Jeff Sparrow is unable to respond to detailed accusations of misogyny on the Left

Blocked by Jeff Sparrow after this critical feedback  and this polite question

As usual, ABC Australia spins the news . . . click on the picture to enlarge and read #Toriesoutnow

Click here to see comments posted in reply to Jill Kay and ABC Australia's appalling "News" report and click here and here to see what's actually going on, outside of Government and corporate spin.

The Liberal Party's new dress code . . .

Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott's business adviser Maurice Newman

Blocked by Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger after point out The Guardian's censorship of UK banking fraud . . . click on the pic to enlarge

Blocked by Alan Rusbridger after these comments

The Australian Greens condemn injustice, just as long as it stays fashionable . . . click on the picture to enlarge and read a 2005 quote, which they completely ignore 10 years later . . .

The Schapelle Corby conspiracy theorists . . . Fairfax hack Eamonn Duff and Channel 10 hack Steve Price

Top, Fairfax hack Eamonn Duff was successfully sued in 2014 after publishing his book of lies and smears, by Schapelle's family (he was forced to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars) - and bottom, Channel 10 hack Steve Price had to issue a grovelling, public apology after his squalid, public innuendo, in the wake of Channel 10's money for lies, which was also roundly condemned by Media Watch.

A 2005 investigation by Ross Coulthart & Peter Hiscock, now removed and censored by Channel 9

Schapelle Corby: A question of innocence – “Sunday” Current Affairs show does indepth investigation

Posted on May 13, 2005

Schapelle Corby: A question of innocence
May 8, 2005
Reporter : Ross Coulthart
Producer : Peter Hiscock

It’s the question all Australians are asking. Since Schapelle Corby was arrested in Bali seven months ago, and her boogie board bag found by Indonesian police to contain 4.1 kilograms of marijuana, she and her legal team have strongly protested her innocence.

Now, with the Indonesian Prosecutor calling for her to serve life in jail and one of the judges reportedly saying he still needs to be convinced by the Corby defence team, there is a very real likelihood the Gold Coast resident will spend much of the rest of her life in a Balinese jail when a decision is made on her fate sometime this month.

Schapelle Corby is running out of time to prove her innocence to an as yet unconvinced Indonesian court.

But the question remains: did she do it or didn’t she?

In a special Sunday investigation, reporter Ross Coulthart looks behind the rumour and innuendo now widely circulating about the Corby case. In an extensive exclusive interview with Schapelle’s sister, Mercedes, he confronts Mercedes with the allegations about her and other members of the Corby family. As Sundayexplains, these highly damaging rumours are circulating behind the scenes among the Bali-based Australian media and the Indonesian authorities.

And as Mercedes explains in detail, they are totally false: “I get so frustrated that people can make up these lies. And even the press, they can print it. Do they even check the facts?”

Sunday reveals major new evidence from a former senior officer in the Australian Federal Police that goes to the heart of claims by Schapelle Corby that she was the unwitting victim of a domestic criminal drug smuggling racket that went wrong. His evidence backs a key contention in the Corby defence: that Australian drug traffickers have used, and in all likelihood still do use, the baggage of unwitting passengers to shift drugs into and around Australia.

In explosive allegations, this former senior AFP officer accuses the Australian Federal Police of shutting down his attempts to investigate such drug trafficking at Australian domestic airports. He explains how his investigations included intelligence suggesting that corrupt NSW and AFP officers were working in league with corrupt airport staff to smuggle drugs into and around Australia.

On one occasion, his attempts to send sniffer dogs into one airport to detect marijuana he suspected was being moved there was shut down by senior management because of a claimed shortage of resources for such an investigation. He says that to this day, the allegations about corrupt police working in league with criminal drug syndicates at Australian airports have never been properly investigated.

The Corby case has revealed serious shortcomings in the security of passenger baggage passing through Australian airports. In his first TV interview, Brisbane-based Qantas baggage handler, Scott Speed, who travelled to Bali to give evidence at the Corby trial, explains why he believes Schapelle Corby is innocent. Another insider reveals security concerns at the Brisbane Airport where Schapelle left for Bali last October. And Sunday asks Qantas security boss Geoff Askew about recent examples of baggage tampering.

