially monopolistic position. While the Labor Government may see this as a comfortable alternative to a hostile press it raises serious questions about the free flow of information, a basic component of any democracy.

The government has already taken a giant step towards controlling this information with the establishment of the National Broadband Network. It would have us believe the multi-billion dollar NBN is necessary to shore up Australia’s competitiveness in global markets, having argued that this task cannot be successfully carried out by private enterprise. Time will tell if this policy assumption is correct, but the government’s aim in the meantime is to nationalise the information superhighway and be its content gatekeeper.

All of this is pertinent to Labor’s desire to put more shackles on an already heavily regulated press in order to placate left-wing political pressures in its own minority-government camp. The opportunity for government action on this comes from the inquiry it ordered into media regulation (it would prefer it to be known as “reform”) conducted by former judge Ray Finkelstein.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who has carriage of this issue ( and ministerial control of the ABC and SBS), may well see the traditional press as a soft target. We will see about that. But he has learned that trying to interfere with the flow of internet information can be a dangerous game indeed.

In 2008 Conroy unveiled a scheme to legislate mandatory filtering by internet service providers of Refused Classification-rated material hosted on overseas servers. This brought an immediate and hostile response from internet users, particularly when it was found that the Government’s intended hit list went well beyond child-abuse websites and the like.

Despite deferring a final decision until after the 2010 federal election Conroy maintained his support for the scheme, but yielded to unrelenting opposition earlier this month when he announced the proposed legislation had been abandoned.

So it will be interesting to see how far Cabinet is prepared to go in the face of Finkelstein’s recommendation for all media outlets to be covered by a new “super-media regulatory body” which would be called the News Media Council.

Whether this can be justified in terms other than those of naked politics is another matter. But whatever the merits of that case, the fact remains the ABC has strenuously argued that what may be good for commercial media’s goose is not good for its own, taxpayer-funded gander, meaning that it needs to be left to operate under its own internal complaints system.



Veteran journalist Malcolm Colless believes in freedom of speech -- and a level playing field

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/11/the-abc-s-indecent-advantage

McTernan - Political Jihadist Of The Left

Stolen from Michael Smith News (link to this speech at Michael's website is not working!)

Member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs exposes John McTernan for what he is.
..................................................................................

Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:32):  Today I rise to speak in relation to my role as a scrutiny of government spokesperson for the coalition and a flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money. Earlier this year, the new SA Premier did a rare good thing and cut a program called Thinkers in Residence, a program that was simply a way for former Premier Mike Rann to abuse SA taxpayers' money by offering patronage to left-wing mates.

The worst example of this was the failed British political operative, Mr John McTernan, who was supposedly thinking during 2011. According to reports, Mr McTernan was paid some $200,000 for his time thinking. The topic of Mr McTernan's thinking was, ironically, delivering a more effective public service. Some 12 months after the completion of this thinking, no report has been prepared and there is no sign either of the two toolkits he was supposed to produce.

This disgraceful fact is that the SA taxpayer has footed the bill to bring a Labor mate to Australia. But what makes it worse is that the Prime Minister decided to employ this failed British headkicker, again, using large amounts of Australian taxpayers' money. This FIFO political adviser is employed in the Prime Minister's office on a taxpayer funded salary, somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000.

Mr McTernan is a self-confessed political fighter, a class warrior. He describes his approach to politics in the following way:

If you get to senior positions, you have to be able to kill your opponents. It is not pretty, it's not pleasant, but if those at the top can't kill, then those at the bottom certainly cannot. High politics demands very low political skills, too.

He affirmed this approach to Labor staff earlier this week, and Ben Packham at the Australian reported:

Julia Gillard's media director John McTernan has reminded ministerial staff that politics is a contact sport, urging them to hit back hard whenever the opposition attacks. Illustrating his point yesterday, McTernan borrowed countryman Sean Connery's classic line from The Untouchables: 'If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they put one of your men in the hospital, put one of theirs in the morgue.'

