It was a Goose Waterloo

The geese have met their Waterloo. Defeat was absolute and humiliating and it couldn't have happened at a better time.

Just when they had become totally overbearing and their confidence level had reached its peak, disaster struck in the form of Black Neck Storks or Jabiru as they are locally known.

Each year around this time the storks fly in with the newly-fledged young from their nearby nesting sites.
This year the parents arrived with two youngsters that small they still had their L plates on - the landing was not pretty.

The adults then wandered down the swamp for a bit of quality parent alone time, while the kids played in the shallows.

The geese obviously did not see the whole family arrive but they soon spotted the two youngsters, so en mass they marched down to put these intruders to flight.
The plan was going well, the geese had them surrounded.

The name calling was in full voice when one of the stork parents decided that the barnyard bullies had over stepped the mark and walked back from down the other end of the swamp.
It was no contest, the stork walked through the ranks of geese which fled in all directions.

A small group of geese tried to regather in the middle of the swamp.
This was the chance the black swans had been waiting for; two pairs of swans executed a beautiful pincer movement from the sides that sent the geese straight into the area where the storks were waiting.

This time the youngsters decided that it was their turn to chase the geese which they did with glee.

The geese ended up in the shed paddock, they have been there for two days.
Their dreams of farm domination in tatters around their webbed feet.

Previous post in the Geese Saga:
Worrying times under this feathered fascism
Goose stepping in all this rain.....

Rudd-Conroy internet censorship trial generates new error message

*

*

Click on image to enlarge

Mainstream media stung by sociology student - blogosphere tut tuts

Dilbert cartoon from Dilbert.com

Adding my penny's worth on the state of mainstream media.

Ars Technica reports on sloppy media practices:
"According to the AFP, the hoax traces back to Shane Fitzgerald, a student at Ireland's University College Dublin. Upon learning of the death of the Oscar-winning composer Maurice Jarre, the student modified his Wikipedia entry, adding a completely fictitious post that was nicely designed to fit perfectly into any obituary. "When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head, that only I can hear," the added material read in part.
Fitzgerald was apparently curious how far his hoax would spread, and expected it to appear on a variety of blogs and similar sites. Instead, to his surprise, a search picked it up in articles that appeared at a variety of newspapers. Fitzgerald eventually removed his own fabricated quote and notified a variety of news outlets that they had been tricked, but not all of them have apparently seen fit to publish corrections or to ensure that their original stories were accurate, even though fixing a webpage shouldn't be a challenging thing.
Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise that journalists use Wikipedia as part of their research—especially in this case, as Jarre's entry comes out on top of the heap in a Google search for his name. However, the discovery that so many of the writers apparently failed to find an additional source on that quote comes at a rather awkward time for journalists in traditional media, who are facing a struggle to stay above water as the newspaper industry is sinking and the line between traditional journalism and casual reporting gets ever blurrier.
A key part of the argument for maintaining traditional journalism is that its trained reporters can perform research and investigations that the untrained masses can't, and the content they produce is run by editors and fact-checkers. The revelation that their research is often no more sophisticated than an average Web surfer's, and that the fact checking can be nonexistent, really doesn't help that argument much."

Comments on article

More GM lobby machinations?

Times Higher Education earlier this year:

A charity has come under fire for failing to declare all industry affiliations of the experts it enlisted to compile a booklet explaining genetic modification to the public.
The pamphlet was produced by Sense About Science (SAS), a charity that claims to promote scientific reasoning in public discussions.
According to anti-genetic modification campaigners and academics, it failed to mention links between some of the experts who wrote the booklet and GM firms.
For example, the guide's biography of Vivian Moses, emeritus professor of microbiology at Queen Mary, University of London, and visiting professor of biotechnology at King's College London, does not mention that he is also chairman of CropGen, a GM lobby group that receives funding from the biotechnology industry.
It says only that he has been "a full-time researcher in biochemistry and microbiology" and is now "primarily concerned with communicating science to the public".
Critics also argued that the guide should have noted that the John Innes Centre, where eight of its 28 contributors are based, received funding from biotechnology companies.
Michael Antoniou, a geneticist at King's College London, described the omissions as "outrageous".
He said: "GM is a sensitive issue. People have been extremely suspicious because of its industrial connections. So it is imperative that they declare these in this context, as in a journal publication."
Dr Antoniou, who himself provides technical advice to anti-GM campaign group GM Watch, speculated that SAS had not disclosed Professor Moses' directorship because it was afraid of arousing public suspicion.

