17
   

Things in the News that just PISS YOU OFF...

 
 
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:28 am
I was browsing the local section of my mail today, and stumbled onto Kansas's effort to be like the other states.

we're gonna ban a drink. because it's a little company. the big boys were "pressured to change their product".

http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/12/1585121/ngerous-punch.html

"Kansas liquor officials are taking a hard look at a strong drink that's been banned in three states. The drink, called Four Loko, mixes the caffeine of an energy drink and the alcohol content of wine in a 23.5-ounce can that sells for about $2 at local liquor stores."


when did the folks in charge quit using their brains, and resort to follow the leader...?

(the drink sounds noxious to me, but protecting people from their own stupidity is wrong, too)
 
Phoenix32890
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:35 am
@Rockhead,
I get three newspapers, the WSJ, and two local papers, one left leaning, and one right leaning. How this happened is another story, which I won't bore you with.

Anyhow, since I began reading the two local papers, I have become acutely aware of the differences in how reporters (not commentators, REPORTERS) slant the same story. I remember once reading an essay about how one can slant something simply by the use of different adjectives, (I'm slender, you're thin, he's skinny).

That really pisses me off, and I have decided that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the truth, especially with regards to political stories.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:47 am
@Rockhead,


what's wrong with the beer we got, it drank petty good
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 12:02 pm
@Rockhead,
I don't think this quite falls under the category of protecting people from their own stupidity. I think everyone assumes if you buy a beer like product at a local liquor store that it won't induce a heart attack. I don't think it should be banned, but it should carry appropriate labeling so that people are aware of the risks. If people are aware, then it is their own stupidity.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 12:07 pm
@engineer,
if it is an unsafe mixture, ban the mixture...

and yes, in the absence of that, labeling is a good idea. (but it might surprise you how many adults I know that cannot read well enough to decipher a warning label)

by banning one company's product, it only opens the door for more foolishness. and lawsuits...
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 12:15 pm
notice that the sales have picked up as the bans went into effect.

I think they may have even hoped for this kind of controversy...
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 12:34 pm
then they better stop people from drinking rum and coke

or red bull shots with vodka
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:19 pm
@shewolfnm,
what does red bull taste like?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:35 pm
@chai2,
Never tasted it.

I get Po'd at the news from the business and economic dailies and on TV. There can be some good financial news and then there must be the obligatory lead lining that must end all business news. I think we can figure out the trends without help.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:36 pm
I think that they should add powdered depleted uranium to Four Loko and all other liquor products plus all milk consumed in the USA; soy and rice milk for those who are lactose intolerant.

That way all citizens could play a part in helping to get rid of waste uranium. Really, why should the Iraqis and Afghans have all the fun?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:46 pm
@chai2,
I can't recall the taste, but it left my mouth feeling vaguely unclean.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:49 pm
@Phoenix32890,
yeah, spam that actual passengers report they never ate but reporters made headlines out of.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 01:54 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I think we can figure out the trends without help.


That doesn't seem to be the case at all, Farmer. Y'all are extremely proficient at averting your eyes from uncomfortable truths, not to mention, world class at making excuses for them.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 03:39 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

(the drink sounds noxious to me, but protecting people from their own stupidity is wrong, too)
The government does that all the time. Drugs, for example. I dont like it either but I must admit a lot of idiots are saved by those restrictions.

It pisses me off then I heard about religion in the news, since I dont like religion. Unless the news report that a or all religion lost followers, that is.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 06:16 pm
Local News: This week they arrested the 26 year old mother of a 10 day old baby girl here who was killed when the meth-addict mom put the baby in the washing machine along with the laundry and let it run. Turns out they can only charge her with second degree manslaughter, which is only a four-year prison sentence (out in two), because a murder charge requires "intent."

