Jack Minter writes: Christian, no one is trying to defend the actions of extremists here. The argument you present (yesterday, item 15) is completely irrespective of whether or not we’re actually, physically at war with radical Islam. This isn’t about whether religious extremism is a good or bad thing; rather, should we be using guns and tanks to combat these militants instead of diplomacy and foreign aid? Obviously they have sent acts of horrific violence our way but it’s foolish to think retaliatory military action can stop an ideology. Recent estimates put the final tally for the US war in Iraq alone to end up being $1.27 trillion. Try and tell me that this mammoth amount of money would not be put to better use by feeding and clothing the world’s poor and impoverished, erasing the debt of African nations, and by generally eradicating the conditions that form a breeding ground for extremism. Surely we’ve grown past an eye for an eye; let’s actually hit them where it hurts, by helping them.

Colin Ross writes: As an old leftie, I’m delighted that Christian Kerr regards people like me as a member of the elite; the most powerful, rich, gifted or educated members of a group or community according to my dictionary. There is also a certain amount of schadenfreude in knowing that, according to Kerr, the right must be the antithesis of this. As a comment on Kerr’s latest rant, if the West was fair dinkum about stopping Islamic terrorism, it should have targeted (with diplomacy, not bombs) Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Iran, probably in that order. However, due to a series of appalling blunders, we are now in a situation where there are probably more potential terrorists, and the number of Iraqi innocents killed is more than the number killed in the September 11 attacks on the US.

Jim Parker writes: Is Christian Kerr using his Crikey platform to apply for a job alongside the other frothing-at-the-mouth paranoiacs at The UnAustralian? That’s the only conclusion I can draw from his increasingly hysterical columns accusing as Chamberlain-like appeasers anyone who argues for anything less than a full-frontal, global assault on Islam. Pardon me, Mr Kerr, but isn’t this what the now hugely discredited neo-con merchants in the Bush administration have been doing for the past five years in Iraq with such a spectacular lack of success? Islam and Christianity have co-existed peacefully for most of the last 1,000 years. But because a hardcore faction of fascist Islamists seeks to provoke the West, your deluded far right-wing editorialist wants to use this as an opportunity to launch an all-out war. Yeah, that’ll help.

Sol Salbe writes: Re. “Who needs terrorists when you’re already self defeating?” (Yesterday, item 15). Loved Christian Kerr’s new concept of keeping your political credentials for life. Must be some kind of a bonus for being good in your youth. Oriana Fallaci fought the fascists over 60 years ago, when she was 14, for heaven’s sake. By the same logic both the limp and hard left should not have objected to Sir John Kerr’s coup. Didn’t you know he flirted with Trotskyism some three or four decades beforehand? And Dollar Sweetie himself, he used to be a bearded Young Labor demonstrator. Oops. Every Budget he brings down must be kosher then, mustn’t it? It would be interesting to check what some of the greatest neo-con ideologues did in their youth. The world is full of people whose politics changed over the years usually from, Left to Right. Once the medical cancer got hold of her, Fallaci changed her spots. “Our Christian” can find better examples.

Martyn Smith writes: So poor old Christian has flat feet (yesterday, comments). He’s also got a fat head. Sad really.

Martin Wesley-Smith writes: What’s this? Christian “Flat Feet” Kerr having a go at the Adelaide Advertiser for marginalising dissenters and alienating customers? (20 September, item 14). How dare they! That’s his specialty! Because of him, and Faris, and Pascoe, and others of their ilk, I won’t be renewing my subscription to Crikey. I’m not going all snotty, Cathy Bannister – I just don’t want to pay for a whole lot of stuff that I’ve learnt from experience holds nothing of interest for me. It’s not so much that these people like to hurl insults at subscribers who disagree with them, it’s more that they hurl insults at our intelligence. As do Albrechtsen, Bolt, Devine et al. Being “upfront about his biases” doesn’t make the drivel Kerr writes interesting.

Martin Hirst writes: I’m a bit disappointed that you seem to have adopted a Murdochian attitude to some sections of your audience. I refer particularly to Christian Kerr’s sniping comments about what he calls the “limp” left, particularly in relation to terrorism. There are two sides to this debate and sneering just clouds the issue. Unfortunately Christian seems to be intent on auditioning for The Australian’s op-ed pages. He’s a poor imitation of the hardened neo-cons, but he’s trying. I’ve noticed recently that some of his pieces are based on weak arguments, they rely on rhetoric not analysis, and they sag under the weight of limp over-used jokes. It’s infantile and sloppy to fall back on questionable theory and a lack of historical knowledge. Not to mention the snide references to those you disagree with. For example, equating the Stalinist regimes of the former Soviet Union and the police state in China with Marxism and socialism is just plain wrong. It seems that Christian has simply adopted the Murdoch-hack tactic of attacking a straw argument that you’ve constructed, not a real position.

David Marr writes: Re. Nice hubcaps, Senator (yesterday, item 5). I hesitate to do this – but I’m not the handsome guy at the front waving the flag in that picture with Helen Coonan (see below). I’m the plain bloke at the back, mostly obscured. Sigh.