GM Watch tells us that there are even more 'scientists' hidden in the woodpile:

The pro-GM lobby group Sense About Science (SAS) has been caught with its pants down by Private Eye. The famous satirical magazine has obtained a confidential draft copy of SAS's recently published GM guide which shows it had a "ghost writer" that SAS failed to declare. Here's the article.
Private Eye No. 1232, 20 March - 2 April 2009, Books and Bookmen (p.26)
A spat has broken out over a Times Higher Education article highlighting the failure of a new guide to GM food, 'Making Sense of GM', to disclose its industry connections. Tracey Brown of Sense About Science, publisher of the guide, condemned the T.H.E. article as "mischievous" and "rude" and claimed it relied on "tortuously indirect links" between the authors and the GM industry.
But the Eye has a copy of an unpublished draft of the guide - and it seems it wasn't just the industry links of some of its authors that didn't appear in the final published version. One of the guide's listed authors, Andrew Cockburn, is also missing. Who he? None other than GM giant, Monsanto's former director of scientific affairs, and a figure so controversial that when former PM Tony Blair invited him to author part of the government's official GM Science Review, it led to questions being raised in the House and the resignation of one of the expert panellists. No wonder Sense About Science felt erasure was the better form of valour.

*Sense about Science issued a statement to the effect that in the end Cockburn did not review its GM guide.

In addition,this month MADGE blew the whistle on Graincorp:

AUSTRALIANS will soon be eating genetically modified food whether they like it or not.

The nation's major grain handler, Graincorp, announced this week that genetically modified canola will be mixed in with the main crop in this year's harvest.

Anti-GM groups say the decision means canola oil and a large amount of commonly bought processed food made with canola will now be genetically modified.

They say staples that will become genetically modified include baby food, potato chips, biscuits, frozen vegetables, crackers and pre-prepared meals.

They claim the move is premature because GM food has yet to be tested properly.

"All GM food has been created randomly. The DNA of these plants has been altered and no one really knows where it will go," said Madeleine Love, spokeswoman for Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (MADGE).....

Graincorp corporate affairs manager David Ginn confirmed the two streams of canola will be mixed together this year after the October harvest.

Meanwhile, GMO bananas are being trialled in Queensland and can be now added to North Coast Voices' March 2009 GMO watch list.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

LOLing over Q&A political definitions

Thanks to Mark Newton's tweet for this heads up about ABC TV's Q & A Political Dictionary

Some prime examples:

Abbotomised (adj) to abbotomise (verb): quasi medical procedure to stimulate the faith based areas of the brain. by Q&A

Apple zealot (noun): A person who always complains of a 'PC bias' from moderators. These people obviously do not like PC's. They prefer macs. by bjorn989

Asprin Election (adj): A double dissolution of parliament. by bjorn989

Buswell (verb): To cause a humiliating blow to yourself.
eg. "He was doing alright until he Buswelled himself." by Kevin 11

Garretted (adj): to have ones views silenced by the system. for example when a strong icon of a certain movement enters a political party and is Garretted into taking the party line. by generationwise

Heffernistic (adj): pertaining to the tendency to forcibly interrupt a rival's press conference to make a political point; also the ability to engage in furious public argument with those ostensibly on your side (see Joyce, Senator B.) by Q&A

Joyceful (colloquial): as in "I've had a joyceful…" often muttered by Bill Heffernan in times of stress. by Q&A

Kevined (verb): as in " all I asked was a simple question and suddenly I found myself kevined" - ancient chinese art of lulling political opponents into paralysis by reciting mysterious and incomprehensible jargon without drawing breath. Can be fatal. by Q&A