REALLY pisses me off.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 06:39 pm
@Eva,
Old but highly apropos news:

[emphasis is mine]

Quote:
November 1, 1999

Albright's Tiny Coffins

Back in 1996, when the number of Iraqi children killed off by sanctions stood at around half a million, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made her infamous declaration to Lesley Stahl on CBS that "we think the price is worth it". Given such pride in mass murder at the top, it comes as little surprise to learn that the State Department views the truth about the vicious sanctions policy with the same insouciance as their boss regards the lives of Iraqi children, now dying at the rate of four thousand a month.

"Saddam Hussein's Iraq", released by the State Department on September 13, is an effort to persuade an increasingly disgusted world that any and all human misery in Iraq is the sole fault and responsibility of the Beast of Baghdad. The brazen tone of this sorry piece of propaganda can be assessed from the opening summary: "The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis." An examination of how the sanctions system actually works tells a very different story.

Key to US self-justification is the so-called "oil for food" program under which Iraq is allowed to sell oil. The precise fashion in which the US manipulates this program is never set forth in its malign specifics. CounterPunch readers should know the following:

Proceeds from such oil sales are banked in New York (at the Banque National de Paris). Thirty-four percent is skimmed off for disbursement to outside parties with claims on Iraq, such as the Kuwaitis, as well as to meet the costs of the UN effort in Iraq. A further thirteen percent goes to meet the needs of the Kurdish autonomous area in the north.

Iraqi government agencies, meanwhile, under consultation with the UN mission resident in Baghdad, draw up a list of items they wish to buy. This list can include food, medicine, medical equipment, infrastructure equipment to repair water and sanitation etc., as well as equipment for Iraq's oil industry. UN hq in New York reviews the list, approving or disapproving specific items. Then the Iraqis order the desired goods from suppliers of their choice.

Now comes the most crucial step in the process. Once the Iraqis have actually placed an order, the contract goes for review to the 661 Committee. This is made up of representatives of the fifteen members of the Security Council and is named for Security Council Resolution 661, which originally mandated the sanctions, on August 6 1990. The Committee has the power to approve or disapprove (although the preferred euphemism is to put "on hold") any of the contracts. Approved contracts are then filled by the supplier and shipped to Iraq, where they are inspected on arrival by an agency called Cotecna. When this agency certifies the goods have arrived, the supplier is paid from the oil cash in the bank in New York.
"Since the start of the oil-for-food program", the State Department report declares, "78.1 percent [of the contracts submitted for review to the 661 Committee] have been approved". That means that 21.9 percent of the contracts are denied. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of the vetoes are imposed by the US and Britain. "The 448 contracts on hold as of August 1999", the State Department report explains, "include items that can be used to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons".

No one wants Saddam Hussein to make chemical or nuclear weapons, but it has been abundantly clear since the end of the Gulf War that the US and its British toadies regard the issue of Iraq's mass destruction weapons principally as a means of ensuring that sanctions remain in place forever. For example, a friend of CounterPunch fully conversant in an official capacity with the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection effort in Iraq-the nuclear equivalent of UNSCOM-reports that the IAEA has been prepared for at least two years to declare the Iraqi nuclear program dead but has been successfully pressured not to do so by the US.

UN officials working in Baghdad agree that the root cause of child mortality and other health problems is no longer simply lack of food and medicine but the lack of clean water (freely available in all parts of the country prior to the Gulf War) and of electrical power, which is now running at 30 percent of the pre-bombing level, with consequences for hospitals and water-pumping systems that Counter-Punch readers may all too readily imagine. Of the 21.9 percent of contracts vetoed by the 66l Committee, a high proportion are integral to the efforts to repair the water and sewage systems. The Iraqis have submitted contracts worth $236 million in this area, of which $54 millions worth-roughly one quarter of the total value-have been disapproved. "Basically, anything with chemicals or even pumps is liable to get thrown out", one UN official tells CounterPunch. The same trend is apparent in the power supply sector, where around 25 percent of the contracts are on hold-$138 million worth out of $589 million submitted.

The proportions of approved/disapproved contracts do not tell the full story. UN officials refer to the "complementarity issue", meaning that items approved for purchase may be useless without other items that have been disapproved. For example, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has ordered $25 millions worth of dentist chairs, said order being approved by the 66l Committee-except for the compressors, without which the chairs are useless and consequently gathering dust in a Baghdad warehouse.