He certainly is obsessed by killing this character. That is what happened earlier this year. Mr McTernan started this year with a New Years' Eve tweet:

Happy New Year to friends, colleagues, commentators and combatants in Australia. 2012 is going to be fun.

He has not let us down. It all started on Australia Day and the infamous Australia Day riot when a member of the PM's staff on our most sacred day told a group of protesters that the Leader of the Opposition had said something he had never said. A young Labor staffer named Tony Hodges, a good young Labor man, took the rap for this; however, we know from the former Attorney-General, the member for Barton, that this decision was made much further up the line. That young Labor staffer was in effect collateral damage. Maybe this just confirms Mr McTernan's words from 2011:

Full disclosure is important, but-speaking cynically-only of what will eventually come out.

We see that in operation every day. More recently, we have seen the so-called misogyny speech and campaign that the Leader of the Opposition has been sexist and antiwomen. What is really interesting is that Mr McTernan wrote in the British Telegraph in 2011that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has a problem with women. It is not just Liberals who have felt the full force of the attacks: look at what happened to the member for Griffith in February this year when he had his character systematically assassinated. This vicious brand of low-rent political muckraking should never be welcomed in Australia. The type of campaigns Mr McTernan brags about when he wrote:

Around the world, campaign after campaign shows that fear beats hope.

The 457 visa program—and well may you laugh—is designed to bring in skilled workers where there is no-one available in Australia. Surely, even this Labor government can find someone in Australia to be employed in the highest office in the land. As a seasoned political observer put it to me yesterday: 'Mr McTernan is an international political jihadist who is interested in raising his profile with no regard for the future of Australia.' I call on Mr McTernan to pay back the $200,000 he has fleeced from the South Australian taxpayer, and I say to the Labor caucus: roll this Prime Minister again, as you did earlier this week, and send this self-promoting British Labour reject and his putrid politics back to where they came from.

Brandis Ups The Ante

The Coalition has stepped up its attack on the Prime Minister, with Liberal senator George Brandis using parliamentary privilege to suggest Julia Gillard broke criminal laws while working as a lawyer in the early 1990s.

Ms Gillard has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to her role in providing legal advice to establish the Australian Workers Union (AWU) Workplace Reform Association while working at Slater & Gordon.

She has said she believed the association's funds would be used for legitimate purposes.

They were instead used by her then-boyfriend and former AWU official Bruce Wilson as a union slush fund, although he denies financially benefiting from it.

Speaking in the Senate, the shadow attorney-general said it was clear Ms Gillard knew the association's funds would not be used for their stated purpose, which was for the advancement of workers' rights.

Instead, Senator Brandis said she knew the funds would be used for the "private purposes" of Mr Wilson and fellow union official Ralph Blewitt.

"There is no doubt - no doubt whatsoever - that at the time she was involved in setting up the slush fund, Ms Gillard knew what its purpose was," he told the Senate.

"Indeed, the choice of an incorporated association as the entity to hold the funds for union election purposes was Ms Gillard's brainchild.

"It is already clear, that from (the association's) inception, Ms Julia Gillard's involvement in this matter has been characterised by concealment, deception, professional misconduct, and it would appear several breaches of the criminal law."

Full story at link below:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-28/brandis-claims-in-senate-that-pm-breached-criminal-laws/4397254
                                        ********************

I watched Question Time again today and all I can say is:  This disgrace of a Prime Minister obviously doesn't want to incriminate herself in the House.  It's a serious offence.

Senator Brandis is no fool.  He knows the law and I am sure he has researched this matter thoroughly.  I hope he keeps the pressure up whilst the Senate is sitting.

Parliament rises tomorrow for the summer break.  I have no doubt this story will continue and eventually, the truth will out.  The fate of this Prime Minister should be known shortly.

Making Your Mind Up!

I've made mine up, Ms, Gillard.  How about you?

