But then men are only idealists while it’s getting them laid. Look at Gandhi for instance. He was getting laid right to the end. Once idealism isn’t working, then it’s a battle for money and power so they can then at least afford to pay to get laid. Peter Garrett has now successfully made that transition.

His fans, the Environment Movement and I just have to accept that fact and get over it. Everybody else just have to accept the fact that he is indeed a hypocrite and get over it.

Re preselections: I will not defend Labor or Green and I don’t know much about the internal workings of the Nationals. Traditionally, the Liberal Party had a number of Members crossing the floor. This didn’t happen under the Howard government, which was disappointing for some Liberal supporters including myself. There were times when it would have been a reasonable thing to do. Things are changing again, the most recent example being the issue of the debts of asylum seekers being cancelled. Some Members said they would cross the floor and so the Coalition ended up not calling for a vote.

The ARM republican model and the monarchy were the only choices in the referendum. Malcolm was right to emphasise this to counteract the distortions put out by the monarchists.

I still believe that the referendum was lost mainly because of Labor voters who didn’t understand the model. Liberal republicans voted yes. Liberal monarchists voted no. Only Labor republicans were silly enough to vote no.

Looking at the way William Deane set himself up as unofficial opposition leader from the position of Governor General, imagine what it would be like having a directly elected president.

Effective activism is when someone somewhere doesn’t want something published.

I agree that the Australian Republican Movement was and maybe still is an elitist organisation. This was partly because it supported a model that people seemed to find hard to understand. This was evidenced by the ‘No’ result despite the majority of Australians identifying as republicans. So for anyone who joined it, there was the opportunity of making business and social contacts, particularly in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. However, I strongly believe that Malcolm is a sincere person and genuinely believes in the republican cause. He has not changed this belief - he is only recommending a tactical move of waiting until the end of the Queen’s reign. Another failed referendum would not help the republican cause.

In short - for Baulderstone to work for Keating and Garrett previously and not declare this speaks volumes about the ALP view of it’s own obligations of transparency and accountability. It’s obvious the reader should be given the information to judge for themselves.

Regarding Keane, taken at his word not the moderator, though subscribers are not to know whether authors do the moderation, which is at least one logical approach. Further not knowing Baulderstone’s role is a real deficit for a political writer (‘get a clue’ indeed), but then I’m constantly impressed by Keane’s breadth of policy coverage on a daily basis well beyond my knowledge base. The fact Keane knows stuff I don’t doesn’t change the correctness of my post or exposing Baulderstone’s ostensible bias. Nor is rudeness to a paying subscriber many years now called for from a leading writer.

Regarding Sanderson, there are suggested profiles via google. But really Sanderson why don’t you do the decent thing like Baulderstone and reveal your actual antecedents? That would be an honest thing to do.

Re Venise, similar, ALP connected? Also my publishing is not about popularity or shallow issues of style, or high circulation via my blog, it’s about pressure for political change using facts - for example Baulderstone’s bias above, and his chutzpah claiming irrelevance. As if.

I am sorry to hear about your asset situation. May I suggest that you sue me in order to redress this most unfortunate state of affairs.

I am only adding one other comment: I’ve worked for various organisations but always under my own name, I would ask you to not suggest otherwise.

The only exception being matters of personal security requiring anonymity, or say to protect someone else who could be traced through me. An example of this latter case was pseudonym when I indicated I knew who the Quadrant hoaxer Katherine Wilson was - because being a greenie, having published on Genethics before, I thought his might have led to her identity only indirectly because I don’t know her personally. Then I posted on my own name that it was she 24 hours later. I strongly believe generally in saying what you mean and meaning what you say and owning it publicly. Or correcting it with grovel.

I have a law degree to help me avoid anything actionable against me, don’t have assets anyway except my education, and I’ve never been sued unlike say the founder of Crikey, God bless him.

I already knew about Baulderstone from back in the mid 90ies sharing the national office of The Wilderness Society in Sydney which is my expertise (you should get a clue). He’s not a light weight having been env adviser to Keating including the critical time the peak green groups 1995-6 repudiated Keating and Howard got his devastating start.

That’s serious history and you are doing democracy a big favour ventilating all this on this string. Fact you didn’t know is significant. But I am happy to say your coverage of broad range of policy issues day after day is quite intimidating (to me) and happy to defer to your impressive knowledge base on so many other matters.

In short no one can know everything. And the fact it took three posts to get Baulderstone’s provenance exposed is in fact an issue for crikey even given the workload. What if crikey had not published that list 5 years ago. Would my third attempt have been knocked back?

links edited

Venise as explained previously I am a lobbyist community media person and as such I play politics. I’m not interested in good writing style or high circulation or popularity. I aim to change policy with pressure. Exposing Baulderstone all the way back to the Keating machine biased defense of Garrett is all about pressure on the Rudd Govt who as you will have noticed has been forced to expend his political capital of coverage of his business woman wife Rein. Itself squandered given the murders in Jakarta bombing.

Unlike alot of readers I’ve been a candidate, elected, held pressers etc and had a degree of success. I write from a real politik not a populist view. If you don’t get it, keep trying or give it up, doesn’t worry me. Fact you repeat your whinge suggests a whisper in your heart you know there is a world of expertise out there you want a piece of.

“Why would BK want to protect Baulderstone’s connection to Garrett connection to Keating? Is he a big source of BK stories? Is he another Gouldian Finch?”

Jesus. Bring back John James. With all due respect to said “Baulderstone” I haven’t the faintest clue who he is. Get something resembling a clue.

Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop. Either you are astonishing rude, or astonishingly English. I assume the latter. Why do you think independent online newspapers are so popular in Oz? It’s because WE KNOW Rupert Murdoch owns the bulk of the printed press, WE KNOW his lack of scruples and standards. WE KNOW the Herald Sun puts out a screed for the people in the community who are unencumbered with excess intellectualism.
Yet you would have Crikey go down the gurgler because a writer expressed a point of view contrary to your own. You sound like a fledgling Rupert Murdoch yourself.

Much more relevantly, I just happen to have personal views, and knowledge of the processes and political realities.

So how’s this for a novel idea ? Let’s stick to the substance of the issue, rather than going down the Sparrow path of cheap shots, suggesting my opinions somehow don’t weigh as much because I was an adviser to Labor pollies. By the way, I have also advised - still do - lots of other people and lots of other organisations . Cheers, and enjoy your day !

Your speculations about a Bellevue Hill photographer are totally random, as a 90’s teenager might say.

Enjoy your vocation although I doubt you will have a queue of people at your door demanding to take it off you.

So wrote Dave Sanderson!!

And doesn’t he let his peculiar prejudices show! His ceaseless cringeing insults to anyone who has an opposing view does Crikey no service at all. He writes unashamedly about mediocre minds - a bit of self-examination would be a valuable exercise.

Nevertheless, I have to say that the exchange that has followed BK’s piece has been most interesting and thought provoking - except for DS.