War on Verbs and Nouns
At this time I believe we should be trying to get our beliefs in front of the public in order to prime them in preparation for the federal election. As such I have sent a letter to the editor of ‘The Australian’ on the Haneef matter, concentrating on the rights aspects of the case.
I would encourage all of those who can to follow suit on this sort of activity to do so, and a few press releases by ‘Spokesmen’ for the LDP wouldn’t go astray at this time.
It is probably a good time to brush up our skills on this and your comments and suggestions for improvements in this effort will help.Those with less experience should go for ‘low hanging fruit’ type subjects, – the type of material easily accepted by the public, and if in any doubt about content should contact us with inquiries.
Local papers are a good target as they are widely read within the local community and the letters section is always popular.
This is advice from the editor, “If you haven’t already done so,please include a contact telephone number and home address. Letters sent as an attachment cannot be processed and will need to be sent in the body of the email”.
In the old days the heading ‘Letters to the Editor’ was also required, however I do not know if this is still the case.If anyone wishes to rip this off and use it in another paper they are welcome to do it, but it might be wise to see what our gurus think of it first.
Anyway, here it is, lets see what we can do: -
Letters to the Editor.
RHETORICAL WARS
From Jim Fryar
(Home address)
(Phone number)
In reference to the article: “Blunders leave agencies exposed” from Patrick Walters, July 28, 2007,I find the following disturbing.
“The AFP has been under intense political pressure to secure successful outcomes in counter-terrorism cases.”
This is not just a matter, which should concern ‘civil’ libertarians, or mainstream libertarians, but also any person who values our freedoms.
Without any doubt the term ‘successful outcome’ relates to obtaining a conviction, which is only a successful outcome if the subject of the investigation has committed a crime.Justice should be separated from the political need for ‘Positive or successful outcomes’, and the prevailing of truth and justice should be recognized as the only successful outcome.
The Haneef case certainly had enough circumstantial evidence about it to warrant an investigation, however it is now apparent that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.The failure to obtain enough evidence to charge him is only relevant if it is subsequently proven that such evidence existed and was not discovered. Any ongoing investigations should uncover whether this is the case.
The public and the media have to become more circumspect about supporting the current fad of politicians of declaring ‘war’ on verbs and nouns, and demanding more power to the authorities and less security from injustice for the public, in order to ‘fight’ those ‘wars’.
Terrorists are common criminals and should be dealt with as criminals; treating them any other way gives them political credibility.
Apart from the ‘war on terror’, other great rhetorical ‘wars’ of the last decade or so, have been on poverty, child abuse, domestic violence, drugs, guns, and the list goes on.The common threads to these wars have generally been, lack of success, greatly increased power to the state, massive expenditure, and the erosion of rights to the population.
Jim Fryar,
Gympie.
10 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Bravo Jim, well saiid.
Great idea for us to focus on putting forward libertarian ideas.
Thanks Justin;
What I am hoping for is a lot of good suggestions for using the media, the how to, the when to, the rules for getting published etc.
We should sort out a way for inexperienced guys with something worthwhile to say to get their work checked and approved before publication, to avoid embarrassment, possibly a separate ‘discussion’ area.
With the old PP we had a rule that certain of us who knew our stuff acted independently, others had their work checked by one of us if it referred to the PP.
I thought that letter was a good one. I especially like your point about how treating terrorists differently gives them political credibility.
I like the idea of having a way for people to proof read prospective letters to editors on this blog.
I think it’s a good idea for ALS bloggers to combine efforts by sending in libertarian letters to their local papers.
I think this is something I can do because I think I’m one of the few regulars on this site from South Australia. So I could send letters to the Advertiser or other Adelaide only publications.
I’ve tried sending in a few letters to the editor (all to the Advertiser) but most were ignored. I did manage to have one printed about property rights infringments of anti-smoking laws.
But maybe I could start up again, maybe write one 10 min letter every week voicing a libertarian perspective on a current media story.
So firstly, it would be nice to be able to get some bloggers to proof read any letters.
But maybe it would be worthwhile taking things further than this. ie: Perhaps the ALS could give permission for some level of plagarism where people could use other’s posts/comments as part of their letter? Maybe the ALS could even have a recommended topic to focus on? Also, it might be worth signing the letter as being representative of the Australian libertarian society, or the LDP. Do you have any thoughts or recommendations Jim/David and others?