Albright's minions make great hay out of the vast quantities of medical supplies (including the dentist chairs) sitting in Baghdad warehouses, implying that Sad-dam is so cruelly indifferent to the suffering of his subjects that he prefers to let them die while stockpiled medicine goes undistributed. "They don't have forklifts," counters one U.N. official involved with the program. "They don't have trucks, they don't have the computers for inventory control, they don't have communications. Medicines and other supplies are not efficiently ordered or distributed. They have dragged their feet on ordering nutritional supplements for mothers and infants, but it's not willful. There is bureaucratic inefficiency, but you have to remember that this is a country where the best and the brightest have been leaving for the past nine years. The civil servants that remain are earning between $2.50 and $10 a month."

The breakdown of the Iraqi communications system-it can take two days to get a phone call through to Basra from Baghdad-is obviously a fundamental impediment to the health system. The Iraqis have ordered just under $90 million worth of telecommunications equipment, all of which is "on hold"-i.e., vetoed. The excuse of course is that Saddam could use the system to order troops about, notwithstanding the fact that the Iraqi security services have the use of their own cell-phone system, smuggled in last year from China.

In further efforts to lay all responsibility for the misery of ordinary Iraqis at the feet of Saddam alone, the State Department report alleges that "Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished". Leaving aside the copiously documented fact that the people of Iraq ARE malnourished, UN officials hotly dispute the notion that food delivered under the oil-for-food program has been diverted to overseas markets. "There is absolutely no evidence for that", says one. "On the other hand, the Iraqis are very rigorous in rejecting sub-standard shipments. You find a lot of stuff such as baby milk, sent from neighboring Arab countries as aid, that in some cases has passed its expiration date when it arrives so they ship it out again."

The Iraqis do not have this recourse for goods shipped under the UN program. Once Cotecna certifies the goods have arrived, whatever their condition, the suppliers get paid. The UN office in Baghdad supported a reasonable proposal to the Security Council that the Iraqis be allowed to withold ten percent of the payment until they have had a chance to inspect the goods. The proposal drew a 661 Committee veto, though not, for once, from the Anglo-Americans but from the French and the Russians, who are both currently doing well out of the Iraq trade.

Seeking out evidence of Saddam's depredations against his own people should be an easy task, but the State Department report opts for fiction over fact when possible. The report featured an aerial reconnaissance picture of "destruction by Iraqi forces of civilian homes in the citadel in Kirkuk". According to Mouayad Saeed al-Damerji, an internationally respected Iraqi archeologist, the picture shows what is in fact an archeological dig at the 4,600-year old citadel, in progress since 1985.

There appears little prospect of change in this miserable situation. Last year, Denis Halliday, the UN coordinator for humanitarian relief in Iraq, quit in protest over a policy that causes "four to five thousand children to die unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions". White House officials expressed their delight that this irksome voice of moral outrage had been removed from the scene, but Hans von Sponek, Halliday's successor, is showing signs of treading the same path, publicly appealing for the end of sanctions.

Friends say he is on the verge of quitting. For Albright that will be no less acceptable a price than the thousands of little coffins that will serve as her memorial. CP

http://www.counterpunch.org/tinycoffins.html
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 07:15 pm
Sorry to bring this particular issue up. It's hardly representative of something that would piss anyone off. It can best be described as only mildly annoying.

Quote:

Published on Sunday, September 17, 2000 in the Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Allies Deliberately Poisoned Iraq Public Water Supply In Gulf War
by Felicity Arbuthnot

The US-led allied forces deliberately destroyed Iraq's water supply during the Gulf War - flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention and causing thousands of civilian deaths.

Since the war ended in 1991 the allied nations have made sure than any attempts to make contaminated water safe have been thwarted.

A respected American professor now intends to convene expert hearings in a bid to pursue criminal indictments under international law against those responsible.

