Questions for the jelly-belly jihadis

Jerome Davies writes: Re. “As we chuckle at the ‘cali-fatties’, real questions remain unanswered” (yesterday). The idea that someome would write an article criticising tabloids for not respecting “serious questions requiring serious analysis” is just plain naive. That and some serious pushing of victimhood. Let’s put it in perspective: three men and a boy allegedly (though the mum is convinced) travel with the intent to spread Islamism through violence. To join a group that regularly commits murder and that is attempting genocide. The author has been given a platform for communicating with Crikey readers, and he uses it to condemn those who ridicule would-be murderers and to hope the would-bes come back and sue for defamation as victims of a joke gone wrong.

Yes, the weight of those young men have been made the subject of ridicule. But what do the brothers ridicule with their actions? What contempt do they show by sword, gun and strength of faith?

Is attacking the tabloids really the best use of the platform you have been given? Why not try asking some “serious questions requiring serious analysis”?

The tyranny of the eastern seaboard

Ann Gowers writes: Re. “Mark Scott gets some gratuitous advice — from duds” (yesterday). Hi, thank you for the article on funding cuts to the ABC. I can’t believe I’m going to side with Christopher Pyne, but based on your article it seems there’s a first for everything!

I do, however, object to the notion that places like South Australia (yes, I’m an Adelaidian) should have their news dished out from the eastern seaboard.

You may not notice it, wherever you are based, but when we watch a national news service, we wonder whether we have dropped off the map altogether. With the Murdoch monopoly alive and well here (we’ve reduced our newspaper purchases to only weekends now in protest) we look to the ABC news with local reports.

Not everything in the world has to revolve around Sydney and Melbourne.

All quiet on the tax front

Chris Derrick writes: Re. “China FTA a win for the govt, but not the economy” (Tuesday). The slight reference the ISDS provisions in all of these free trade agreements do the negotiators no credit and is an issue to be taken a long way forward. Andrew Robb is notoriously light and has form.

Can we be also be told whether these beautiful and “trust us” business and service industry opportunities likely to come out of China, Korea and Japan FTAs provide certainty about the recipients of taxation on projected income and profit streams? Will the taxation be remitted to/in the country in which the income is earned, which is a current catch-cry from Coalition opportunists?  Unsurprisingly, very little word from Robb and Hockey.