And why, Sunday asks, has another key witness, who also alleges he too was a victim of drugs planted in his baggage just like Schapelle Corby, never been interviewed by any police or Government agency? As he tells Sunday, he opened his bag in Bali to find someone had planted a large quantity of marijuana inside, and — despite contacting Australian Government officials at the time and having raised his allegations more publicly since — no one in any law enforcement agency has seen fit to question him in any way. They told him to destroy the evidence…

Sunday also questions whether it is now even possible for Schapelle Corby to have a fair trial — not least because of the extremely serious failings by Indonesian police in their investigations into the drugs found in Corby’s bag.

If you want to know the real story about the Corby case, don’t miss this major Sunday investigation.
Read the transcript here

Lindy Chamberlain - A political witch hunt, click on the picture to enlarge & read

Guardian Australia spruiks the tedious fulfilment of New Corporate thought - An open letter to J R Hennessy

Dear J R,

When I saw your recent article I nearly fell of my chair with disbelief. Seems we're all idiots for not trusting our kindly corporations and their political servants, quote . . .

"Gibson tapped into the nebulous mindset also shared by anti-vaxxers and the paleo set: distrust of governments, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical companies, with the solution being both more “natural” and less coercive."

Wow, I guess that's done and dusted then. One young woman lied about her medical history for personal gain, so it's now crazy to doubt anything our multi-national overlords tell us?

Therefore, still reeling from your child-like vision, I tried to clarify your position on what IS "Healthy." For instance, there's nothing in your rant to suggest nutrition has the slightest connection to wellness, so (I tweeted), Are you saying living on McDonalds is as healthy as (4 instance), a low-fat, whole-food vegan diet? Sadly, all I got in response was sarcasm, avoidance and insults.

But perhaps complete trust in corporate niceness pays well at The Guardian now? The newspaper has a wonderful sweetheart deal with Unilever who make incredible health foods like Magnum Ice Cream and harvest millions of tons of palm oil to pour into our food supply.

Belle Gibson was an incredibly easy and convenient straw-man (or rather, straw woman), for you to demolish when it comes to the connections between diet and disease, but how do you feel about taking on experts (and research), of real stature? Dr. T. Colin Campbell comes to mind, one of the men who (though he doesn't know it), helped save my husband's life? More about him, his wonderful professional partner Dr. Esslestyn and the connections between heart disease, cancer and diet at Forks Over Knives.

So yes, this subject is personal for me.  I met hubby in 1977, married him in 1978, had three kids and still love him to bits (unfashionable perhaps, but that's the way it is).  Then just over 12 months ago at 57, he started to get chest pain walking uphill, which stopped when he rested. He's never smoked in his life (me neither), and thought he had a reasonably healthy diet.

Given his Dad dropped dead from his first heart attack at 42, I was frantic.  Hubby was referred for a stress test which he failed miserably, so gripped by fear I got him booked in for an angiogram within 48 hours. It was the first appointment available in the dozens of x-ray clinics I phoned. Afterwards, they said it would take a while for the results to come through, but I cajoled and pushed, and got them the next day. They were faxed to our GP.

The news was awful, he had one 90% blockage (amongst some others), in a major coronary artery. I drove him straight to the nearest big hospital, presenting at ED with the results. They admitted him immediately, admonishing me for not calling an ambulance. I hadn't thought about that, as he wasn't actually having a heart attack (and never did have one, thank God), but we now had clear evidence of severe coronary artery disease.

So in summary, he failed the cardiac stress test on the Monday morning and I got him admitted to hospital by the following Friday evening. He saw the cardiologist Saturday morning, who us told the first symptom of cardiac disease in 50% to 60% people is sudden death. We were lucky. Later cardiac output tests also showed he had normal heart function and undamaged cardiac muscle.

After an admission over the weekend, he had four stents inserted on Monday morning and was discharged the next day. I hardly left his side the whole time, but during my brief rests at home, I grabbed a couple of large black plastic bin liners and threw out all his favourite foods, biscuits, cheese, bacon (and any other type of meat), chocolate, so-called "healthy" margarines, dairy products, eggs and all processed foods. The Heart Foundation guidelines went in the bin too and I grabbed some Pritikin books gathering dust on my shelf.  My fierce protective instincts were on over-drive. When hubby came home and opened the fridge and larder, he nearly had a fit, but knew better than to argue. Our long-term bond meant he trusted me.