Neal (verb): to cause sudden and extreme injury. Eg: his career was going well until he was Nealed in the iguanas. by Q&A

Turnbully (adj): to attack people for being like yourself. by Matthew O

2009-10 Australian Commonwealth Budget Overview: key initiatives and document links

KEY INITIATIVES OF THE 2009‑10 BUDGET

• $3.4 billion for roads
• $4.6 billion for metro rail
• $389 million for ports and freight infrastructure
• $4.5 billion for the Clean Energy Initiative, which includes $1.0 billion of existing funding
• $2.6 billion in projects focused on universities and research from the Education Investment Fund
• $3.2 billion in projects focused on hospitals and health infrastructure from the Health and Hospitals Fund
• Partnering with the private sector to build the $43 billion National Broadband Network
• A pension increase of $32.49 per week for singles and $10.14 per week combined for couples on the full rate
• A crucial boost of $2.7 billion in funding for tertiary education, research and innovation
• $1.5 billion for the Jobs and Training Compact, providing education and services to support young people, retrenched workers and local communities
• A 50 per cent Small Business Tax Break for eligible assets
• Extending the First Home Owners Boost for an extra 6 months

Budget Overview 473KB

Budget Overview is an overview of key budget aggregates and the Government's budget priorities.

Appendix A ‑ Australian Government budget aggregates
Appendix B ‑ Assessment against the fiscal target
Appendix C ‑ Real gains for households
Appendix D ‑ Increased pension support
Appendix E ‑ Major initiatives in the 2009‑10 Budget
Appendix F ‑ Major savings in the 2009‑10 Budget
Appendix G ‑ Australian Government taxation and spending
Appendix H ‑ Detailed economic forecasts for 2009‑10 and 2010‑11
Appendix I ‑ Historical budget and net financial worth data

Chartpack 5.6MB (Zip)

Pensions Overview ‑ Secure and Sustainable Pensions 1.4MB

Infrastructure Overview ‑ Nation Building for the Future 5.5MB

Education Overview ‑ Universities, Innovation and Education Revolution 1.2MB

And they say that comparisons with Viet Nam are false......

Afghanistan this week.

BBC NEWS - "The US defence secretary has asked the country's commander in Afghanistan to step down, saying the battle against the Taleban needs "new thinking".
Robert Gates confirmed Gen David McKiernan would effectively be sacked less than a year after taking command.
He will be replaced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who is seen as having a better understanding of the conflict.
The change comes as the US boosts troops numbers in Afghanistan and prepares for a change in strategy.
Gen McKiernan's time as US commander in Afghanistan has coincided with a surge in violence.
His successor currently serves as the director of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was previously a director of special operations forces."

TELEGRAPH UK - "They do come in and out of Afghanistan," Gen Petraeus told CNN. "But al Qaeda – precise al Qaeda, if you will – is not based per se in Afghanistan. Although its elements and certainly its affiliates... certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of Eastern Afghanistan."

CHINA VIEW - "The joint Afghan and U.S. team who are investigating civilian causalities in eastern Afghan province of Farah, would also look into the using of chemical weapons, a spokesperson of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said Monday.
"On the specific issue of chemical weapons, we are aware of that reports and certainly it would be something that referring to. Joint investigation team will look into the possible report taking place in the province," Haleem Siddique told a questioner in a weekly press briefing.
Siddique noted that the safety and welfare of Afghan civilians must come first during the planning and implementation of any military operation.
According to Afghan officials, over 147 civilians have been killed in an airstrike by international troops in eastern Farah province of Afghanistan while U.S. military said that the number is exaggerated."