Sub-prime Credibility

I rather like the description “Sub-prime” as it may relate to our Prime Minister,  Julia Gillard.  I didn't coin the phrase but I wish I had.  In my opinion, she has to be the worst Prime Minister leading the worst government Australia has ever had the misfortune to suffer.  Even Gough Whitlam’s ALP government was not as bad as this current mob of incompetents.

The Prime Minister is not having a good week.  She is still fielding questions about her role in the AWU slush fund scandal as an equity partner at the legal firm, Slater & Gordon advising her boyfriend at the time, Bruce Wilson.  Wilson slushed nearly half a million dollars his own way after Gillard did the legal work on the AWU/Workplace Reform Account.

In my eyes, Ms. Gillard has zero credibility.  In the eyes of this nation, I believe her credibility is taking a fair whacking.  Deservedly.  The woman can’t or won’t answer a question directly.  Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Opposition has posed a number of questions to her in Parliament.  This woman simply will not give a direct answer.  The average Joe can only take that one way.  The Prime Minister does have something to hide.  PM Gillard has attempted to deflect, Ms. Bishop’s forensic questioning for the 2nd day in Parliament Question Time by not answering, by deferring to her non-direct-answers during the 2^nd of two long Press conferences and by blaming the Opposition for running a dirt file and a smear campaign.  Her hypocrisy knows no bounds!  Her Government IS the Government of smear.  Remember the Australia Day Race Riot orchestrated by her own staff to smear opposition Leader, Tony Abbott.  That’s just one example of the tactics of this disgraceful regime.

Gillard also lambasted Ms. Bishop for having a 10 minute meeting with the con man, Ralph Blewitt who played 2^nd fiddle in Wilson’s two member band.  Hello?  This woman must have conveniently forgotten her own long association with Mr. Blewitt.  She was so familiar with Blewitt, she didn’t charge him for legal work.  You can only shake your head and shed a tear that this is the sort of untrustworthy creature currently running this country.

Gillard stupidly laid into Blewitt on Monday during the second of two lengthy press conferences.  After Gillard had finished unloading on Blewitt she said “His word against mine?  Make your mind up.”  Good question, PM Gillard and here’s my answer.  I’ll take Blewitt’s word over yours any day.  I deplore liars.

Last night, (27/11) the ABC managed the scoop of the week.  They wheeled out the ex-boyfriend, Bruce Wilson for an interview on the weekly television current affairs segment, 7.30.  Any person with a brain that functions watching Mr. Wilson trying to defend Sub-prime would have picked up the body language pretty quickly.  They would have fallen to the ground in fits of laughter when Wilson declared he had no case to answer with regard to his own involvement in the disappearance of monies from the unauthorised entity, the AWU Workplace Reform Association. 

Gillard’s credibility has now sunk below sub-zero.  The ABC, by pushing nice, ‘credible’ Mr. Wilson onto the public stage loaded more guns and handed them to the Coalition.  In particular, Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop.  There are two more days of Question Time in Federal Parliament left for this sitting year.

Get your popcorn ready!  

Here's How It Works At The ABC

This graphic has been shamelessly pinched from Samuel J's piece over at Catallaxy.

However, we all need to see how our tax dollars are working for all Australians when it comes to funding of "their" ABC - not ours..

Of course, there is no bias at the ABC.  Apparently, Managing Director, Mark Scott made some sort of commitment/ promise thingamy to smooth out or disappear any funny stuff at the ABC as Gerard Henderson has been at pains to point out.  Gerard has also been diligent in keeping tabs on just how many from the Conservative side of politics have been bestowed with important editorial and journalistic roles at Aunty.

What's wrong with the bleeding obvious?

The relevant bits contained in the graphic might be a bit hard to read, but if you click on the link to Catallaxy above, all will be revealed.

