Isn't celebrity endorsement, by definition, about who is saying it, rather than what is being said. Isn't that why they are called on. If Tiger Woods tells me a certain golf ball is the best to use, I'm likely to consider his view, but if he is endorsing an aftershave, I know it's about something else entirely - lifestyle, identity, image. I would prefer to hear someone with education, experience and knowledge of forest management over Pierce Brosnan thank you - because I'm worth it!

Mark Poynter draws total attention to the breakdown of accountability, that has accompanied the breakdown of law and order since 1970. He decrys the unaccountability of Newspapers and Media Outlets, who print misleading and deceptive comments about an industry, and whip up sentiments in an electorate far removed from the actual events. It is quite clear he knows his facts, and if it were not for media bias, he and the industry he supports would be largely free from government interference.

The problems started in 1900, when s 116 was inserted into the Constitution to appease the Roman Catholics, who were at that time regarded as subversives. They were sufficient in number to frustrate efforts at Federation, and when a deal was done, were given equality under the law. Unfortunately, S 116 has been used as a licence to believe anything, and while many Roman Catholics have served Australia extremely well, their absence from the debate about justice, has been a disaster. Because most mainstream religions are always apologizing for involvement in politics, a counter stream of religious thought, worshipping animals and trees has become popular. Christianity is an immensely successful system of government. It teaches that man is made in God’s image. It teaches that all mankind are created equal, and that women are to be treasured. Rudd’s popularity just about equals the percentage of Christians in Australia

A tree never pays Child Support, or feeds a family. They grow and are a resource, and should be used for mankind’s benefit. After a time a forest stabilizes, and takes and gives carbon in equal amounts. In Nature, taking the mature trees allows the little ones to grow up. If Mark Poynter had an opportunity to make his case against a newspaper, and the publisher of misleading and deceptive conduct, as was the case before Judges became Gods, and had the right to have his case decided in the Christian way with a jury, the result would be most interesting. Further under the ICCPR he is entitled to a local jury, not a government Judge from a far away city.

I have to reply to Mark Poynters essay even though I realize I am wasting my time at the moment, when the lib/Lab governments are so firmly in control that it will be BAU even after the next election.
He says.
1 “regarded as among the best managed in the world.”
By who? I ask. Certainly not the population.

2 the government’s Australia State of the Forests Report, regards logging as insignificant.
A report commissioned by a government losing all climate change credibility as it becomes apparent that it has sold out, the big end of town.

3 “It has become politically incorrect to support native hardwood producti “
That is because it is an act of criminal folly

4 “ I have been likened to “the captain of the Titanic”.
Keep rearranging the deckchairs.

5 “ facts about forestry are readily accessible from government sources, described “twisted deceptions, cover-ups, hidden agreements between power brokers”.
See 2 above

6 “ close to 30 years of experience ”
A vested interest?

7 “ ignoring the most basic information, such as that 47 per cent of Tasmania’s native forests, including 79 per cent of its “old growth” forests, are contained in parks and reserves where wood production is excluded”.
Facts, statistics and damned lies?

Flanagan bashing is a good case of:”shoot the messenger, especially if you do not want to hear the truth he brings”.
8 “Former Tasmanian Premier, Paul Lennon, views were effectively discredited even before he spoke.” Need I say more?
9 “Given Australia is among the world’s top five consumers of wood and paper products, authors such as Flanagan, Courtenay, and Dapin; their views on forestry are incredibly ironic “ The needs could be met by Alternatives, Plantation timber and Hemp but Gunns would make less profit. Because they would have to pay a market price and a not a pittance.

10 “ In so far as public policy ist determined by popular opinion “.

If Public policy was determined by popular opinion there would be no clear felling of old growth fores

Once upon a time, there were places that were an alternative to Parliament with all the power of Parliament to bind the Queen, where lies and falsehoods could be measured against evidence, and declarations made by a fair just and inpartial tribunal, established by law. In that Fairy Tale Kingdom, which was called the Commonwealth, before the establishment of the Church State, anyone, without discrimination, could call the Government to account. If a Green or a Dark Green,did not like a Government Decision, they could sue. Sir Joh Bjellke- Petersen stopped that over Fraser Island. He simply followed Robin Askin, who had already stopped it in NSW in 1970 over gambling and prostitution. When the Federal Court of Australia was created, it was made jury possible, but administratively impossible. If examined it has never been legally constituted.

