Why are the Warministas afraid of Biochar?

My scepticism about the AGW proposition is obvious and well known but that does not prevent me from offering an opinion of the efficacy of the schemes devised and promulgated to address the issue. Where I tend to take a rather Hippocratic approach, namely that any idea to address “Climate Change” should in the first instance do no harm but secondly I believe that there should be other benefits from the plan that will remain a benefit even if the AGW enthusiasts are proven to be as wrong as I tend to think they are. Thus I am all for making every thing we do as energy efficient as we can make them, and if we are to try to mitigate carbon emissions then ideas like Biochar are far superior to stupidity like a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme

Biochar – a charcoal created by pyrolysis could offset 12 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions (Image: bdiscoe)

Left – a nutrient-poor oxisol; right – an oxisol transformed into fertile terra preta using biochar

Overview showing inputs, process, outputs, applications and impacts on global climate (Image: Nature Materials)

According to a new study, as much as 12 percent of the world’s human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could be sustainably offset by producing biochar, a charcoal-like substance made from plants and other organic materials. That’s more than would be offset if the same plants and materials were burned to generate bioenergy, says the study. Additionally, biochar could improve food production in the world’s poorest regions as it increases soil fertility.

Biochar is made by decomposing biomass like plants, wood and other organic materials at high temperature in a process called slow pyrolysis – a form of incineration that decomposes organic materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. Normally, biomass breaks down and releases its carbon into the atmosphere within a decade or two. But biochar is more stable and can hold onto its carbon for hundreds or even thousands of years, keeping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide out of the air longer.

Other biochar benefits include: improving soils by increasing their ability to retain water and nutrients; decreasing nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the soil into which it is tilled; and, during the slow pyrolysis process, producing some bio-based gas and oil that can offset emissions from fossil fuels.

The reality is that there is another agenda for most of the Warministas that has nothing at all to do with the climate otherwise it would be them and not the coalition suggesting that we pursue this sort of approach to AGW…
Cheers Comrades

The solace of a few Rums in the 30footer to ease your pain mate

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott faced the people’s forum at Rooty Hill RSL Club in Sydney. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: The Australian (click for source piece)

My fellow author here, our esteemed Sock-puppet, will no doubt be rather cross that his political pin-up has not done as well as Tony Abbott did at Rooty Hill. Sadly I could not watch it last night and if I can find a web version I will rectify that shortcoming today but the reports that I have seen in this morning’s press give it as a clear win to Tony Abbott.

- The vast majority of the audience indicated at the end that the exchange had helped them to decide their votes. Bad news for Gillard if many people get to see it.

- Abbott had very few slogans and was light on knocking his opponent; Gillard was the opposite.

- Gillard’s raise-your-hand routine at the start was a disaster. So pointless and patronising.

- Is the “real Julia” actually the fake one?

- Abbott came across exactly as I know him – essentially an honest, intelligent, humble and compassionate man trying to do his imperfect best. I’m not surprised many like what they saw.

Andrew Bolt

Ah well There is always the solace of a few Rums in the 30footer  to ease your pain mate and the possibility that you could see the light and realise that you are backing the wrong horse in this race…

Cheers Comrade

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap Labor style

It has to be a clear sign of desperation that there has been a serious leak from the lefty minions in treasury…

Speaking in Melbourne, Mr Robb said the costing process has been ”seriously compromised” by the leak, which appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald this week.

The leaked document revealed an $840 million hole in the coalition’s budget costings.

”If the leak has come from Treasury then it is in all likelihood a criminal offence,” Mr Robb said.

Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has already said the federal police should investigate how the document was leaked to the media.

The coalition expects to see a $2.44 billion budget saving from scrapping Labor’s National Broadband Network because of the interest it would not have to pay.

But a confidential Treasury analysis, dated July 5, cast doubt on the figure, saying the savings would only be $1.6 billion, leaving an $800 million discrepancy, Fairfax newspapers reported yesteday.

Mr Hockey has accused Treasurer Wayne Swan or the Treasury of leaking the secret document.

Mr Robb said the coalition has every intention of providing the full costings of the remaining 20 policies to Treasury before the election, but only if the police become involved.

