2
   

The News We're Not Hearing

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 07:17 pm
I was figuratively yanking your chain.

But seriously, littlek's first post made it very clear what she had in mind for this thread.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 07:53 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I was figuratively yanking your chain.

But seriously, littlek's first post made it very clear what she had in mind for this thread.


A literal yank might be more fun, but then we would have a problem with the literal or figurative interpretation of "chain."

I must disagree, though, with your assertion that littlek's first post was clear (very or less so). It is not, at all, very clear that "Important but missing news items," (emphasis added) or "News we are not hearing" suggests that what she had in mind was the issue of important news stories being buried beneath more sensationalistic ones.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Some may have seen the rational underlying question, but others saw the irrational, and in any case the rational was (and here is the trend I have a problem with) presented in the framework of the irrational. Whether or not littlek was deliberately less precise than her actual question is almost immaterial. My experience with her (or is it he?) suggests that she was not and therefore I assume she fell prey to a disturbing trend in political discourse in this country.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 11:46 pm
Oh fer cryin out loud!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 05:56 am
littlek wrote:
Oh fer cryin out loud!


I'll second that!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:02 am
[quote="msolga"][quote="littlek"]Oh fer cryin out loud![/quote]

I'll second that![/quote]


I'll third it.


Is it loud enough yet?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:13 am
Weird. littlek starts a thread with the theme of trying to surface news that gets drowned out or seriously underreported to the point that most of us probably haven't heard about it.

Someone raises the comment that the theme of the thread is somehow faulty because the stories where reported somewhere, sometime by some reputable news agency.

????How does that affect the correct assertion that we are not hearing a lot of this potentially important news?

I mean, its even said to be a practice among the politicos in DC that they will sit on potentially damaging stories until Friday, to enhance the chance that fewer people will hear about it.

What part of this is hard to understand?

I think its an excellent idea to try to surface these stories.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:29 am
snood wrote:
I think its an excellent idea to try to surface these stories.


Hey, I'll second that, too! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:29 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I must disagree, though, with your assertion that littlek's first post was clear (very or less so). It is not, at all, very clear that "Important but missing news items," (emphasis added) or "News we are not hearing" suggests that what she had in mind was the issue of important news stories being buried beneath more sensationalistic ones.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Some may have seen the rational underlying question, but others saw the irrational, and in any case the rational was (and here is the trend I have a problem with) presented in the framework of the irrational. Whether or not littlek was deliberately less precise than her actual question is almost immaterial. My experience with her (or is it he?) suggests that she was not and therefore I assume she fell prey to a disturbing trend in political discourse in this country.


Sorry everybody, this is the last one from me, I promise.

Finn, her first post said:
littlek wrote:
For various reasons we miss a lot of news. Sometimes news bits are just under reported by the media. Sometimes they are overshadowed by juicier stories. And, at other times they are they just happen to fall on a holiday when no one is paying attention.

Report important, but missing news items here........


Who wants to spank Finn?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:31 am
And now for something completely different!

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8001836

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:31 am
I was spanked by a Finn once, but I'm pretty sure that it was of the female variety.

Small hands and all that.

Damned enjoyable though.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:39 am
Sharing violation! Too much information! 15 minutes - penalty box!

Smile
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:44 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
I was spanked by a Finn once, but I'm pretty sure that it was of the female variety.

Small hands and all that.

Damned enjoyable though.


Lord E! Glad to have you back. Bend over.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:50 am
<bookmark>
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 02:10 pm
Under this administration, the slums of the world, including the United States, will soon double.

October 9, 2006 at 09:28:04

Explosive World Slum Population Expected to Double

by Sherwood Ross

http://www.opednews.com



WORLD SLUM POPULATION TO DOUBLE

By Sherwood Ross

The world's exploding slum population is expected to double to two billion souls within a generation --- a festering sore that traces back to the British Empire as well as to the post-World War II policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, according to the just published "Planet of Slums"(Verso) by Mike Davis.

Bombay, with 10-million or more squatters and tenement dwellers, holds first place among slum-filled metropolitan areas, followed by Mexico City and Dhaka, with about 9-million each, then Lagos, Cairo, Karachi, Kinshasa-Brazzaville, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, and Delhi, each with six to eight million, Davis writes.

"The British were arguably the greatest slum-builders of all time. Their policies in Africa forced the local labor force to live in precarious shantytowns on the fringes of segregated and restricted cities," Davis says, and in India, Burma, and Ceylon "their refusal to improve sanitation or provide even the most minimal infrastructure to native neighborhoods ensured huge death tolls from early-20th century epidemics (plague, cholera, influenza) and created immense problems of urban squalor that were inherited by national elites after independence."

As partners-in-aggression with the U.S., the British are also responsible for the spread of disease in Iraq. "In Baghdad's giant slum of Sadr City, hepatitis and typhoid epidemics rage out of control," according to Davis.

"American bombing wrecked already overloaded water and sewerage infrastructures, and as a result raw sewage seeps into the household water supply," the author charges. "Two years after the U.S. invasion the system remains broken, and the naked eye can discern filaments of human excrement in the tap water."

According the Progressive magazine, published in Madison, Wis., 30,000 people in our world die each day due to poor sanitation.