It discriminates all the time between those who would come to "court". It has never had a civil jury, but does have some very uncivil Judges. Those uncivil Judges vet every political attempt to exercise basic civil rights.

If both sides of this debate, were given every opportunity to argue their respective points, and advise the Queen, to approve or not to approve, as was the right of everyone in the Fairytale Kingdom,called the Commonwealth, there would be no need to shout at each other. Michael Crichton, May God rest his soul, documented the process in "State of Fear", a Novel, set in the USA where Jury trials are as of right. His conclusion, Global Warming is arguable.

It should be mandatory reading. Instead of relying on popularity polls, a poll of electors, either 12 or 25 in a Grand or Petit jury, should be called together, at Commonwealth expense, and try the bastards. It depends on whose side you are which side you consider the Bastards. The democrats lost the plot, to keep the bastards honest, when they forgot about Ch III Constitution. Lets have a Fairytale Ending. Lets hope Kevin Rudd keeps his promises. He campaigned as a Christian. Let us hope he restores Camelot

We live in a NIMBY society. With increasing urbanisation and affluence people are becoming disconnected from the real world, from a connection to livestock, agriculture and marine and estuarine habitats. We want food products - meat, fish, and vegetables but feel comforted by the knowledge that no animals “suffered” in order that we might live. We use paper and wood products but we would prefer that our forests are unspoilt and pristine. It is this sort of mentality that has lead to the rise of enviro-cult activists. Their temple is the natural world and even though the faithful rarely attend “church” they feel safe and warm knowing that it is there, pristine and in tact. Richard Flanagan is a celebrity disciple of this church; he is what I would call a green “fundamentalist”.

Parallels can be drawn with other environmental issues such as whaling, duck and roo shooting. If the Japanese and can sustainably take a prescribed number of whales, and if recreational or professional shooters can sustainably take wild ducks and kangaroos, then who am I to object. But the environmental fundamentalists can’t countenance a single whale, duck or kangaroo being killed. He will cry “ANIMAL CRUELTY”. But the real world isn’t as warm and fuzzy as we might hope and a slaughtered stock animal is still dead at the end of the day. And if foresters can responsibly regulate a sustainable native forest timber industry from only a small portion of the nations forest estate, then who am I to object. But the hypocritical fundamentalists can’t countenance a single tree being cut. And here is a point that the fundamentalist never states explicitly. He campaigns against forestry on a hectare by hectare basis. First he saved The Otways, then the Wombat, soon the River Red Gum, next he will “save” Melbourne Catchment forests and East Gippsland – until the day comes when like WA there is NO native forest timber industry; and at each stage he tries to create the impression that he only wants a fair and equitable balance between conservation and logging.

As I predicted earlier, many respondents to this article would simply reinforce its message that those who are most opinionated about forestry matters have no real knowledge and refuse to even consider the facts.

That so many have simply gone off on a tangent about the Gunns pulpmill is a case in point. It has never really even been a native forestry issue simply because it was only planned to partially use native wood for its first few years until enough of the region's plantations came on-stream to fully meet its requirements. This native wood was going to be woodchipped and exported in any case, so the mill was never going to cause additional logging.

But of course, because this has been explained many times by Gunns and Forestry Tasmania who should actually know something, it is dismissed as the lies of vested interests.

Sarnian is probably the best example of what my article was describing. He/she is not even willing to believe an Australian government report 'because it has sold out to the big end of town' He/she has obviously never considered how public opinion is formed and its merits as a basis for public policy given that it often bears no resemblance to the reality.

I wonder if we'd be doing sensible things like wearing seatbelts or having random breath tests if public opinion was the measure used to determine road safety policy.

As Ben Cruachan has correctly observed, we have become a soft nation that wants it all without taking any responsibility for where it comes from.