And here we go again. More unsubstantiated opinion, misrepresentations of fact and gob-smacking lapses of logic thrown together in a nasty piece of character assassination - is this is what passes for journalism in this country? I mean, what on earth has a youthful Turnbull’s ex-girlfriend’s cat, strangled or otherwise, got to do with policies for Australia in 2010?

But here’s a thought. If our pollies are to be held to saint-like standards, why not our journalists too? In which case, Mungo MacCallum, where’s the rigorous examination of policy? What does Turnbull propose for us? How does this compare to Rudd? What would the consequences be?

I propose that Mungo MacCallum be sentenced to reading “The Economist” for one year before being allowed to put finger to keyboard. Maybe he’ll get an inkling of what real journalism is about.

Cowardly, bitter, sleazy and contemptible filth slinging would cover it.

Words that could not in truth be used to describe this ‘contribution’ would be honest, intelligent, discerning or even novel.

McCallum has not for a long time provided a rational argument to support his poisonous prejudices. Probably because his stupefied intellect is no longer capable …if indeed it ever once was.

Not published elsewhere for an eon he remains a Crikey luminescence……for the unintelligent.

Mungo. I suppose it is too late now to suggest that you open the windows and look outside. But consider this.

These figures are from 2003, so a bit dated, but in 2003 in Australia 4% of farm incomes came from government. In Europe it was 36%. In Japan and Korea 60%.

In the US it was 18%.

These are our major trading partners. I do not know China’s figures, but China is developing so quickly that it could soon dominate the market.

The price at which an Australian farmer sells most of his produce is the world price. As those figures show, the world price is heavily subsidised, with Europe’s subsidies being the price setter. US subsidisation is in defence of its farmers against the low prices set by Europe’s subsidies. Australia’s defence of its farmers is almost inconsequential. Strangely this has been NFF and National Party policy for 25 years now, so even if your reasons were wrong you would have done us all a favour if you had drowned them at birth.

The gist of it all is that you as an Australian consumer have been getting your Weet Bix at heavily subsidised prices without contributing much to the subsidies. This is why in recent years it has been necessary for government to issue inequitable handouts every time the rains are late. At least ackowledge this.

As for your thousand times writings, change “makes sense” to “gives a satisfactory result” and when they have finished make them paste their bits of paper all over our universities around the world and into the first page of every textbook on economics.