THE AGE - "IF THE war in Afghanistan is to be won, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds must first be won. The surest way to lose that battle is to discount the lives of Afghan civilians killed in military operations against the Taliban, whose alliance with al-Qaeda provoked the invasion that ended their rule. Indeed, in Iraq, insurgents' disregard for civilian lives backfired as local forces that had been opposed to foreign troops turned against al-Qaeda and its allies. In Afghanistan, however, the US and its allies are losing support because of the civilian toll they have caused.
Civilian deaths are highly damaging in themselves, but when foreign forces fail to apologise properly and provide redress, the backlash is potentially disastrous. That is why a cover-up of the findings of an Australian military investigation into the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians in Oruzgan province in July 2006 is of immense concern.
On the whole, Australian forces appear to have acknowledged such deaths with full apologies and compensation. By contrast, the US military has at times seemed downright careless about the civilian toll in air strikes. Human Rights Watch estimated last year that air strikes had killed at least 1633 civilians from 2006 to 2007, and allied forces had killed another 828 civilians by the end of last year."

THE CANADIAN PRESS - The first contingents of an additional 21,000 U.S. combat troops and trainers have begun to hit the ground in Afghanistan in a surge expected to continue throughout the summer.
The overwhelming combat might of the U.S. is reshaping the way NATO conducts the bitter counter-insurgency war. Analysts and some opposition politicians have expressed fears that American military policies and doctrines, such as the use of air strikes, will be forced on allies.

The Greens apply a blow torch to Conroy's belly

Senate Notice Paper No. 66 on 12 May 2009:

