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.
Like a lot of minions of the left Waleed Aly has a rather warped view of the morality of war and he is very clearly bemoaning the fact that in the age of the drone the Jihadists really have no where to hide. The sadly amusing part of his argument against drones is that that he whines about the prospect of non combatants being killed when Jihadists are taken out yet he does not say a single word about just why the strikes are both necessary and justified. Like a lot of people who follow the religion of peace he seems incapable of enunciating any sort of criticism of the Jihadists and their “struggle” with modern secular society. Without their ever present ideology of death to unbelievers and the establishment of a global caliphate not a single helfire missile would need to be fired from a drone.
Then in his conclusion Waleed gives us the “lack of honour ” argument about the use of drones:
Pardon me Waleed but your argument begs the question of the morality of the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Jihadists that you are implicitly defending here. They have killed many thousands of civilians in the name of your Prophet and your God and yet you whine a bout the possibility of a “non combatant” being killed while in the company of a Jihadist? Call me mad if you like but when it comes to the relative virtue of each side in the war against the Jihadists the Americans come out orders of magnitude better. None the less war in all of its guises is a dirty and bloody business where nothing matters if you don’t win. Its not a game where each side will respect a set of rules invented by the arm chair moralists its always about that final move that will make your side prevail.
Waleed has obviously been reading too much King Arthur and not enough Game of Thrones if he thinks that you can defeat a dishonourable enemy like the Jihadists by treating war against them like a sporting competition. The currency of the Jihadists is that anything goes against the unbelievers and before the development of the killer drone the only way to destroy them required many boots on foreign soil, now it doesn’t and I for one fully endorse the use of technology that makes every big league Jihadist tremble with fear every time he steps out into the open, or drives from one spider hole to the next, The Jihadists started the “war on terror” so its only justice that now they should live in the terror of the unannounced death from above.
It is of course understandable that those in the legal profession would think that justice actually requires the performance in their own theatre, with appropriate posturing from their own stars of that stage. They truly think that the courts and the legal profession have an absolute monopoly upon the dispensing of justice. Personally I think that the claim for justice being the exclusive business of lawyers and judges is flawed. Firstly I shall give you the example of Geoffrey Robertson who says this in the Age and was very quick of the mark at the ABC making essentially the same argument:
I do not minimise the security problems of holding a trial or overlook the danger of it ending up as a squalid circus like that of Saddam Hussein. But the notion that any legal process would have been too hard must be rejected. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – also alleged to be an architect of September 11 – will go on trial shortly. Had bin Laden been captured he should have been in the dock alongside him, so that their shared responsibility could have been properly examined.
Bin Laden could not have been tried for the attacks on the twin towers at the International Criminal Court, since its jurisdiction only came into existence nine months later. But the United Nations Security Council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict that would have convinced the Arab street of his guilt.
This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers. In the dock he would have been reduced in stature – never more to be remembered as the tall, soulful figure on the mountain, but as a hateful and hate-filled old man. Since his videos exult in the killing of innocent civilians, any cross-examination would have emphasised his inhumanity. These benefits that flow from real justice have been forgone.
The obsessive belief of the US in capital punishment – alone among advanced nations – is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise. Barack Obama has most likely secured re-election by approving the execution. This may be welcome, given the alternatives of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee (who have both urged that Julian Assange be hunted down in similar fashion) or Donald Trump. But it is a sad reflection on the continuing attraction of summary execution.
So I’ argue that the killing of Bin laden is just, he got what he deserved, and that would have been the judgement of a reasonable court anyway so in terms of natural justice there is no problem here at all.
Those of us who are concerned about the issue of the endless stream of unauthorised arrivals of
asylum seekers illegal immigrants have long known that the most attractive carrot that draws them here is the easy route to getting permanent residency and the right to sponsor their family members once that get that desired migration outcome. I am not alone in being disgusted to discover that even those who have been convicted of the destruction of commonwealth property have thus far not been “bad enough” for the minister to refuse them a visa on “character grounds”. The fact that the Labor government has finally decided to “Toughen up” and change the law so that any offence will be enough to refuse residency is a good start. But the obvious question that comes to mind is why the hell has it taken the partial destruction of not one but two detention centres for them to act?
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said that if the laws were passed they would come into force from today and cover any troublemakers convicted over acts of violence and riots at Broadmeadows, Villawood and Christmas Island.
As protests continued at four detention centres around the country yesterday, Mr Bowen said: “These changes send a clear message to anyone considering engaging in unacceptable behaviour in immigration detention that this will only increase their chances of not being granted a visa.
“The Government believes the powers under the Migration Act can be strengthened to create a more significant disincentive for this sort of destructive behaviour.
This will apply to all people in immigration detention: onshore and offshore arrivals, asylum seekers, or otherwise,” he said.
Under the Migration Act, Mr Bowen already has the power to refuse visas, but it is easy for him to do so only where a person has a substantial criminal record, or where someone has been sentenced to jail for a year or more.
The changes will mean that, if a convicted criminal faces persecution in their own country, they will most probably be granted only a provisional visa, which does not permit refugees to bring their families to Australia.
Once the threat in their home country is over, they can be sent back.
Along with the ridiculous reluctance to forcefully deport those who have failed in their claim for asylum (they and their country of origin has to agree that they be deported 🙄 ) the lack of any meaningful sanction for unacceptable behaviour while their claims are being determined is the underlying cause of the unrest in the detention centres at present. Further I find the naivete of the protests from asylum seeker activists almost breathtaking. If ever there was an issue where a protest is beyond futile it is this one . They certainly will get a chorus of “right on ” from the Uber-left loopy Greens but Labor have no wriggle room to give even the tiniest part of a millimetre to their noisy demands lest they lose even more of their base vote. And the general public are just not prepared to believe the narrative that “asylum seekers” are the “worthy of our concern victims of oppression” narrative since both Christmas Island and Villawood have burned.
So in true Labor party tradition what we can see here is an example of policy over reach followed by a ridiculous denial of the negative consequences of their changes and then finally a partial restoration of that which they changed.
Is it any wonder that the Gillard government is the top contender for the “Worst Labor government of all time?
With the amusing knowledge that one of my favourite Waminista journalist, the Ages’s Jo Chandler , has written a book about climate change (called Feeling the heat ) due out in May. I can’t help wondering just what qualifies her to write on this subject?
Nothing in her biography suggests a scientific background, and her earlier suggestion that AGW was responsible for last year’s flood event in Pakistan utterly destroys her credibility about any discussion of the climate further as a self confessed Luddite* one has to wonder just what she could possibly bring to the debate on “climate change”. You can be sure that it won’t be an objective mind or sound reasoning. Maybe there is still a quid in it.
My best guess is that it will be more of the leaps of faith that were so evident in her piece about the floods in Pakistan where she will look at every dramatic weather event and make some claim about just how it proves “climate change” is real and all the fault of Western industrial society. As the cute animation above suggests Climate alarmists will grab hold of any thing that fits the tenants of their faith and just ignore any “inconvenient truths” that contradict their climate liturgy just as Chandler has in relation to floods in Pakistan.
Anyway I’ll keep my eyes pealed for the release of the book which will undoubtedly take a rather short time to be remaindered and then relegated to the “humorous pseudo-science” category right alongside such credible greats like Erich von Däniken None the less it may be good for a laugh because I’m rather sure that it will be very far from useful to understanding any of the scientific issues at hand if her previous sycophantic writings on the subject are anything to go by.