People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.
Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles. My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly. With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.
Unrepentant carnivore, that’s me, I like a tasty meat dish, from a spicy curry to a bloody piece of steak if its made of meat I will at least try it. In that vein I’ve eaten the flesh of many different species’ Not too keen on trying dog or cat but under the right circumstances those reservations could be put aside. With that in mind I find this story in the Daily Mail darkly amusing
What I want to know though is how a charge of animal maltreatment could be maintained if he had slaughtered the moggies in a humane manner? Because it surely could not rely at all just upon the fact that the man admits killing the cats to eat them any more than someone who kills a chicken to eat it could be charged with “cruelty to animals” if the killing was done as swiftly and painlessly as is humanly possible.
An ethical question for you all to consider…
Call me a cynic but I have been expecting this for some time because it seems pretty obvious to me that passport-less travel within Europe will only be acceptable to the governments and people of the member countries for as long as they believe that non EU citizens will not be allowed free entry by any of their member states as Italy has done recently with “refugees” from north Africa
This report comes from the Guardian and it demonstrates the leftist mindset to a tee. Notice how they want to insist that Italy and France have only a minor problem? well according to the China daily:
The number of people fleeing North Africa has soared since mid-January, after Tunisia overthrew its president and set off a series of uprisings in Egypt and Libya.
Some 25,000 people, mostly Tunisians, have flooded Lampedusa, which is right off the North African coast.
Do you get what the Guardian is dong here?
They are using the rather disingenuous argument that the world wide problem with people wanting to flee from failed societies is so huge that we should be unconcerned when only a “small” influx of people try to get into Europe that any concern is far in excess of the problem’s real magnitude. It is a fundamentally dishonest argument that tries to guilt trip the public into ignoring their legitimate concerns about the flow of uninvited immigrants into their countries. It is the actual numbers crossing the borders that worries people and not how “low” those numbers are compared to some academic toting up the size of a “global” problem. In the case of Lampedusa the numbers were not insignificant and easily overwhelmed Italian resources on that island. Further the rather cowardly decision by the Italian government to just let these French speaking
asylum seekers immigrants transit Italy into France has fundamentally undermined the trust of other European nations that the external borders of Europe mean anything.
As I see it if you want immigration into any society to “work” it has to be at a rate at which the indigenous populace are willing to accept and welcome the new arrivals. This requires an orderly process and some measure of dispassionate selection that considers the needs of the country as much as considers the reason that individuals want to come in the first place. If a government ignores this necessity for the sake of some sort of well meaning but naive “we are all part of one world” philosophy (ever so popular with the left) all you are doing is creating a problem for the future, just as we are beginning to see in some of the previously more generous to asylum seeker host countries in northern Europe. Another example closer to home is the decision by the Hawke government to allow unfettered arrivals from Lebanon during his stint in the big chair. It was certainly an act of compassion on his part but look at the social problems in parts of western Sydney now.
So what I’m saying is that its fine to talk about high minded principles of inclusiveness and compassion but you have to take the people with you and you have to make sure that those that you allow to immigrate into your country will either have values consistent with your social norms, like a willingness to accept gender equality, religious diversity or the liberal views of sexuality or a sincere willingness to freely accommodate them. Otherwise all you are importing is the sorts of problems that we have seen in Denmark or Sweden and that leads to the very thing that the well meaning but naive left fear most, the rise of far right nationalism as the indigenous people begin to fear the fast growing immigrant communities within their own cities. Frankly I think that here in Australia we have the opportunity to avoid such social discord buy making sure that we create and maintain an immigration system where the numbers that come and the schedule of their arrival is determined by the governments that we elect not by those who try to get in uninvited by the back-door.
“Okay, this hurts, but it must hurt in order to make things more secure, more robust. Evolution through crisis.”
If you area Climate Change sceptic like I am you just have to love the collapse of the European carbon trading scheme because it so clearly demonstrates that it is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme where traders make a quid buying and selling something that does not have any relationship to any real commodity.