”We’re not going to be used as political patsies by a treasurer who is complicit in the leak of a very serious Treasury document and in the process someone who is aiding and abetting what looks like a criminal act,” he said.

Its no wonder that Wayne Swan is looking more and more like a Dickensian character , an oily skinned undertaker perhaps…
Not surprised the dirty tricks campaign was expected but very disappointed on behalf of loyal labor voters who should expect that those they have put into high office would act honorably….
Hang on this is the ALP we are talking about isn’t it?
Acting honorably is probably a bridge too far for them…
Cheers Comrades

Sloth has its own reward

As I suggested in my earlier post I think that every eligible person should register to vote at their earliest opportunity but even if they don’t I tend to have little sympathy if they find themselves disenfranchised by their own sloth so I am rather wryly amused by the coniptions from that cadre of lefties who go by the name of “get up” as it seems that their success in court may be a rather empty one.

Swinburne University academic Brian Costar, the director of the Democratic Audit of Australia, warns that under other 2006 amendments to the electoral laws, only 14 per cent of these may be counted.

“Their votes will only be counted if they can produce photo ID on polling day or by the following Friday,” Dr Costar said.

“Because of the ID requirements, in 2007 only 14 per cent of declaration votes were actually counted.

“This very low percentage changed the result in three electorates.”

Get Up seems to expect that new rolls should be printed I don’t think that is entirely reasonable at this stage. Surely if this mob of whingers was really caring about the votes of these slothful people then instead of running their futile campaign about climate change over the last few years they should have pursued the issue of the closing of the rolls sooner, rather like those who won’t be able to vote should have done something about it sooner…
Cheer Comrades

8)

Big news – Ben Cousins does drugs

I think Akermanis might be right about this - for once

I would never have guessed that AFL player Ben Cousins - who once won a Brownlow medal and an AFL Premiership by snorting a bucket load of cocaine up his nose but is now a recovering drug addict – is actually a role model for kids thinking about following him on his drug-crazed, sex-filled, stoned-out, off-field and on-field pursuits.

But butter my bread on both sides, Ben has made a doco ‘Such is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins’ to be shown on TV soon, that he, his new club Ricmond and the AFL reckon will “serve as a warning” to young people and is “all good”.

Richmond has given its blessing to the explosive Ben Cousins documentary …  The Tigers have seen the documentary and this morning the club issued a statement saying they continued to support their star midfielder.

“This is a confronting story and one we sincerely hope has a positive impact on those that watch it,” Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale said. “If what Ben and his family have been through serves as an important lesson to others then it has been worth doing.”

[...]

Such is Life: The Troubled Times of Ben Cousins has been seen by AFL boss Andrew Demetriou … An AFL spokesman last night said the league hoped the documentary would help others.

This should be riveting TV and compulsory viewing for all kids and other drug addicts.

I can hardly wait to see the footage of Cousins:

• DANCING in his underpants with a glass of red wine and a scantily-clad female in the background.
• CRYING while under the influence of an unknown substance.
• LEANING on a kitchen table covered in beer bottles after a heavy night.
• STARING into a camera and declaring: “My name is Ben Cousins. I’m a drug addict”.

Yeah .. I mean, if Ben can do all that and have that much fun yet still recover and earn mega bucks playing footy then so can they!

Sheez … I think I agree with ex-Brisbane & sacked Bulldogs player Jason Akermanis who said it could actually encourage kids to take drugs.

Appearing on the Today Show, he said there was a risk of young people seeing the doco and thinking “maybe this is an interesting thing, maybe I’m a bit curious”.

“Should I as a young person look and Ben Cousins and say, ‘No don’t do it’, or, ‘Maybe it’s not so bad’ – that’s the only question mark we have before we see it,” Akermanis said.

Yep. You see, not everyone (well hardly anyone) is fortunate enough to have (1) the sporting talent (2) the money, and (3) the support network that Cousins had to get him through his crisis.

And actually, there’s still no guarantee he won’t relapse and end up in the gutter.

Like a lot of kids who get into drugs.

Helping others! Bullshit – this is self serving crap.