The ABC Is Required To Be Impartial

Last Friday (23/11) Jon Faine, presenter of Mornings With Jon Faine, weekdays on ABC Local Radio 774 (Victoria)  most probably breached the ABC's Code of Practice, particularly Section 2 which relates to accuracy (according to the standards of recognised journalism); Section 4 which covers impartiality and diversity of perspectives: weight of evidence; fair treatment and open-mindedness and Section 5 relating to fair and honest dealings.  I suggest you listen to his broadcast and determine for yourself whether or not Michael Smith was given an opportunity (unhindered) to respond to the smearing Faine inflicted on him during his programme which went to air on the 22nd November, 2012.    I don't believe he was and that would appear to be in breach of Clause 5.3 of the ABC's Code of Practice.

The same treatment was dished out to The Age's Editor-at-large, Mark Baker.

Faine's segment was a follow-up of his pathetic attempt to cover, in his own lunchbox, the AWU/Gillard/Wilson/Slater & Gordon affair which went to air the previous day.  Faine, of course, pummels away at his audience by saying Prime Minister Gillard has nothing to answer and has done no wrong and he, himself, must be thick and two bricks" and he "just doesn't get it."  He doesn't "get" what all the fuss is about.  Well, he wouldn't "get it" if he is too left-blinkered to do some basic research.

Shock-Jock Faine's role as an ABC presenter is to be impartial.  He is not supposed to be a propaganda-peddler for the ALP.  Nor should Faine apply his own form of censorship by talking over guests and callers to deliberately stifle broadcast of their views.

I believe Faine must apologise, on air, to Messrs. Smith and Baker.  Both deserved some respect.  Respect Faine denied them.  Perhaps an apology should also be extended to Mr. Ralph Blewitt, an associate of PM Gillard's ex boyfriend, Bruce Wilson and who later became the fall-guy as Wilson went about syphoning off money from a dodgy slush fund set up on Wilson's instructions by the then equity partner with the firm, Slater & Gordon, Julia Gillard.

All the evidence has been compiled through the thorough investigative journalism of one Michael Smith and can be found on his Blog.

In Thursday's AWU segment, oracle Faine attempted to discredit Blewitt by referring to some scuttlebutt lifted from a Western Australian commercial radio programme as proof Blewitt was untrustworthy, a con-man.  Of course, Blewitt has already admitted he has had a pretty shady past.  However, Faine, in his infinite wisdom relied on the words of "Penny" who identified herself as Blewitt's sister.  I put it to Faine:  Did you bother to check the bona fides of this caller "Penny" before you used her words on the ABC to smear Ralph Blewitt?

I don't think the ABC should retain the services of someone who waves his political affiliations so publicly.  Such bias within the ABC is surely going to backfire sooner or later.  This organisation relies on funding from the taxpayer, afterall.  An awful lot of people are calling for the wrecking ball to go through the joint as soon as the Coalition take over at the next election.

It was a disgraceful week for Jon Faine and a disgraceful week for the ABC.

Judgement & Credibility - AWU Scandal

Yes, this entire saga goes straight to the judgement and credibility of Julia Gillard who is currently Australia's Prime Minister.

Incredible!

Here's a News Limited article that covers quite a bit of ground.

http://www.news.com.au/national/awu-scandal-why-it-matters-and-what-you-need-to-know/story-fndo4eg9-1226522812935

Is is too much to ask for honesty from our Prime Minister?  Just a little bit of honesty?  Are Australians heartily sick of being lied to?  Let's start with the lie "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

There must be a full investigation into the Union movement and the lead players in Australia.  Why?  Because whilst this federal Labor government has the power, it's Union power.   The Unions control this government.  Full stop.  Remember, those faceless (Union) men who dislodged a sitting Prime Minister and installed Julia Gillard into the role.

We have one Union-related scandal after another at the moment, all involving corruption.  The HSU, the AWU, the CFMEU, and the appalling case surrounding NSW State Labor currently in the spotlight as the dirt flies via an ICAC Inquiry..

How can we have faith in the leadership of this country when the Unions are operating sock puppets?