I suspect letters to the editor are more likely to get printed if they are from a club or society. But if this approach didn’t work, then I could just sign my name.
In regards to getting letters to the editor printed: I think you have to get in early. It’s best to send the letter off in the morning if you want it printed the next day. And, the newspapers specify their “hot” topic for discussion, so it’s best to time the letters to coincide with the newspaper’s discussion times.
Several people have recently been talking about writing letters to the editor as a means of giving the LDP a plug. It’s a good idea as the party is now very close to federal registration.
The general rule is, when the author is claiming to represent the party it must be approved by someone on the National Executive. That’s not intended to discourage anyone from writing; it’s just a safety mechanism to protect the party.
People writing in their own capacity, even if they mention the LDP, require no prior approval.
Jim, you could email The Australian. The paper gives an email address, “letters@theaustralian.com.au”. I think they favour short comments for the emails, though.
Nicholas;
Thats the one I used. As Haneef was the hot topic of the day it looks like I am rejected again,- BUGGER.
I like the plagiarism idea, in the PP before the email age we used to have a monthly packet of all our press clippings, press releases, etc and were invited to plagiarize freely from it.
Jim, don’t be discouraged. Your letter was good and you will get published. Just keep lobbing the balls over the net. Remember to keep within their word limit too.
I think it’s a great idea for libertarians to focus and collaborate more with letters to the editor. It’s one of the main ways that our ideas can get out there. Our ideas don’t even need to be original, because greater minds than ours have already worked out an entire and cogent philosophy, that is both practical and moral. Our job is just to put the plain sense of it in front of the people. They are crying out for this alternative to the business-as-usual of the major parties.
‘We should sort out a way for inexperienced guys with something worthwhile to say to get their work checked and approved before publication, to avoid embarrassment, possibly a separate ‘discussion’ area.’
Great idea.
I would be happy to help if anyone wants it.
Another idea is to have a central repository of links, so that anyone writing a letter can dip into it and BCC the letter to all. Mine are:
letters@theaustralian.com.au
edletters@afr.com.au
letters@smh.com.au
letters.theland@ruralpress.com.au
letters@dailytelegraph.com.au
I have made a hobby of sending letters to the editor over the past few years, and offer the following suggestions:
- it’s like they say about exercise: you only have to take it regularly, not seriously; Don’t worry about whether they get published: just keep doing regularly it and you will
- make sure you stay within their word limit: they can’t be bothered re-working it
- local papers are good; they also have higher word limits
- send each letter to your local MP as well.
- I concentrate on the Daily Telegraph, because it has the largest readership of any paper in Sydney, and has the most swinging voter readership as well. The Telegraph has also been more receptive to blatantly libertarian posts than others.
- A good letter shows how someone is contradicting themselves.
For example, I believe this’un got in the Daily Telegraph, but haven’t checked yet:
‘The recent Labor party summit on housing affordability displays the blind faith in big government, and economic ignorance that is the main cause of the problem they are trying to fix. Government currently confiscates, by direct and indirect taxes, over 40 percent of what people in this country produce every day. But it gets worse. This money is then poured down government departments whose output is itself to restrict individual liberties. This means that even more of people’s money and time must be spent on complying with a thousand laws on everything from what they can eat and drink, to what voluntary relations with other people they are permitted to enter into, to more and more being registered and licensed like a dog to do things that until recently were the right of every human being in a free society. Has it ever occurred to the Labor party that the activities of politicians for the last hundred years in promoting social engineering by big government are the single biggest cause of the problems of unaffordability they are trying to redress? And their solution? More government! When will we learn that government cannot conjure benefits out of thin air, and that politicians’ pretences to do so are false? The only way politicians can help the housing or groceries market to be more affordable is by greatly reducing their own bad habits of endlessly taxing and spending, and illegalising Australia’s freedoms.’
Great Justin;
This is just the sort of thing I was looking for.
I have had a bit of experience in this in the past and I still got ideas from it.
Just to distract things a bit:
The LDP has a new name. Go to the official LDP blog and find out all about it.
http://ldpblog.wordpress.com/
I’ve already come up with a nickname for the L&D party- the LaDs, or Laddies!!! Do I get a prize?