Super high speed Broadband and turning the dishwasher on by computer

Where I live we had to wait for a very long time to get broadband and now the bets that we can get is adsl1 but the reality is that it is entirely adequate for what we want to do on the internet (yes including the time I spend Blogging ) My children can play games. My wife can check out what she is interested in on Ebay We can pay our bills on line it gives us enough functionality to do anything we want to do. Rather like the old adage that many hoarders will be familiar with  that  “the amount of Junk expands to fill the available space” seems to me to apply to things like internet capability. Now while some people are told that they will want to be able to do things like down load feature movies most of us would only consider doing so if it is cost effective to do so. The Price of DVD’s has declined so much that rather than using up bandwidth to buy a copy of a film we are more inclined to just building up our collections as we please. What I am saying here is that we have to be realistic about the cost benefit analysis of any big nation wide infrastructure roll out like the NBN under Labor.
I just about fell out of my chair with laughter when Stephen Conroy seriously suggested in the debate yesterday that we need to spend 43 Billion bucks just so that some computer could turn on people’s dishwashers! or so that some people could have doctor’s consultations over the net. In the first instance who really wants to add another level of complexity to their domestic infrastructure to enable such control? and in the second what is the point if actual treatment can’t be delivered over the net anyway?
I think that such things are the stuff of a Sci-Fi utopian story but the reality is that the more complicated you make something the more chances there are that some part of it will fail so instead of a the Utopia that the likes of Stephen Conroy is dreaming of we end up with a dystopia where everyone has all of these flash toys that just don’t work properly most of the time.

So while Labor want to offer Australia a Rolls Royce in every garage the Coalition has a more modest but far more realistic Ford proposition that will do everything that we actually need when it comes to broadband and at a cost to the public purse that is much more modest and affordable.

Mr Abbott said the government had bungled the roll-out of so many programs he did not believe it could deliver the NBN for $43bn.

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said the NBN was an example of Labor’s “tax, spend and borrow” approach to government. Rather than create a government monopoly and a “stodgy and cumbersome bureaucracy”, the Coalition was prepared to back the private sector. “We will embrace fierce competition, not stifle it,” he said. “There is a better way.”

Under the Coalition’s plan, 97 per cent of households will have services with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second — and a minimum of 12 megabits — by 2016 through a mixture of HFC cable, DSL and fixed wireless services. It would spend $2.75bn to create a nationwide competitive fibre-optic “backbone” by 2017, expecting it to attract $750 million extra in private-sector funding.

It would also spend $750m on existing fixed broadband services to increase the number of households that could receive a DSL service, and up to $1bn on new fixed wireless networks in rural areas. Up to $700m would support provision of improved satellite services to cover the remaining 3 per cent of the population.

We live on a vast island with relatively few people and frankly when it comes to flash toys like super high speed broadband we have to be realistic about what we can actually afford because I don’t think that I am alone in thinking that I have no confidence that Labor can deliver on the NBN without it costing much more than they claim and that they are sure to have over estimated the number of people who will be willing to pay 43 billion  to have their dishwasher turned on and off by the bloody  computer.

Cheers Comrades

“Nigger” not offensive in Queensland

NOT a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set.

The use of the word “nigger” in Queensland has been given the official thumbs up after a magistrate ruled it was ”not offensive to a reasonable person”.

And its making big news in the The Gold Coast Bulletin:

Magistrate Michael O’Driscoll made the ruling yesterday when he dismissed a case against a Gold Coast retiree charged with sending an offensive facsimile to a local politician.

A staff member working for Broadwater MP Peta-Kaye Croft complained to police after receiving the document from 62-year-old Denis Mulheron of Labrador on June 30 last year.

Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was deeply offended when she read the one-page fax which called on the Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against ‘niggers’ and ‘sandnigger terrorists’ and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

The fax also made reference to indigenous Australians as ‘Abos’.

Mr Mulheron told the court he believed he was using ‘everyday English’ in the fax. He said he had grown up with the slang terms for Arabs and black Africans and did not believe they were offensive.

“I’m not a member of the cafe, chardonnay and socialist set … to me that is everyday language,” he said.

He argued in court the slang terms were no different to calling a New Zealander a ‘Kiwi’ or an American a ‘Yank’.