The European commission‘s emergency suspension last week of trading in carbon allowances to put a halt to rampant theft of credits by hackers has been extended indefinitely until countries can prove their systems are protected from further fraud.
While the suspension had been expected to end last night, Brussels now says that the freeze in trades had been imposed to give the commission executive some breathing space to figure out what to do.
“The suspension last week was only a transitional measure to give the commission and member states the time to assess the situation and decide the way forward,” the commission’s climate spokeswoman, Maria Kokkonen, said.
“Okay, this hurts, but it must hurt in order to make things more secure, more robust. Evolution through crisis.”
Its amazingly like the AGW argument: “all sound and fury signifying nothing ”
So here is a challenge for or resident Warministas like JM or PKD:
Please explain just how such schemes are supposed to affect the climate again because this one seems to have failed…
My brother is a big fan of cooking shows. He literally can’t get enough of them and you can see his eyes light up when his favourites come on to the box. In fact we make jokes about such programs being “foodie porn”. Personally I like watching Nigella Lawson but the food she cooks does not have that much to do with it. Mostly I am content to watch such programs only if I am really waiting for something better to start.
A top Italian food writer has been “suspended indefinitely” from the Italian version of Ready, Steady, Cook for recommending .stewed cat to viewers as a “succulent dish”
RAI, the public broadcasting television network, said that it had dropped Beppe Bigazzi, 77, for making the suggestion on Prova del Cuoco, which is broadcast at midday before the one o’clock lunchtime news on RAI Uno, the main channel. The RAI switchboard was inundated with complaints from viewers and animal rights groups.
Recommending “casserole of cat”, Mr Bigazzi said it was a famous dish in his home region of Valdarno, the area of Tuscany around Arezzo. “I’ve eaten it myself, and it’s a lot better than many other animals,” he told viewers. “Better than chicken, rabbit or pigeon.”
You see the slaves of cats are a jealous lot who are very keen to punish anyone who dares to demean their masters by suggesting that they might actually be tasty if cooked right. Even if those suggestions are in fact made in jest as it appears to be in this instance. Actually given the way that many cat owners spoil and overfeed their feline companions I would have thought that the real reason that the eating of cat should be discouraged is because it is not likely to be the sort of low fat option that we are encouraged to chose.
Frankly if we are not meant to eat cats then why did the good Lord made their flesh so delicious? 😉
Here are some links to some recipes if you are keen to try cat
Warministas love to counter the citation of extreme winter conditions (as proof that the world is not warming) with the suggestion that it is only “weather” and that “weather is not Climate“. Personally i have always thought that such a distinction is rather spurious. Spurious in the same way that saying that the millimetre marks on a tape measure are not a measurement in the same way that the metre marks are. It is all a matter of scale. Despite the Warministas denouncing any citation of any weather event that contradicts their argument they are still rather fond of citing weather events that fit with their own prognostications
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny – and ignored warnings from scientific advisers. The report’s author later withdrew the claim because the evidence was too weak.
The link was central to demands at last month’s Copenhagen climate summit by African nations for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations.
However, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert world leaders, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change.
Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government’s emissions trading scheme.
“We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that can occur,” the Prime Minister said at the time.
British Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband has suggested floods – such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 – could be linked to global warming.
US President Barack Obama said last year: “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.”
Last month British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament that the financial agreement at Copenhagen “must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm”.
The IPCC has now been forced to reassess its report linking extreme weather to climate change.
There is a clear dissonance here between the “weather is not climate” mantra and the “weather events prove Global Warming is happening” rhetoric that we are getting from The likes Of Obama and Brother Number One and it is obvious to me that the rhetoric is intended to activate the guilt chips in the heads of the worlds progressives this enables the aforementioned leaders to bring about fundamental changes to our society by stealth. Changes to the energy economy and changes to the world’s political institutions. But then hasn’t that been the desire of religion since men began to draw pictures on the stone walls of their caves? Like the measuring tape I mentioned earlier it is all a matter of scale and finding the marks on the tape that fit the liturgy.
Oh yeah its also another reason to think that the UN in general and the IPCC in particular is as useless as titties on a bull.