Picture: Sydney Alumni Magazine (Spring 2006)

Rob Astbury writes from Thailand: I acknowledge Damian Clarke’s response to my contribution as regards the Thailand coup (yesterday, comments). On reflection Damian’s remarks are correct and understandable. My main concern, after learning of the coup and that martial law had been declared, was not knowing what was happening because of the black out of all foreign news channels. This did concern me and many other expatriates whom I spoke to at the time. I simply provided an accurate account of what I experienced when I first leaned of the coup up until I filed my report. Developments since have left no doubt in my mind the coup is the best thing that has happened to this country for a long time, an opinion shared overwhelmingly by most Thai’s and expatriates. With this in mind I was very disappointed and concerned last night to see both our Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer give very negative responses to what has occurred here. No civilised person endorses military coups in these times, but clearly both men were either not informed or not aware of the real situation that now exists and the excellent opportunity Thailand now has to thrive, especially in tourism. At the risk of being accused of being flippant, I would now feel safer in Bangkok, at any time, than I would in Kings Cross at two o’clock in the morning.

Chris Davis writes: I would like to agree with Ron Perrin re the coup in Thailand (yesterday, comments) – my first thought on hearing the news of this was about Neil Davis (no relation), and in a week when we have memorialised two Australian legends, there is a certain irony as Neil would definitely have qualified, although not on the TV celebrity score. Tim Bowden’s book is a great read.

Philip Nankin writes: Re. Exclusive Brethren memo (yesterday, item 2). Misha Ketchell wrote: “Members of the secretive religious sect the Exclusive Brethren believe computers are evil and are prohibited from using them, which presents a problem when it’s time to do the accounts”. Not only “a problem when it’s time to do the accounts”, but also creating the website. Clearly, the devil’s work.

David Farrell writes: Re. “Consumer watchdogs and conflicts at ASIC” (yesterday, item 23). Just like FICS, the grandly titled “Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman” is funded by the industry it’s supposed to regulate (ie: the banks) and is staffed with ex-bankers. I suppose it goes like this – first a general clamour for industry regulation usually caused by some stuff-up leaving the mug consumer out of pocket. An industry then reacts by proposing to regulate itself which (Australian) state and fed governments happily accept because it’s all too hard. Thus the state can pretend it is doing something about industry regulation when its actually doing absolutely nothing. Even the Americans and their dislike of Big Government have significantly better consumer protection because state and federal governments provide effective regulation.

Tim Langmead writes: In her article, “What’s the secret to the Noongar native title claim’s success?” (yesterday, item 10), Sophie Black quotes Greg Kelly, spokesperson for the Southwest Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, as saying of Justice Wilcox: “… he’s not some lefty greenie”. Interestingly, the biography of Justice Wilcox posted on the website of The Federal Court of Australia lists his achievements as including: Foundation President Environmental Law Association of New South Wales 1981; President Australian Conservation Foundation 1979 to 1984; Member Australian Advisory Committee on the Environment 1974 to 1976.

Bridget Griffen-Foley, author of Party Games: Australian Politicians and the Media from War to Dismissal, writes: Re. Tim Warner’s comments (20 September, comments). I was interested to read Tim Warner’s comment on my item about the allocation of television licences in 1956 (19 September, item 19). My shorthand describing the syndicate behind the General Television Corporation Ltd as consisting of “film and publishing interests”, and not acknowledging the involvement of Electronic Industries Ltd, was imprecise, for which I apologise. However, I did not claim that the “big boys” bound the smaller stations to servitude. What I did say was that the number of stations awarded in the smaller capital cities favoured the big boys. To elaborate: on 23 April 1957, leading Sydney and Melbourne television interests gathered at Fairfax headquarters to discuss the forthcoming allocation of Brisbane and Adelaide licences and, in the words of an observer, “carve up the empire”; they wanted two commercial licences to be awarded in each city so that the program-sharing arrangements of Channels Nine and Seven would not be upset. Although the Australian Broadcasting Control Board thought that the cities were only big enough to sustain one commercial licence each, two months before the 1958 election the PMG announced that the board should recommend the allocation of two licences in each city. Tim Warner remarks that Sir Arthur Warner’s sale of GTV-9 to Frank Packer in 1959 is a “whole better story”. I agree that this episode (in 1960), necessitated by restrictions on foreign ownership and involving eager manoeuvrings on the part of the Packer and Fairfax empires, is an important one (although it was not the one I was asked to write for Crikey). It is addressed at length in my two books on the Packers: as I point out, as early as 1958 Packer had articulated his desire for formal networking arrangements to be able to sell national time to advertisers and share programming costs; during licence hearings in 1959 Packer had declared that the “big money is tied up where the people are [in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane] … If you take all the rest of the country stations, they don’t amount to a hill of beans”. I largely agree with Mr Warner’s observations about the power of the “rural lobby” in broadcasting policy—this was touched on in my piece for Crikey, and is further explored in my forthcoming history of commercial radio in Australia.

Trevor Andrews writes: Re. Tim Warner. Right on, Tim. I was a design engineer at Radio Corporation at the time GTV started so I agree totally with your explanation. As well as my design job I was responsible for the radio gear on Winston Churchill and that’s where I met your grandfather and your father. This explanation of the facts about the origin of GTV Nine highlights the lack of good research by some writers and journalists that I have noticed over the last year or two. It appears that some of those who were born in the late 70s, 80s and later consider that anything that happened before they were born is not worth the effort to research!

Michael Pascoe writes: Some goose bashing a keyboard right on deadline yesterday (me) typed that Coles spends $2 million a year on freight (item 6) – they probably spend that on sticky tape. It should have been $2 million a day, hence the importance of every little efficiency. But you probably worked that out for yourselves.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.