Days after Clare “chk-chk boom” Werbeloff was exposed as a fraud online, the Australian newspapers have finally caught up.

According to reports, “she has also signed a contract with Channel Nine’s A Current Affair and is likely to appear tomorrow night” and that she wouldn’t be speaking to any other media outlet.

That would be the same Channel Nine that published her false account to begin with.

Here’s the things I can’t work out. The video on YouTube was placed. Nine doesn’t have an official YouTube account, at least that I can see, and the account holding the video thanks two other people for giving them the video…oh, and it links to Ninemsn. Note the no YouTube account isn’t surprising, Nine, through its relationship with Microsoft publishes things directly on NineMSN through the MSN video hosting platform.

Next: Nine probably could have pulled the video on copyright grounds: they didn’t. They could have driven traffic to the official video on NineMSN….they didn’t.

Last: if Claire wasn’t a witness (and wasn’t originally at the location when the shooting took place) how did she end up being interviewed to begin with? Nine interviewed other people, surely the odd witness statement from Claire would have been a give away that something was amiss (and remember, there was no “skinny wog,” the guy shot was built like a brick shithouse.)

So the question then becomes: was Nine in on this from the beginning? And if so, why?

Are we going to end up with some sort of story about how social media can’t be trusted perhaps?

One thing is for sure: we won’t get the full story on ACA Monday. What we’ll get it more lies and more spin, after all this whole thing started at a PR agency.

Update: I should add on the YouTube account, there was nothing untoward about it…but that’s the problem. The placement is too random…it’s too out of place. It’s the sort of account I’d pick if I wanted to go under the radar on questions, but likewise an account that wouldn’t have found the clip by itself.

It’s one thing to turn around and say “shit, things got really bad, we have to act” but it’s another to blame the previous Government when your own Government not only delivered the last budget, but has had its hands in the till (well, really on the national Mastercard) dishing out money ever since.

Treasurer Wayne Swan blames revenue collapse on spending by John Howard: news.com.au

Two days before delivering his second Budget at a time of unprecedented global economic upheaval, Mr Swan yesterday told The Australian his efforts to deal with the recession-driven, $200 billion collapse in revenue had been complicated by a legacy of reckless spending by the previous government.

In an apparent move to make Mr Howard a fall guy for a tough Budget, Mr Swan said the former prime minister had behaved “as if the mining boom was never going to end” in handing out payments across the community.

“As a consequence of those unsustainable habits which developed at the top of the boom and, given the nature of the global recession and the unwinding of the mining boom, everybody will have to do their bit to put the budget on a more sustainable footing,” Mr Swan said

But hang on: those “unsustainable” habits weren’t addressed in last years budget, Swan’s first. It’s lovely having hindsight, but you can’t blame the last guy when you didn’t see the problem either.

There’s one thing I do agree on: the Howard Government spent far too much (particularly in middle class welfare) and didn’t put enough money aside for a rainy day. The Howard Government should have set the country up better.

However, the Rudd Government could have addressed that problem LAST YEAR. Instead, they increased spending in that budget, and then did two rounds of $900 stimulus payments to 90% of the adult population, on top of massive amounts of infrastructure and related spending.

They’ve raided the Future Fund to cover their spending…the very fund set up by Howard to save for a rainy day TO START WITH.

I don’t think the blame Howard line is going to wash with most Australians. The fact they’re using it reeks of desperation, and may be indicative of even worse news to be delivered tonight.

18 months to go until the next election. People aren’t stupid. Cutting taxes to meet an election promise, then upping the cost of living for everything else (possibly by a greater amount) is something voters will see through.

So much for a change to transparent and open Government. They should just dump the tax cuts and explain the reason why (without blaming Howard,) most people would accept the downturn as the reasoning.

The above video is on the front page of Reddit this evening. It’s a remix of an infomercial to music.

I would be lucky to watch TV once a week, and when I do it’s usually the ABC, so no infomercials. Oddly when I visit the US, I often watch informercials in my hotel room, only because they’re so foreign to me, I find them fascinating.

So I watched the above video, and while the music mix was good, I found the product even better. I did some quick research, and found some real world testing examples that backed up the claim.

I then hit Google to see 1: how much it cost 2: if you can get it in Australia. You can’t, but there are eBay sellers who offer shipping here.

For around $47 shipped (the shipping was more than the product), in about 10 days I’ll proudly own a Slap Chop 🙂

Lets take away the arguments for and against the use of torture by the US Government as a legitimate tool in the fight against terrorists, and lets consider the effectiveness of the favored method of “waterboarding.”

The argument for waterboarding is that it’s an effective way of breaking prisoners, and gaining vital intelligence information.

And yet

“CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Mohammed.”

If it’s so effective, why do you need to use in 266 times? Surely if it is effective, a couple of times, maybe a dozen max, but 266 times?

Where’s the real case that waterboarding works?

I can’t remember where I read it, but it was a fair point: the Allies sent Japanese to the gallows for using the same techniques during World War 2. What does it say about the United States that what was once condemned, is now passed off as acceptable.

I still don’t know what this bloke is playing at: I mean seriously, all the media attention and sucking in investors only to sell out at the 11th hour, but I love this line in response

The Age: Stunned investors vent fury at chairman

“He’s not going to get (the $4.5 million), I can promise you that,” Mr Byrnes said. “He’s just ruined his corporate life forever ?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ I’d trust Mr Bolton like I’d trust a rabbit with a lettuce leaf.”