Which makes me ask the question, “where is this cafe, chardonnay & socialist set?”

Obviously it’s not on the Gold Coast. No latte sippers there. No commies, that’s for sure. No wine either. So where are these miscreants, these namby-pamby nancy boys who get all in a tizz at the mere mention of the words “nigger, abo, towelhead and even … poofter”?

Why in Melbourne of course - just ask the Herald Sun.

This is how they reported the same news down here in Melbourne:

Magistrate rules ‘n—-r’ not offensive to a reasonable person

Christie Turner, 28, told Southport Magistrates Court she was deeply offended when she read the one-page fax which called on the Labor Party to tighten immigration laws against “n—-rs” and “sandn—-r terrorists” and Muslim women with circumcised genitals.

So there you have it. Melbourne is the official cafe, chardonnay & socialist capital.

We don’t say “nigger” down here!

“If I’m looking at Abbott and thinking he’s looking good, there must be an awful lot of people who are thinking the same thing. And I think that there are.”

Another campaign day down and this observer is finding some interest in the process even though Labor true believers  must be all visiting their doctors to ask for a “Happy Pills” script. I am doing my best to feel  with them because I remember how I felt back in 2007 when it seemed so clear that  Rudd had a better than even chance of winning.

The piece in today’s OZ about swinging voter Jeanette Harrison is most interesting because the video from 2007 is such a lovely contrast with the contemporary vision because it shows just why “saving Australia from the GFC meltdown” is just not going to save Labor:

Jennette expresses disappointed with Labor, arguing Julia Gillard has failed to provide a different or compelling vision for the future.

“Labor’s just performing so badly. They’re not offering anything different. I can accept the stuff up on the batts. But I honestly can’t say this election there is anything that’s important which is making me decide which way to vote,” she said.

“Though voting for Tony Abbott, I still don’t know if I can go to the polls and tick for Abbott. I really don’t know if I can do that.”

Jennette owns up to being a swinging voter and says, if she thinks Abbott looks good, others would too.

“If I’m looking at Abbott and thinking he’s looking good, there must be an awful lot of people who are thinking the same thing. And I think that there are.”

To understand what will happen on the 21st I think we need to understand what happened in 2007 and the way that Jeanette Harrison changed her vote then and the way it looks like she will change her vote this time is probably indicative of how a lot of swinging voters are thinking right now so I urge my readers to consider the vision posted at my link and then tell me that they think that Labor will win.
Cheers Comrades

The big pitch

Ok I sinned by not watching the coalition’s campaign launch yesterday but it was as I expected a very business like effort that focuses on the things that matter to the Australian people. In 2007 the only way that the people could be induced to vote for Kevin Rudd was for him to stress that he was a “fiscal conservative” this was a an out right lie . By way of contrast Tony Abbott is the real deal and I am really hoping that the voters recognise that fact and that they can put aside their reservations for the sake of the country. Delivering a workmanlike plan to rectify the multitudinous mistakes made by Labor in office has to be a very good start:

The centrepiece of a speech containing little new was a timetable for the first day, week, month, and three months of a Coalition government.

Mr Abbott has committed to visiting countries in the region in month one, and securing states’ agreement within 90 days for his promise for hospital boards and more beds.

As the campaign enters its crunch fortnight and the polls show the parties neck-and-neck, Prime Minister Julia Gillard plans to try to get on the front foot with a series of major announcements, starting today with schools, and a sharper outline of her agenda for next term.

With many Queensland marginals in play and the political assassination of Kevin Rudd still an issue, Mr Abbott launched in Brisbane and focused heavily on Labor’s difficulties and divisions, which were again highlighted at the weekend.

”Isn’t it great to lead a united political party with a deputy I can trust, a predecessor who’s a friend and a former prime minister who’s a hero,” he said. The large screen frequently cut to John and Janette Howard, who received an enthusiatic welcome.

Mr Abbott told the audience of Liberal supporters – which included his parents, wife Margie, two daughters (the third is overseas) and two sisters – that the Coalition’s task was ”nothing less than to save Australia from the worst government in its history”.