Amitabh Pal, the magazine's managing editor, in part blames the free market restructuring imposed on developing nations by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. "These institutions require cuts in public spending on health and sanitation. By ushering in multinational corporations, their policies end up throwing peasants off the land and into the city. And they impoverish urban residents by slashing public sector employment and subsidies on food and fuel. The IMF and World Bank call this 'structural adjustment,'" Pal writes.

Author Davis notes that the 1980s, when IMF and World Bank used the leverage of debt to restructure Third World economies, were the years "when slums became an implacable future not just for poor rural migrants, but also for millions of traditional urbanites displaced or immiserated by the violence of adjustment."

In Brazil, slums in Rio and elsewhere controlled by gangs have become so dangerous police fear to enter them. Many governments have just given up attempting to fix their slums, Davis writes.

"The idea of an interventionist state strongly committed to social housing and job development seems either a hallucination or a bad joke, because governments long ago abdicated any serious effort to combat slums and redress urban marginality," the author charges.

Most nations, the U.S. included, have few holistic approaches to ending slum housing. There never seems to be enough education and training for the poor, or decent wages to enable them to rent affordable housing.

Slums continue to spread faster than society's ability to cope with them. One way to slow this trend might be to lower the birth rate. Tragically, the Bush Administration which is in a position to do this, "has launched a global war on condoms," preferring to urge abstinence instead, according to Planned Parenthood.

Domestically, there's $500-billion a year to spend on war but not enough money to house Americans in need, edcuate our children, provide decent mass transit, medical care, or college educations for the working poor.

Bush and his cronies, the same gang that turned Iraq into a charnel house, have scant interest in reducing the number of poor people either in this country or abroad. After all, the poor represent both an abundant supply of cheap labor and military recruits. #
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:20 pm
dlowan wrote:
[quote="msolga"][quote="littlek"]Oh fer cryin out loud!


I'll second that![/quote]


I'll third it.


Is it loud enough yet?[/size][/color][/quote]

No, but keep shouting. There's always the slim chance that I'll take something you write to heart if you scream loud enough. On second thought, save your figurative vocal chords, as I don't see there is much chance that I will take anything you write to heart --- or seriously, for that matter.

And then there's this alternative that is open to all: If you find my posts pedantic, silly, overbearing or ________ (you fill in the blank), ignore them. Don't gang respond and don't individually respond. I assure you that I won't have my feelings hurt.

If on the other hand you enjoy our little exchanges, then continue to respond.

It's all up to you.

Cool
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:32 pm
snood wrote:
Weird. littlek starts a thread with the theme of trying to surface news that gets drowned out or seriously underreported to the point that most of us probably haven't heard about it.

Someone raises the comment that the theme of the thread is somehow faulty because the stories where reported somewhere, sometime by some reputable news agency.

????How does that affect the correct assertion that we are not hearing a lot of this potentially important news?

I mean, its even said to be a practice among the politicos in DC that they will sit on potentially damaging stories until Friday, to enhance the chance that fewer people will hear about it.

What part of this is hard to understand?

I think its an excellent idea to try to surface these stories.


snood wrote:
What part of this is hard to understand?


I would ask you the same question as to the points I have made but it is obvious that they are all too hard for you to understand.

It is a fine idea to bring to light to stories that may be important but have found themselves relegated to page 11 or the given 10 seconds at the end of a broadcast.

It is not so fine to suggest that these stories are somehow being held from us, nor is it a fine idea to express what one means using words that mean something else.

Your collective exasperation with my posts is duly noted but not impressive. Your response to them has derailed littlek's noble idea far more effectively than anything I might have tried.

Thank you for caring though.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:35 pm
Finn:

Quote:
And then there's this alternative that is open to all: If you find my posts pedantic, silly, overbearing or ________ (you fill in the blank), ignore them. Don't gang respond and don't individually respond. I assure you that I won't have my feelings hurt.


Translation:
I know I'm being pedantic, silly, overbearing and a long list of other traits I just cannot help. Please don't point it out - it hurts my feelings. Just go away. Waaaaaahhhhhh!!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:38 pm
Finn is swamping the thread in much the same way as the news gets swamped by other more stupid and meaningless stories.

So, you feel that when you come onto a thread I started and start to act like a pain in the butt, that I should just ignore you? Fat chance buddy.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 06:43 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
Um, Squinney and the Bear are celebrating an anniversary. 18 years. There were no fireworks, but a chemical waste facilility just outside of Raleigh NC, their town, exploded. I thought that was significant.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Sorry, I'm just now seeing this. I hadn't connected the two other than that there's a sweet little Italian restaurant in Apex that we had wanted to check out that evening. Chose Melting Pot instead.

(And, Finn, THAT news has not been reported anywhere. )
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 08:30 pm
snood wrote:
Finn:

Quote:
And then there's this alternative that is open to all: If you find my posts pedantic, silly, overbearing or ________ (you fill in the blank), ignore them. Don't gang respond and don't individually respond. I assure you that I won't have my feelings hurt.


Translation:
I know I'm being pedantic, silly, overbearing and a long list of other traits I just cannot help. Please don't point it out - it hurts my feelings. Just go away. Waaaaaahhhhhh!!


I guess that alternative is not one in which you care to engage.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.
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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:44:01