My obsessive research over the next few days led me to Forks Over Knives. The upshot? We now get 10% (or less), of our calories from fat, don't eat refined sugar and don't restrict the amount of food we eat (just the type). At six foot tall, he's slowly lost just over 15 kilos, dropped three waist sizes and achieved an overall cholesterol below 3mmol/L (his LDL cholesterol hovers around 1mmol/L). I've dropped 8 kilos at a tad over five foot tall - and we got there without one pang of hunger, an amazing rebuttal to the diet industry.

When we last saw the cardiologist, he nearly did a double take at my husband's blood results.  He was very pleased, but gobsmacked we achieved it. He said if we maintain those levels, my hubby can expect reversal of his atheroma, but he doesn't tell his patients about it, because he feels very few of them could sustain the changes.  He asked how we did it and I told him, but I think it went over his head as he darkly muttered my hubby had responded "Extraordinarily well" to the statins he'd prescribed.  The irony is (and was), by that time, he was only taking a quarter of the original dose ordered and now takes none.

Amazingly, despite eating our fill at every snack and meal, the weight has not returned.

Clearly, if a consultant cardiologist (who sees hundreds of cardiac patients a year and prescribes whacking great doses of statins for all of them), nearly falls off his chair at my husband's blood work, it's our diet and not his medications facilitating the dramatic change. If it was the latter, I guess hubby's pathology results wouldn't have provoked such a surprised response. He's seeing him again in a few months and it should be an interesting meeting.

And one other thing I discovered, so-called "Normal cholesterol" levels are anything but normal, as this clip explains. If anything, they're a dangerous cave-in to our corporate food culture. I mentioned this to the cardiologist during our last meeting and he agreed, saying the average overall cholesterol reading of patients who have their first heart attack is just 5.6mmol/L. That's a truly scary fact . . . and even scarier is the clear evidence many powerful vested interests would prefer to keep us in the dark, because it's more profitable . . .

Regards, Kim

The vaccine debate

I've not researched the vaccine debate, but note a lot of heated discussion of late, with threats of withdrawing welfare benefits from parents who refuse to vaccinate and ridicule of people who express doubts about safety and efficacy.

I take the middle ground, in that I object to sanctions against people who refuse medical treatment, especially sanctions specifically targeting poorer people - and I object to the demonisation of people who express doubts. That doesn't mean I'm against vaccination, it means I'm against profoundly authoritarian, anti-democratic approaches and against the trivialisation of genuine concerns.

It's reasonable to distrust big pharmaceutical companies, as this recent Guardian article by a doctor makes crystal clear.  Research results are routinely withheld and distorted and history is littered with tales of in-hindsight harms, which the medical establishment refused to acknowledge until the evidence was overwhelming.

So rather than sanctioning, mocking and abusing parents who refuse vaccines, those who wish to promote the treatment would do well to honestly address those facts and also lobby for timely, transparent and truly independent medical research, free of vested interests.  It would also earn them more respect and trust from those they appear to be denigrating at the moment.

The tweet Dr. Kerryn Phillips deleted when confronted about her abuse of a traumatised and mentally ill woman - click on the pic to enlarge and read

This is where it used to be

Humanity wins the day!!! Click on the pic to enlarge and read . . . Russell Brand is twenty times more popular than Katie Holmes!!!

Link to Russell Brand's tweet here - and a link to the Katie Hopkins tweet here

Selfish rabble sending Murdoch bankrupt!!! Boycott everything he owns!!! His empire's bleeding cash like water!!! Click on the pic to enlarge & read . . .

All "Class" (not) at Queensland's Courier Mail - click on pic to enlarge and read . . .

Racism, censorship & spruiking war . . .

Left, screen grab from this New Matilda Facebook thread (click on the pic to enlarge & read). Note commentator Tim Phillips and his derogatory/racist comment about Muslims, neither challenged or removed by New Matilda. However on a different issue, when New Matilda was asked about their silence re courageous Australian Customs whistleblower Allan Kessing (in a thread relating to whistle blowing), not only did they delete the comment within minutes, they banned the poster.  Here's the evidence.

And while I have no animosity towards the poor animal in the article, I have great difficulty with the description of the Afghan incursion as a "War." I think the term one-sided slaughter of children and other civilians would be more appropriate - and as for the encouragement not to forget the dog, I prefer not to forget the children on the other end of co-alition bombs.