Describing himself as having ”a genial pragmatic political creed”, Mr Abbott said it was time to end the Labor soap opera ”and to give Australians back a grown up government”. His team was ”ready to govern”: ”We won’t have to learn on the job … 15 members of the Coalition shadow cabinet have already been ministers.”

Although he has not promised any income tax measures, Mr Abbott said the Henry review’s recommendations ”for lower, simpler, fairer personal income taxes and an end to the money-go-round that traps people in poverty should be the foundation of Australia’s next round of tax reform”.

”Acknowledging that tax reform is much harder to pursue with a $40 billion deficit than with Peter Costello’s $20 billion surplus, even so within 12 months of coming to office, an incoming Coalition government will outline its plans and its timetable for further reform.” He promised to release in his first month all the modelling associated with the Henry review.

”Under the Coalition, spending will always be less and tax will always be lower than under Labor,” he said.

After the Flashy Failures of Labor in government then surely the voters are hungry for a government that will be workman like rather than the dodgy self aggrandising that has been the hallmark of Labor’s failed grand  schemes.

The footage that I have seen of the liberal launch does show one other thing that Labor  just cant muster or fake and that is a  unity of purpose and just plain unity because as the assassins who took out Julius Caesar found killing their leader is the easy part but controlling the repercussions of that act is the problem for Gillard as well.

Cheers Comrades

PS

The Poll at the end of the Age piece I cite above is interesting in that it gives a clearly higher approval than disapproval to the speech . keeping in mind that this paper  is that bastion of latte sippers this is an extra ordinary result.

//

Showdown @ Rooty Hill – what questions would you ask?

Its the debate you have when youre not having a debate

It looks like we will get some kind of debate between Julia Gillard & Tony Abbott after all:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott are set to take part in a town hall-style public forum on Wednesday. A group of 200 voters chosen by a polling company will question each leader for about an hour at the Rooty Hill RSL in western Sydney … Wednesday’s event is not a debate, and is instead being billed as a town hall-style meeting.

They can say its “not a debate” but this sounds more like a Q & A format as they have on the ABC. And I reckon thats better than a formal debate because the questions from the audience can bring out some good responses.

Somehow though I think the organisers will insist on vetting the questions beforehand. I mean they wouldn’t want some smartarse asking Gillard, “How can you know anything about families when your barren and unmarried?” Or asking Abbott about his virgin daughters and religious beliefs.

But what I want to know is this - 

If you were one of the 200 voters going to Rooty Hill what ONE question would you ask Gillard and what ONE question would you ask Abbott?

Its unlikely you’d get to ask more than one question of each so think about it and give it your best shot. Winner gets a free anger management course with Mark Latham. Closes Tuesday night when I will announce the winner.

A day of ghosts of the recent and not so recent past haunting Julia Gillard

My studies were in Drama and the media which naturally colours the way that I see the campaign and as any student of drama will tell you at is heart there has to be conflict. No where was this more the case than yesterday’s very public head to head between Mark Latham and Julia Gillard. Frankly I found it incredibly refreshing to see a journalist (as he has now become) ask a serving (hopefully not for too much longer) PM some hard questions for which she did not have a down pat rehearsed response.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham confronts Julia Gillard during a street walk in Brisbane. Picture: AAP Source: AAP

As Ms Gillard approached, Mr Latham said: “Julia, long time no see.”

“Can I just ask you why the Labor Party has made a complaint about me working for Channel Nine?”

Ms Gillard replied: “I don’t know anything about that Mark, if you want to work for Channel Nine that’s a matter for you.”

Mr Latham continued: “If you’d agreed to the request for an interview there would have been no need to make any complaint about anything.

“The complaint you really should be making is about Kevin Rudd, who is the one who is sabotaging your campaign – so have a dig at him instead of having a dig at someone trying to do a job.”

Ms Gillard patted Mr Latham on the shoulder and said: “Nice to see you and I hope you enjoy your life as a journalist.”

Mr Latham’s appearance on the campaign trail proved another unwelcome distraction for Ms Gillard.

He earlier joined the media pack which gathered at the BallyCara Retirement Village at Scarborough, north of Brisbane, to cover a press conference by Ms Gillard.

