Chris, Chris, Chris! You are doing it again!

You are trying to make an argument using information sourced from The Australian.

No, no, no, no, NO!

Surely you have seen the judgments in the Guthrie matter, the Popovic matter and the Eatock v Bolt matter. And in several other defamation cases. The judges of Australia are unanimous, Chris – Murdoch employees are liars.

Surely you have read the countless findings of the Australian Press Council – Murdoch employees are liars.

Surely you have heard the Prime Minister advising Murdoch's people in Canberra: "Stop writing crap. It can't be that hard."

Surely you have read pieces here on OLO which seek to demonstrate painstakingly –

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13338

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

- that Murdoch employees are liars.

Surely you have read scholarly articles by respected academics –

http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog-name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt-robert-manne-4088

- which also show overwhelmingly that Murdoch employees are liars.

Surely you have seen the websites set up to counter the constant lies from Murdoch employees ...

Chris, is it possible for you to make your case without resort to proven fabricators?

If so, we will read your article and evaluate your arguments and evidence on their merits.

If not, you have no case.

Cheers, AA

Being an academic (and older) disqualifies what i would really like to say to you Alan.

All i can say is I would rather read the worst of The Australian than anything you write.

What a childish response Alan.

Maybe there's a personal history but I don't know what you're on about. There are many references to the SMH as well. Regardless you haven't actually refuted any of the author's points or information at all.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. 'we', get over yourself.

Houellebecq,

Thank you for that last response.

I am quite thick skinned these days, but it is always good to get one response like that to keep you going. As for alan, i just find his own 'extreme' bias irritating.

I have voted once ever for the Coalition at the federal level, but i remain committed to an ideal that evidence should speak for itself.

Sure the piece may not be perfect, but i downloaded many, many newspaper articles to research an academic piece which will expand on this opinion piece.

While some may see bias, or what they do not want to hear, i can only say i dont even take notice of which newspaper says this or that.

I think most journalists, and those interested in policy, are in agreement that the mining tax strategy was flawed.

Well, almost as soon as this new tax and even more complexity was proposed, I rejected it!
Besides, the final draft just had too many escape clauses?
Again, the carbon tax is a badly constructed concept, designed only with a highly flawed carbon trading scheme in mind?
Where brokerage fees, the real intent or purpose of trading intangibles, will be the real winners and the real end game?
There's 140 billions worth of brokerage fees, licking dry lips, waiting in dry mouthed anticipation, in the wings, for a universal trading scheme?
Somewhere it is written, you can fool all of the people some of the time!
If we need to actually put a price on carbon, then why in the name of holy pragmatism, couldn't it have been a simple cap and tax model?
Rudd couldn't get either job done, because like most, we know best elitist, all or nothing autocrats, he was, my way or the highway, far too inflexible?
Personally, I believe we need to throw the whole stinking mess out and start over with a single stand alone expenditure tax.
An entirely unavoidable expenditure tax would end all avoidance, which is costing us over 100 billion per!
An single stand alone expenditure tax would tax everyone according to their means, and at exactly the same rate!
[No billionaire paying less than his cleaner!]
Our expenditure patterns exactly match our carbon footprints; meaning, those with the largest footprints would pay the most!
I postulated that we could use the additional or surplus revenue, to buy income earning shares in the biggest miners.
When we sold Telstra for what, 30 billion? We could have bought Woodside for ten?
Since we sold Telstra, it has earned over 70 billions? Ditto CBA?
Then we wonder why we now have a structural deficit?
All credited to the mostly mindless muttered mantra, the govt has no business in business?
Aussie defence industries, Singtell, Emirate Air anyone?
Rhrosty.

I second Houellebecq's response --well said.