And one more point? Lest we forget, this is not a "Moral" conflict, it's just another one of the Global resource wars . . .

The witch burners of the Left and a reply New Matilda refuses to publish . . .

Chris Graham, editor of New Matilda, reckons I'm a "Schapeller," a "Truther" and a "Conspiracy theorist." I've no idea what those terms mean (and I don't think Chris Graham knows either), but as a 50-something grandmother and experienced nurse, I deal in facts, not adolescent insults - something the public appreciates according to a 2014 Roy Morgan poll. RN's have 91% trust rating, while Chris's hovers around a shocking 18%.

So what's the history behind Graham's bizarre rant, which includes a weird snipe in New Matilda's Twitter bio, quote: "Nation's leading blocker of Schapelle truthers"? (All requests to Chris Graham for a written reply to that inane barb were deflected or ignored).

So much for a publication which says it welcomes "Open debate," and so much for one that chooses to sledge a young, working class woman who (even if she's guilty, and I don't think she is), spent nearly 10 years in a hellish prison for a victimless crime.

How many more pounds of flesh does Graham want? What about writing "A leading supporter of refugee and indigenous rights" in New Matilda's bio instead? It's strange to focus on insulting the powerless, over supporting victims of the powerful.

For background on this controversy, when Chris Graham published Professor Barry Spurr's correspondence, exposing the senior academic's racist language (pertinent, as Spurr was a consultant on the Australian Government's national English curriculum review), New Matilda was viciously attacked by the Murdoch press and allegations of "Hacking" private emails were thrown around. The delicious irony wasn't lost on me (given the illegal antics of the Dirty Digger's minions, outed in the UK's Leveson Inquiry), and I lent Graham some support in a phone call, and in a post I did.

All well and good, until the Senator Nova Peris "Scandal" erupted.  Nova is an ALP politician and the first Indigenous woman in Australia's Federal parliament.  Murdoch's gutter press has waged unrelenting war on the Australian Labor Party. They ran front-page headlines screaming "Nova's Sex Scandal," alleging Nova had an affair with American athlete Ato Boldon, after the News Corp sewer rats obtained her private emails. The hypocrisy was breathtaking, as Murdoch had just savaged Chris Graham and New Matilda on the same issue (publication of private emails). Seems it's fine for Murdoch to throw eggs at a woman for the cardinal sin of allegedly having sex with a consenting adult, but not OK for New Matilda to expose deep bigotry at the heart of Australia's educational system.

Naturally, Nova defended herself from the Murdoch crazies, but rather than support her, I was stunned when Chris Graham added his voice to News Corp attack-dogs like Andrew Bolt.  He rounded on Nova for "Lying" in response to the smears. Here's a quote from a New Matilda article of 3 November 2014: "Senator Peris is a very powerful woman in the public eye. And she has not been truthful. New Matilda expects the feature to be ready for publication before the end of the week."

But it seems "Before the end of the week" translates to "Sometime never," as nearly five months later (at the time of writing), New Matilda still hasn't substantiated their attack on Nova.  Neither have they apologised or published a reply from the Senator. That's pretty piss-poor journalism in my book and I let Chris Graham know it. Here's some of my scathing feedback:

"I really cannot understand this intense focus on Nova Peris, while much more serious issues are ignored by New Matilda. The foul, witch burning nastiness of the gutter press is not a small 'Side issue.' Nova Peris was not targeted for what she did (or didn't), do - she was targeted for who she is. Exposing Rupert Murdoch's squalor is much more urgent, and of much more interest. Last time I looked, Nova didn't hack the phone of a dead schoolgirl, or lie about football fans pick pocketing the dead, nor was she shamed into closing down a long-standing newspaper because it was so vile and she wasn’t the subject of a book exposing scores of despicable acts. Further, to assert media crime doesn't exist in the Land Down Under is wishful thinking (and very naive). The only reason it doesn't 'Exist' in Oz is because journalists right across the political spectrum (including Chris Graham it seems), are too cowardly to talk about it. There is a large amount of information about what goes on in the Australian media (re illegality as serious as anything revealed by the UK's Leveson inquiry), but unlike the Nova Peris emails, Chris Graham has shown a complete disinterest in the evidence."