*1495 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy—
(1) With reference to the hearings of the Environment, Communications and
the Arts Committee additional estimates of 23 February 2009, in which an
officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
stated 'As you may recall, Senator, every six months those overview
profiles of the number of investigations that we have done and the
breakdown—whether it was RC [Refused Classification], child
pornography, X and so on—are tabled in parliament. If we look at one of
those six-month reports, there is a lot of information on what we do
regarding our investigations there' (Committee Hansard, 23 February 2009,
ECA 108): was the officer referring to the Co-regulatory Scheme for
Internet Content Regulation reports; if so, have those reports been prepared
and tabled since the report for the period July to December 2005; if so,
where can copies of these reports, for the 3 years since 2005, be obtained.
(2) If the answer to (1) above is no:
(a) what are the six-monthly reports to which the officer referred to;
and
(b) where can copies of these reports be obtained.
(3) Does the ACMA charge a fee to filter suppliers for the ACMA's blacklist
and/or updates to the blacklist; if so:
(a) is the fee $15 000 (as reported by a filter supplier on 26 March 2009
at http://www.crikey.com.au); if not, how much is the fee;
(b) for what period of time does the fee cover (for example, annually,
half-yearly, monthly, etc); and
(c) when did the ACMA commence charging a fee.
(4) Does the ACMA charge a fee, or does it intend to do so in future, for the
supply of its blacklist to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who provide
server-level filtering; if so, how much.
(5) What procedures or systems does the ACMA have in place to ensure that
filter suppliers promptly add and delete Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)
on notification of updates by the ACMA, for example, does the ACMA
undertake audits of filter suppliers' copies of the ACMA's blacklist; if so,
how often.
(6) In regard to media reports in March 2009 that the ACMA stated that a page
containing photographs by Mr Bill Henson had been incorrectly added to
the ACMA's blacklist as a result of a 'caching error': (a) what is a 'caching
error'; and (b) can the ACMA prevent a 'caching error' happening in
future; if so, how.
(7) When the ACMA adds to its blacklist the URL of a hacked page on an
overseas-hosted web site, that is operated/maintained by an Australian
resident or Australian-based business, does the ACMA notify the
Australian resident/business of the existence of the prohibited content so
that it may promptly delete such content and have its page promptly
removed from the blacklist; if not, why not.
(8) How does the ACMA determine whether web page content has 'an
Australian connection', for example, does the ACMA base this
determination on the geographical location of the business/person to whom
the IP [Internet Provider] address of the web site's domain has been
allocated, the geographical location of the business/person identified as the
registrant the administrative or the technical contact of the domain in the
'whois' information.
(9) In regard to the ACMA's blacklist:
(a) how many URLs on the blacklist are main domain addresses, for
example, http://www.example.com (not the address of a sub-page
on a web site);
(b) when the ACMA notifies filter suppliers of a domain address, are
filter suppliers required to block only that particular page (that is,
the site's 'home' page), or all pages on the domain; and
(c) if filter suppliers are required to block all pages on a domain, by
what means does the ACMA determine that there is a substantial
likelihood that all pages on the domain are, if classified,
potential/prohibited content.
(10) In regard to the ACMA online content statistics for the month of December
2008, ACMAsphere No. 38, states that 237 overseas-hosted items were
actioned and 22 items were 'R18+ Language', while the ACMA's Internet
statistics web page states that 253 overseas-hosted items were actioned, no
items were 'R18+ Language' and 22 items were 'X 18+ Actual sexual
activity' and given that there are also other discrepancies between the two
sets of reported statistics:
(a) which statistics are accurate; and
(b) what caused the discrepancies.
(11) For each of the following periods: 20 January to 31 June 2008 and 1 July
2008 to date:
(a) how many items of Internet content did the ACMA submit to the
Classification Board for the purpose of complying with clause 116
of Schedule 7 (samples of content to be submitted for classification)
of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; and
(b) how many of these items were content that did not have an
'Australian connection'.
(12) In regard to ACMA Internet content assessors:
(a) why are the names, dates of appointment and short biographies of
the assessors not made publicly available (as has long been the case
in relation to members of the Classification Board and Classification
Review Board);
(b) are content assessors, like members of the classification boards,
appointed by the Governor-General; if not, who appoints them;
(c) in selecting and appointing content assessors, are there requirement
that they have the capacity to assess, identify and represent
community standards;
(d) are content assessors initially appointed for a fixed term of service;
if so, what is that period of time;
(e) is there a statutory or other limit on the maximum term of service
for a content assessor; and if so, what is that period of time;
(f) for each content assessor, what was the date of their initial
appointment;
(g) how many content assessors are:
(i) former full-time or part-time members of the Classification
Board,
(ii) former temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iii) current temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iv) former members of the Classification Review Board, and
(v) former employees, in any role, of the former Office of Film
and Literature Classification; and
(h) for each content assessor referred to in (12)(g) above, what is each
of their total period of service in the abovementioned former roles.
(13) Do ACMA content assessors undergo regular training by the Classification
Board to help ensure consistency of decisions; if so, how often does such
training take place.
(14) How many content assessors view and assess an item of Internet content
prior to an ACMA determination that it is 'potential prohibited content'
because there is a substantial likelihood that it would be classified by the
Classification Board as:
(a) RC, 'RC-Child Depiction';
(b) RC, for any other reason;
(c) X18+;
(d) R18+; and
(e) MA15+.
68 No. 66—12 May 2009
(15) In regard to the page on an anti-abortion web site that was determined by
the ACMA to be 'RC-Violence' in January 2009 and the criteria for RC in
the national classification code:
(a) was the content determined to be prohibited/potential prohibited
content under clause 1(a) of the criteria for RC (depictions of
violence that offend against the standards of reasonable adults) or
under clause 1(c) (promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or
violence); and
(b) how many content assessors participated in making a decision that
there was a substantial likelihood that the content would be RC if
classified.
(16) In regard to the ACMA's 'Restricted Access System Declaration 2007', the
explanatory statement to the declaration and the ACMA's web page titled
'new restricted access arrangements' state that the requirements in the
declaration apply only to content that has an 'Australian connection' (is
hosted in Australia or provided from Australia):
(a) what procedures/systems are available to providers of
overseas-hosted content to enable them to ensure that content they
provide that is, or would be classified R18+ or (commercial)
MA15+, is not added to the ACMA's blacklist; and
(b) if these procedures/systems comply with the 'Restricted Access
System Declaration 2007', how can the ACMA, and Australian
Internet users, know that an overseas content provider is complying
with the Australian National Privacy Principles under the Privacy
Act 1988, as required by the Restricted Access System Declaration
2007, in relation to use/disclosure etc of proof of age
documentation/information they acquire and are required to keep for
2 years.
(a) why not;

PDF version with second series of questions re ACMA  included here.