Professor Thomas J Nagy, Professor of Expert Systems at George Washington University with a doctoral fellowship in public health, told the Sunday Herald: "Those who saw nothing wrong in producing [this plan], those who ordered its production and those who knew about it and have remained silent for 10 years would seem to be in violation of Federal Statute and perhaps have even conspired to commit genocide."

Professor Nagy obtained a minutely detailed seven-page document prepared by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, issued the day after the war started, entitled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities and circulated to all major allied Commands.

It states that Iraq had gone to considerable trouble to provide a supply of pure water to its population. It had to depend on importing specialised equipment and purification chemicals, since water is "heavily mineralised and frequently brackish".

The report stated: "Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidents, if not epidemics, of disease and certain pure-water dependent industries becoming incapacitated�"

The report concludes: "Full degradation of the water treatment system probably will take at least another six months."

During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq.

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population" and includes foodstuffs, livestock and "drinking water supplies and irrigation works".

The results of the allied bombing campaign were obvious when Dr David Levenson visited Iraq immediately after the Gulf War, on behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

He said: "For many weeks people in Baghdad - without television, radio, or newspapers to warn them - brought their drinking water from the Tigris, in buckets.

"Dehydrated from nausea and diarrhoea, craving liquids, they drank more of the water that made them sick in the first place."

Water-borne diseases in Iraq today are both endemic and epidemic. They include typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and polio (which had previously been eradicated), along with a litany of others.

A child with dysentery in 1990 had a one in 600 chance of dying - in 1999 it was one in 50.

The then US Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War. Dr Levenson estimates many thousands died from polluted water.

Chlorine and essential equipment parts needed to repair and clear the water system have been banned from entering the country under the UN "hold"system.

Ohio Democrat Representative Tony Hall has written to American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, saying he shares concerns expressed by Unicef about the "profound effects the deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on children's health". Diarrhoeal diseases he says are of "epidemic proportions" and are "the prime killer of children under five".

"Holds on contracts for water and sanitation are a prime reason for the increase in sickness and death." Of 18 contracts, wrote Hall, all but one on hold were placed by the government in the US.

Contracts were for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers and other water industry related items.

"If water remains undrinkable, diseases will continue and mortality rates will rise," said the Iraqi trade minister Muhammed Mahdi Salah. The country's health ministry said that more than 10,000 people died in July of embargo-related causes - 7457 were children, with diarrhoeal diseases one of the prime conditions.

In July 1989, the figure was 378. Unicef does not dispute the figures.

The problem will not be helped by plans for the giant Ilisu Dam project (to which the British government is to give £200 million in export credit guarantees), which will give Turkey entire control of the water flow to Iraq and Syria.

Constructors Balfour Beatty write in their environmental impact report, that for the three years of construction, water flow to Iraq will be reduced by 40%. Iraq has also suffered a three year drought, with the Tigris the lowest in living memory.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01.htm
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 10:53 am
@Eva,
Eva wrote:

Local News: This week they arrested the 26 year old mother of a 10 day old baby girl here who was killed when the meth-addict mom put the baby in the washing machine along with the laundry and let it run. Turns out they can only charge her with second degree manslaughter, which is only a four-year prison sentence (out in two), because a murder charge requires "intent."

REALLY pisses me off.
I dont know the details, but if it was a meth-induced accident, I dont think the sentence is insuficient. She is probaly suffering greatly due to having killed her daughter due to her meth addiction, and that will likely trigger a change in her behavior.

Then again, I dont know the details.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2010 11:06 am
Here's another one...

something about this just doesn't pass the smell test.

"The two applicants seeking to become a lottery gaming facility manager in the South Central Gaming Zone have now paid their “privilege fees” to the state to keep their applications in the running."

(I'm not going to link the story, because the site deals pop-ups and spam.)

why does state government get to act like the mob...?
manored
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2010 03:12 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

why does state government get to act like the mob...?
Then there are no real gangsters around to rob you, the government fills in that gap =)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Things in the News that just PISS YOU OFF...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2024 at 07:39:39