Questioned by journalists, Mr Latham lamented modern politicians not answering questions.

He said “it was almost surreal” and showed no respect for the viewers of current affairs television programs.

“If they ask me about Rudd, I don’t talk about the price of bread, I’ll tell you about Rudd,” Mr Latham said.

Ms Gillard held talks with Mr Rudd at offices in Waterfront House at a meeting where media access was rigidly controlled. The coverage was restricted to photos and vision that have been shared among media outlets. Requests for a reporter to join the photo and film opportunity for the pair were declined. The footage and photos showed Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard seated at a table with Defence Minister John Faulkner, Queensland ALP secretary Anthony Chisholm and assistant secretary Jacki Tradd, along with Mr Rudd's adviser Patrick Gorman. They were shown discussing electoral matters during the picture opportunity, which lasted only a few minutes.

I could not help but think that perhaps this might be a “Hand shake of death” moment for Julia Gillard delivered by the man who used the same spell upon himself when he met John Howard on the campaign trail way back when he was on the other side of the microphone and aspiring to the top job himself.
Though I think that the award for the most self serving performance must go to Kevin Rudd who yesterday appeared side by side next to Julia Gillard entirely for the benefit of the Party. It had some elements of high farce with the meeting being at a location where the access of by  press could be very tightly controlled. This seasoned observer could not help coming to the conclusion that the whole meeting of assassin and the political Ghost of her victim may very well backfire just as surely if the meeting  picture had been created in Photoshop. The words and vision are just so patently false that it beggars belief that any one could believe that Rudd and Gillard  are in any sense reconciled.   This was an attempt to put on a show of unity that is just totally unconvincing.

Voter’s  feelings about who deserves to win in this election will not be swayed by this tightly scripted vignette which was just too contrived and controlled to be at all convincing. Much to the chagrin of the ALP the reinvention of Mark Latham as a journalist may have more of an effect. But not the one they want.

So yesterday was a day of ghosts, ghosts of the recent and not so recent past haunting the current leader of the ALP and we just have to ask, who is Julia going to call???

Cheers Comrades

Cash cows and east-west rivalries

This ad will explain why Labor will have a hard time in the west….

and this the third in the “lemon” ads is a good example of following an effective theme in political advertising

Cheers Comrades

Dr Jason Wilson would have you believe that pretending to to be Andrew Bolt is fine.

In his opinion piece at “The Drum” Dr Jason Wilson mounts a spirited defence of  the person who has been pretending to be Andrew Bolt on Twitter.

The reason it occasionally antagonises the targets is that mockery is an effective tool for blunting a message, and eating away at the sender’s credibility. Parody accounts for opinion journalists like Bolt embody recognition that they are, or have been significant political actors. With Bolt, it’s probably also a sign of how large he has tended to loom in online political discussion. Bolt’s parodist has, admittedly, a relatively sharp edge compared to say, Penny Wong’s. This faker is suggesting that ultimately Bolt’s positions are irrational. He also critiques Bolt’s position by showing up how predictable, even formulaic, Bolt’s schtick is. The occasional, imagined vignette of life at the Herald and Weekly Times, or his home life are simply ridicule, and we might ask questions about whether that’s effective or not as political parody. Having said all of that, it’s interesting that the faker – at least according to my interview - attributes little or no political significance to what he does.

Jason Wilson

I found out about this business via twitter and I had this discussion with Jason Wilson on twitter:

Ok I’ll Give Dr Jason Wilson some credit  for admitting that there are some limits to behaviour on the internet but I think that he is actually far too much in love with the twitter and other social networking platforms to appreciate their implications to the wider world.

To explore this issue I went to his “interview ” with the author of the fake Andrew Bolt Tweets  where he says:

There’s a lot to say about parodying prominent journos – I’ll just offer a few brief thoughts. Parody accounts for opinion journalists embody a recognition that they are, or have been significant political actors. (Certainly, during the years of the previous Howard government, Mr Bolt appeared to have a degree of influence in Canberra beyond that we’d normally associate with a commentator or analyst.) With Bolt, it’s also a sign of how large he looms in online political discussion.