After that, Chris Graham's vitriol began.  His insults about me (documented above), clearly show my response got up his nose. The Australian "Media crime" I refer to in that quote (which includes phone hacking), relates to Col Chapman's detailed allegations about the illegal activity of various media organisations in their attempts to smear Schapelle and her family. Chapman is a well known private investigator who has worked extensively for Channel 7 (and other outlets), in their attempts to gather dirt on chosen targets.

Hence the "Schapelle" angle. Is Chris Graham invested in protecting his journalistic buddies from a bonfire which (if stoked), could rip like wild-fire through his "Profession" and involve many more allegations of illegal activity - not to mention burn his own prospects?  Let's face it, any hack who takes a blow torch to his colleagues by exposing media crime Down Under won't win a popularity contest.

Guess that's why I'm a "Nutter," but the Fairfax scribe forced fork out thousands after a successful defamation action against him in 2014 (by Schapelle's family), escapes Chris Graham's attention, even though the bizarre claims of the journalist in question shrivelled to nothing in the cold light of court. Channel 10 hack Steve Price slithers under Graham's radar too, despite the fact he was recently forced to make a grovelling public apology after spruiking similar innuendoes.

There are other layers to this debacle as well. The bovver boys of the Left have a long history of ignoring female victims of corruption. Too "Cissy" for them to concern themselves with I guess? For example, Lindy Chamberlain, one of Australia's most high profile cases, didn't exist for  the "Progressives" of the time, as outlined in The Australian Left Review by David McKnight.

Then even though Michael Chamberlain clearly explained (in his recent book "Heart of Stone"), their ordeal was no "Accident," but a deliberate set-up intent on protecting serious investments in the Northern Territory tourist industry (baby-eating dingoes aren't good for business), not one journalist on the "Left" has investigated those claims, or even commented on them. Seems any amount of corporate and Government slime can go unnoticed as long as the victim is a woman.

To illustrate further, Julian Assange is not a rapist, David Hicks is not a terrorist, Lindy Chamberlain is not a murderer and Schapelle Corby is not a drug smuggler - and Christine Assange (Julian's Mother), agree with me.  Here's some quotes from her (via Twitter, in December 2012 and January 2013):

"What do Lindy Chamberlain, David Hicks, Schapelle Corby, Julian Assange have in common? Abuse of legal process & trial by media sensation."

"Now I have some idea what the families of Lindy Chamberlain and Schapelle Corby went thru . . . trial by media . . . ruin lives to sell papers. #Assange"

But while the macho warriors of the Left support male heroes like Julian Assange and David Hicks (and yes, it's true they're victims and deserve our support), the female sacrifices to corruption and cover-up are blatantly disregarded.

Check out The Expendable Project re Schapelle, every fact is backed up by Government documents obtained via Freedom of of Information legislation, official sources and insider, whistleblower testimony. But New Matilda's Chris Graham refuses to debate these vital issues like an adult, because he can't. He prefers to shout infantile abuse from the sidelines, hoping his "Cred" will deter the public from looking deeper.

I think New Matilda is a "Mini-me" Guardian, subject to the same boundaries on the "Corporate" Left described by Media Lens.  Why? Simply because any hack stepping outside those limits effectively wrecks their future in a rapidly shrinking industry.  Highly popular Guardian blogger and journalist Nafeez Ahmed found this out the hard way when he was sacked after describing Israel's grab for Gaza's gas reserves, though I highly recommend his brilliant new independent media initiative.

Schapelle's high-profile case clearly exposes the "War on Terror" as a fraud too.  While John Howard was relentlessly following George Bush into Iraq to "Save us" from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" he was equally stubborn in supporting his buddies at Macquarie Bank, as they slashed aviation security to protect the corporate bottom line.

So much for stopping the "Bad guys" as criminal airport staff rip open passenger luggage after security screening. But hey don't let that bother you New Matilda, Schapelle's just a slutty bogan bird, well beneath the lofty intellectual heights of the mens room . . . meanwhile, hundreds share the facts you're too gutless and women-hating to discuss, via a huge, grass roots justice campaign.  The public no longer relies on "Professional" journalists, we're all citizen scribes now (thank goodness).

Rupert Murdoch's talking, but no-one listens any more . . .

