The Wall Street Journal

Neville Gibson on the government’s wonky Lochinver decision

Neville Gibson at the NBR comments on the government’s failure to protect private property rights and make decisions for political not business reasons.

At some time in the life of a government a single decision can be seen in retrospect as a turning point that may seal its historic reputation.

One of those occurred yesterday when the cabinet endorsed the decision of two government ministers to overturn fundamental property rights and signal the political interests of the state were supreme.

The blocking of the Lochinver Station sale to a Chinese-owned company, Pure 100 Farm, will cast a long shadow over future foreign investment proposals.

The story has already been featured prominently in the Wall Street Journal (?NZ blocks big Chinese land deal?), where readers won?t be too concerned about the domestic political niceties.

All they will see is that land cannot easily be bought in New Zealand. Read more »

Muslims trying to reform Islam from within are silenced by the left

After reading this I have had to revise my opinion on followers of Islam. Clearly there are those who want to reform it and ironically it is the West and the left who are preventing them from doing so. I still do not support an ideology dreamed up by a Pedophile but anyone that wants to try to drag it kicking and screaming out of the dark ages must have my support. A shark is still a shark and I don’t want to get into the water with it but anyone who wants to try to put a muzzle on it or try to teach it to be a vegetarian has my respect.

Why is criticism of Islam forbidden?

There is apparently no amount of mass murder, no number of innocents tortured or women raped, no amount of female degradation, no number of people enslaved, no number of Christians expelled from or murdered in the Middle East, no amount of Nazi-like Jew-hatred in its societies, no number of beheadings or even crucifixions, and no amount of terror that allows criticism of Islam.

And why is this?

A major Egyptian writer, Aly Salem, who has written 22 plays and 15 books, gave the answer in the Wall Street Journal this week.

His answer: The left.

?Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. Yet our voices are smothered in the West by Islamist apologists and their well-meaning but unwitting allies on the left. For instance, if you try to draw attention to the stark correlation between the rise of Islamic religiosity and regressive attitudes toward women, you?re labeled an Islamophobe.

?In America, other contemporary ideologies are routinely and openly debated in classrooms, newspapers, on talk shows and in living rooms. But Americans make an exception for Islamism. Criticism of the religion ? even in abstraction ? is conflated with bigotry toward Muslims. There is no public discourse, much less an ideological response, to Islamism, in academia or on Capitol Hill. ?

?My own experience as a Muslim in New York bears this out. Socially progressive, self-proclaimed liberals, who would denounce even the slightest injustice committed against women or minorities in America, are appalled when I express a similar criticism about my own community. ?

?This is delusional thinking. Even as the world witnesses the barbarity of beheadings, habitual stoning and severe subjugation of women and minorities in the Muslim world, politicians and academics lecture that Islam is a ?religion of peace.? ?

Still from the film, The Stoning of Soraya, which was based on a true story.

Still from the film, The Stoning of Soraya, which was based on a true story.

 

Coincidentally, on the same day this article appeared, I had an hour-long dialogue on my radio show with another Muslim who made the identical point: that the left prevents honest discussion of Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is not only a Muslim, but a believing and practicing one. Despite fatwas issued calling for his death, this courageous Muslim continues to work to fundamentally transform his religion. (It is worth recalling President Barack Obama?s famous pledge right before the 2008 election to ?fundamentally transform the United States of America.? If a Muslim wishes to fundamentally transform Islam, he is labeled an ?Islamophobe,? but if an American wishes to fundamentally transform America, he is not considered an America-phobe; he is merely another Democrat.)

Jasser is a medical doctor who practices in Arizona. He is a Navy veteran who reminds people that America embodies better values than any Muslim country. He wants Muslims and Islam to adopt American political, social and moral values. He wants, in a nutshell, a Muslim Reformation.

Yet, aside from Fox News and talk radio, both of them conservative media, one rarely encounters Jasser on national radio or television. Instead the mainstream ? that is, liberal ? media feature Muslim spokesmen from organizations such as CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), apologists for Islam and Islamists.

None of this is about bigotry against Muslims. There are hundreds of millions of non-Islamist Muslims (an Islamist is a Muslim who seeks to impose Shariah on others), including many ?cultural? or secular Muslims. And individual Muslims are risking their lives every day to provide the intelligence needed to forestall terror attacks in America and elsewhere.

-Eliyokim Cohen

 

 

Do disclaimers on native advertising work?

As the NZ Herald and Fairfax move to extend their already considerable investment in native advertising, the advertising made to look like journalism, there is growing evidence that their disclaimers don’t work.

The disclaimers are what news executives like Tim Murphy and Shayne Currie use to justify their extension of native advertising.

While publishers are producing and running sponsored?content in greater numbers, one thing they haven?t figured out?is how to effectively label their output. Some publishers are particularly overt about it, while others are content with making readers work a little bit harder. And no one?s quite sure which approach works best.

The real challenge is that a lot of those disclosures may not be all that effective. A new study from?analytics platform?Nudge found that the most?common?native ad disclosures are actually the least effective at helping readers identify their content as ads. Sponsored content using disclosure techniques?like the home page buyout (used, for example, by The Wall Street Journal) and the persistent disclosure banner (used by Slate) were only identified as ads by readers 29 percent of the time.

In contrast, Nudge found that over half of the 100 people it polled were able to to identify ads that featured disclosures within the content itself. In-content disclosures are rare?compared to the other techniques, though.

Nudge?s?conclusion: Some publishers?may be going out of their way to label?sponsored content, but readers are barely noticing them, thanks to banner blindness and small labeling. Ben Young, CEO of Nudge,?said that this is more than publishers?staying honest in the eyes of the FTC. Bad disclosure can actually hurt brands, too. ?Effective disclosures mean effective brand recall,? he said.

[…] ?? Read more »

Green taliban lying over exploration in the Great South Basin

drillship

Shell drill ship Noble Discoverer

On?Newstalk ZB the other morning, Greenpeace Green Taliban hypocrite, Steve Abel, stuck his nose into?Shell?going after gas in the Great South Basin.? They hate anyone with a real job or any ambition aside from sucking on the tit of limp-wristed hippies and smelly Green Party members.

You have to give it to the Green Taliban, they are so bent and twisted that it’s amazing they can walk at all.??ZB quotes this idiot as saying:

“It’s in extreme depths and very inhospitable waters, and it risks some of our most abundant fisheries as wildlife.

WTF?fisheries.??So Greenpeace and RFC Gareth Hughes who wants to chuck fishermen out of work to save some Orca entrees, now says fishing is a reason why we ought not to be looking for oil.

While the MSM don?t have the stones to take on these eco-Nazis, we do.? You may recall that in?September 2012, Greenpeace spoofed Sanford?s sustainable fishing advert.

It?ll make your blood boil.? Read more »