But the parody here has an edge that’s perhaps a little sharper than last week’s example. This faker is suggesting that ultimately Bolt’s positions are irrational. He also critiques Bolt’s position by showing up how predictable, even formulaic, Bolt’s schtick is. The occasional, imagined vignette of life at the Herald and Weekly Times, or his home life are simply ridicule, and we might ask questions about whether that’s effective or not as political parody. Having said all of that, it’s interesting that the faker in this case considers that his parody has little or no political significance.

Jason Wilson

Considering this and my twitter conversation with the good Doctor It occurred to me that his whole defence of fakes on twitter really hangs on one thing and that is that they be recognisable as obvious parodies. One of the terms of service with Twitter is that you are not allowed to imitate other people and I myself have had to complain about someone (it turned out to be Damian Doyle) pretending to be me on twitter This why they require that fakes be clearly labelled. From the interview and the user name, and photograph its clear that the Fake has not been doing this.

I had noticed this paragraph in his introduction:

Anyway, I’ll analyse it more in the paper, and leave you to draw your own conclusions, for now, from the interview with Andrew Bolt’s creator, who gives his name as John Winston*. Once again, comments are welcome.

Jason Wilson

Of course once I saw that pseudonym I knew at once who is responsible It is the very same idiot who thought it was so much fun to go around the internet posting comments in my name check the link if you want to see his spotty visage.

But when I read this exchange  I could not help but to think that Dr Wilson is being less than frank about his knowledge the history or John Winston/Surname. So I sent him an Email to query this aspect of the story :

I wont publish the text of his response(without his specific consent) but the gist of it is that he is claiming to have a sort of  journalistic responsibility to “protect his sources” which is a rather strange response from someone who told me in one of those tweets:

There is an obvious contradiction here If he has no idea who the author of the fake Andrew Bolt is then why should he need to protect his sources? As an academic he has an obligation to full disclosure when he writes about and that has to include the fact that he knows that when the person he is interviewing is not being honest because this question and answer  from Wilson’s interview is just such obvious bullshit and the good Doctor must have know it to be so:

Q Do you publish elsewhere, either in or out of character?

A Nope.

Jason Wilson

He just lets this through to the keeper and does not challenge the lie. Surely as someone who is regularly called  as an expert on twitter by the ABC he has a duty to the truth? To do as any journalist does and ask the harder questions rather than just being all pally with the “sources” because he shares their political position and mutual friends. there is also a clear conflict of interest in Jason Wilson citing people he knows, no matter how casually, in his research with out disclosing that fact. He does not have to reveal their identities but pretending that they are unknown to him when the facts suggests otherwise is something that should be acknowledged.

One of the things The good doctor suggested  in his response to my email was that I contact the creator of the Fake Andrew Bolt via twitter  Which I did by posting this tweet.

Click for picture link

And I have thus far received no response. So I thought that I would post comments linking to the same picture at the pure  Pure Poison post about the issue:

click for link to edited post

and I likewise posed the question at the Crikey piece authored by the Fake Andrew Bolt

Strangely “Tobias Ziegler”  at PP edited my comment completely out of existence and at the Fake Bolt authored Crikey piece My comment has twice been deleted without explanation, Anyone would think that Crikey has a vested interest in protecting someone .

There is nothing wrong at all with wanting to protect one’s sources in research about social phenomena like Twitter but an academic has an obligation to be honest about the sources they use and if it is someone that they know then they should disclose that fact. By the same token If they know that something they are told is a flat out lie like the denial in the good Doctor’s interview piece that “John Winston” has written elsewhere on the net under different names then academic rigour should require that the lie does not go unquestioned.

Perhaps those who want to “research” this medium should have just a little more detachment from their topic rather than just being a fan boy who has managed to find a way to make a living out his love of social networking.

Cheers Comrades

8)

* My Bold

The choice is stark, elect a real fiscal conservative, or an ersatz fiscal conservative

One of the things that Ray keeps banging on about is the way that he thinks the various stimulus schemes invented by the Rudd/ Gillard governments saved the country from ruination and disaster. I think that claim is very debatable but one thing that is beyond dispute is the way that the BER scheme has not delivered “bang for our bucks”. The recently released report about projects in Victoria’s state schools should shake the faith that any resident of that state may have in the ability of Julia Gillard to manage a government department, let alone the whole government.