Click on the pic to enlarge and read. Despite Murdoch's Courier Mail (the ONLY state-wide newspaper in Queensland), running a sustained and exceptionally virulent campaign against the ALP in 2015, they won the State election.

Both major parties are funded by the bankers

Click on the pic to enlarge and read

Why does New Matilda refuse to promote serious human rights issues in their Twitter bio?

Click on the picture to enlarge and read.

Exposing the Guardian's soft-ball reporting

Click on the pic to read comments posted in this Guardian thread - and reproduced here:

Really Guardian? You've reported far too little of this scandal, far too late. Check out Nafeez Ahmed for the real guts of this shocking story https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/death-drugs-and-hsbc-355ed9ef5316 plus Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/788-a-conspiracy-of-silence-hsbc-the-guardian-and-the-defrauded-british-public.html And let's never forget the shocking fact The Guardian sacked & censored Nafeez Ahmed for speaking out: http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/782-grievous-censorship-by-the-guardian-israel-gaza-and-the-termination-of-nafeez-ahmed-s-blog.html

Australian journalists in hock to the corporate media cult & an open letter to Chris Graham, Editor of New Matilda, requesting a right of reply, as Australia's equivalent of the the UK's HSCB Banking scandal is ignored

Addit - Nearly three weeks later on 23 March 2015 Chris Graham had still not responded to the request below for a right of reply (sent to him via email), so this fax was forwarded to him.

Dear  Chris,

I'm a Registered Nurse, not a journalist (though I harboured that ambition at 15). Luckily life sent me in the first direction, as I've got much better job security and public trust (I'm number one on a list that puts you at no. 20).  I think that's fair, as given the squalid news that seeped out of The Leveson Inquiry, you can be grateful health professionals don't do their jobs like journalists, because if they did you'd be in deep shit when you rock up your local Emergency Department, possibly clutching your chest or gasping for breath (or both).

Kate McCann (who is a doctor), dicusses this point in her book about her daughter's disappearance and the media witch hunt against her.  She says she's subject to strict professional standards and can be barred from practising if she trangresses, but journalists are never "Struck off" no matter how badly they behave.  The Press Council might shake their finger and tell them to be good children in future, but that's it. No effective sanctions apply.

I wouldn't have lasted more than 5 minutes in journalism after the blinkers fell. Teenagers are starry eyed. I had visions of fighting injustice and exposing graft, not sucking up to corporate toads. Knowing my temperament, I'd have walked out quite early after telling my editor to stick his head where the sun doesn't shine.

But despite my lowly status as a shift working nurse, it looks like I've riled the Australian media cult.  Top private investigator Col Chapman claims one organisation forked out around $7,000 to scrutinize me, with no result from their grubby initiative (amongst Col's many other allegations about Australian media crime).  Then Gary Adshead of the West Australian put my name in lights as did Fairfax, but both denied me a right of reply.  I also pissed off Eamonn Duff (a Fairfax hack), who publicly spat the dummy at me (accusing of an imagined "Crime"), though the courts were much harsher with him than I was - and Ben Eltham blocked me after I confronted him about his refusal to report the full facts about Allan Kessing, despite Ben mentioning that brave whistleblower in a recent  article.  Impressive achievements for a "Nobody" like me. I wonder what gets them so hot under the collar? Though as a psych nurse of over 40 years experience, a key lesson is truth hurts. In fact, it stings like hell.

So since I began my campaign for an innocent Australian woman, I've come to the conclusion Aussie hacks are a rather weird, cultish bunch.  I guess no more than a few hundred journalists (and regularly invited "Talking heads"), get promoted in "Major" outlets, though perhaps even "Hundreds" is an overstatement.  Those "Insiders" are quite incestuous and cliquey - and desperately chasing after an ever-shrinking pool of jobs.  Matthew Knott, who used to work for Crikey and refused to report on allegations of Australian media crime, now works for Fairfax. Personally, I think his job prospects would be considerably less if he'd followed up those serious accusations - but hey, we all have to pay the bills don't we? Just stop pretending the thin gruel served up to the Australian public is an honest, quality product. And what with falling sales and plummeting trust, it's clear consumers aren't fools.  The corporate media and journalism as a "Profession" is in crisis.

Ben Eltham moonlights for the ABC as you do Chris, and I guess if you're really good boys you might get a few more crumbs from the Establishment.  This brings me to Media Lens and their scathing critique of the the liberal, left media from a humanitarian/progressive view point.  I've followed their output for a few years and it's taught me that while I support and agree with some Guardian articles (and some New Matilda articles), the most vital awareness is a knowledge of what's left out, as the "Cult" stays within the prescribed boundaries.  Of course there's debate between "Left" and "Right," but it never strays from the defined boxing ring.

For instance, this brilliant article from Nafeez Ahmed (who was canned from the Guardian), about the UK's HSCB banking scandal, pushes the envelope way past anything published in New Matilda - and then in another powerful piece, it's also shown the liberal "Left" media sat on those shocking facts for over 12 years. In a similar vein, New Matilda has never discussed the murky dealings of Australia's most powerful bank, a financial institution which donates large sums to both sides of the political divide - and a corporate entity that was deeply involved in corruption issues at Sydney Airport on the day Schapelle flew.

So is the Macquarie Bank scandal the Ocker equivalent of the UK's HSBC shame? A code of silence kept right across the spectrum, from left to right?

New Matilda has chosen to publicly mock the issue's I'm writing about, so I'd also like to request a right of reply within your pages.  Is that OK, or are are you scared of what I might write? If it's rubbish, I'm sure your readers will discern that at once, but if everything I write is referenced and backed up by evidence (as it will be), I guess it could be embarrassing for you. But hey, you've got nothing to worry about, I'm only a nurse . . .

Look forward to hearing from you Chris.

Regards, Kim

A quick sketch

Born in the late 50's on the outskirts of SE London. Mum was a legal secretary, Dad worked on the production line at Ford's and at a local garage. I left school at 15 (hated it), did a few office jobs, then passed the entrance test at the local psych hospital when I was 18 and qualified as a nurse at 21.  I later spent some time as a full-time degree student (sociology and policy studies), but I've mostly raised three children and worked as a psych nurse in various hospitals.

I've campaigned for Schapelle for a few years now, a young woman wrongly imprisoned in Bali for nearly ten years, as a result of Australian Government corruption.  Here's the doco, here's an article about how I became involved and here's my blog about it (and here's the Facebook page).

Politically, I guess I'm on the "Left," but I've very little time for political parties, as in the end they all play the tune of the banksters and large corporations, who wield the real power. Politicians of any stripe are just an ever-changing carnival of hucksters and narcissists, some a bit brighter and presentable than others.

One of my favourite quotes is from Michael C. Ruppert “As long as you don’t change the way money works, you change nothing.” You'll find it in this interview with him, with more background. That concept is also echoed in this great animation by Paul Grignon, and in the work of FEASTA.

Essentially, the World's money system demands never ending growth (it's called "Fractional reserve banking"), and it's the root of exploitation, environmental degradation, runaway Global warming, resource depletion and never-ending war for diminishing energy reserves - but don't expect Green Party politicians to mention it, or The Guardian to make it an issue. The corporate "Left" is owned by powerful vested interested, quote . . .

"The Guardian is, as we have often noted, at the liberal end of the corporate media 'spectrum'. It portrays itself as a compassionate forum for journalism willing to hold power to account, and it makes great play of its journalistic freedom under the auspices of Scott Trust Limited (replacing the Scott Trust in 2008). The paper, therefore, might not at first sight appear to be a corporate institution. But the paper is owned by the Guardian Media Group which is run by a high-powered Board comprising elite, well-connected people from the worlds of banking, insurance, advertising, multinational consumer goods companies, telecommunications, information technology giants, venture investment firms, media, marketing services, the World Economic Forum, and other sectors of big business, finance and industry. This is not a Board staffed by radically nonconformist environmental, human rights and peace campaigners, trade unionists, NHS campaigners, housing collectives; nor anyone else who might threaten the status quo." From this article via Media Lens

. . . and Green politicians aren't keen to mention the elephant in the living room either, their privileged and well paid electoral gig would come crashing down if they made those kind of noises.

I find great hope and positivity in the work of the grass roots Transition Movement and spiritually I'm drawn towards Paganism, which regards the physical World as sacred.  Starhawk is one of my favourite authors, and Dreaming the Dark one of my favourite books.

I'm also a feminist, which to me means the personal is political and never trivial . . . and women's history and experience counts.

I think that's about all for now . . .