"Moving Forward"

According to the figures, provided as part of a government submission to a state parliamentary inquiry into the $16.2 billion scheme, the government expects to pay an average of $4842 per square metre for 390sq m halls delivered under the scheme, and $5575/sq m for 160sq m buildings.

By contrast, the Catholic Church is delivering school halls to its schools for an average of $2221/sq m.

The Victorian data provides average cost breakdowns for each of the 17 template designs built in more than 1200 state primary schools as part of the BER stimulus program. As many of the projects are still being built, the figures are described as an “anticipated final cost”.

Analysis of the data shows that in some projects more than 25 per cent of the total budget is soaked up by project management, design and unspecified fees. This is despite all projects being built according to government template designs.

Much of the extra cost appears to stem from additional payments to managing contractors for items such as “special factors”, “special site allowances” and “decanting”.

Hoddles Creek Primary School principal John McKelvie, who has fought a long battle with state education bureaucrats to get a toilet block built and an administration building refurbished, said he could not believe the average cost of $843,300 cited for his school’s project.

“For that price I should be getting solid gold taps and toilets,” Mr McKelvie said.

If more of the same in terms the way that government spends taxpayers money then all that we can expect if we “move forward” is that there will be more debt and an ever growing deficit.
Hmm maybe its time to take a step back to the true fiscal conservatives now that we have seen what happens when you give over control to those who were only pretending to be fiscal conservatives  the way that Rudd and co did in 2007
Cheers comrades

Getting gays straight about voting Green

You do not need a wedding certificate to have gay sex

I am sorry to start your day off Iain with a photo of two blokes kissing but this gay marriage campaign is a farce. Its time I stepped in and straightened out a few miscontraceptions that are being deliberately pushed by the internets leading gay marriage advocate like this one:

Here in Australia, we have the two biggest parties determined to discriminate against gay and lesbian people for as long as possible, despite neither of them having an argument any stronger than “that’s the way John Howard defined it”.

I don’t know how anybody with a sense of justice or fairness could give their first preference to either of them.

It’s bullshit!

This is nothing more than a dirty political trick designed to mislead Australian poofters and lesbians into voting Green. No wonder they are getting 12% in the polls.

The Marriage Act does not discriminate (except against someone’s age*). It does not say “if you are homosexual you cannot get married” or “if you are a lesbian you cannot get married”.

Lots of gays get married. All the time. Think about it.

Does the priest say to a bride & groom, “Do you, Harold, take it up the rear?” Or, “Do you, Doris, go muff diving on a regular basis?” No. He doesn’t. He doesn’t even care. He might even be gay himself. If hes a Catholic he definitely is. 

And when you sign a marriage certificate does it say, “Tick here if you are gay.” No. The law does not care either.

Poofs & Lesbos already have the same rights as any other man or woman to be married and can marry a man if they are a woman and vice versa.

This is not discrimination. Marriage is not about sex or who you have sex with. Since when did you have to be married to have gay sex? Or real sex? With anyone?

I am not married to Laura but she has sex with me (and lots of other blokes) all the time. She has it with women too. Big deal. And Norm who owns BlueGums where I live is married but he has sex with the permanents in exchange for site fees. Man or woman. See?

Gay people of Australia – do not be fooled by the likes of the blogger I quoted who is beating this gay drum. He is not in tune. He is not even gay!

This is a Greens Party conspiracy to take control of our government.

The Greens dont even care about gay marriage. They dont believe in any kind of marriage. They are communists and hedonists who only believe in free love, free money, free drugs and no ties whatsoever. Get it?

The Greens will ruin the country and send gays to detention camps and, instead, let all the boat people take over. They will close down our power plants and make the boat people work on low wages to grow vegetables and marijuana to feed all the other Greens.

And finally, they will stop the internet filter and let all the pedo stuff in and … *lower the age of consent* so they can have sex with whoever they like.

They are sickos. 

I am not kidding.

Poofs & lesbians you have been warned.

(Authorised jointly by The Australian Sex Party & Steve Fielding of Family First)