In large parts of the western world Islam is portrayed as a rather violent religion, with all that talk about Jihad that originates from a vocal minority of extremists.
Extremists like the Wahhabi promoting Saudi Arabian government?
Oh yes. Does this happen to EVERYONE from New Mexico? I can't tell you how many stories my family has about idiots who don't know that New Mexico is NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
I thought the same thing - when we bought our 4MP Canon G2, I thought we'd print very few photos. Lo and behold, my wife had a different idea. We print almost every good photo. Why?
Scrapbooking, of course!
But with a new baby and 0.19USD per photo, it's definitely worth it.
Yes, but what percentage of the public can do that? 0.5% maybe? NBC just wants to make it hard for the great majority. I doubt they really care if a few geeks "cheat" on them.
It's not NBC that's enforcing it. The IOC will only allow broadcasters to simulcast online if they put these restrictions in place. NBC and others probably required this as a part of their contract with the IOC.
The olympics IMHO has a PR problem. They are failing to reach younger folks who would normally be the ones to care about this
Sorry for the double post here - They have a PR problem because they have a terrible history of corruption (a la the UN) which stems partly from the HUGE broadcast contracts. It's really a nasty cycle.
"Fanny" means buttocks in American English and it is a very benign word. I assumed you would know that because your spelling is American, not Commonwealth. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would never use such an objectionable word.
You do fundamentally misunderstand us. You said that America cannot every be credited with benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy. You said that, not I. And I called you on it. Such a sweeping statement is ridiculous on its face, so you don't want me to bring it up? Defend your statement. Address my questions about the Marshall plan and American policy in Europe during the cold war. Don't bring up Afghanistan as a straw man to draw attentiona way from the Marshall Plan. Tell me how the Marshall Plan was not an example of benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy or concede that America has actually done something right in her history.
Regarding Afghanistan and the Marshall Plan - America is still in Afghanistan. I'm sorry our performance there is not satisfactory to you, but do you seriously think the Afghans are worse off than they were under the Taliban? Hamid Karzai isn't complaining.
I ask you again. If you want me to believe you, you should answer: What American interest was served in East Timor, Somalia, or Kosovo? Insulting me by calling me an ignorant American doesn't answer that question.
Or are you incensed because I continue to argue? Has no one dared stand up to your irresponsible assertions before? I think your "ignorant American" stereotype has run into a counter-example and it enfuriates you.
I didn't call you a Marxist to insult you, but to describe your seemingly intractable attitude.
It seems to me that you harbor lots of anger at America. You didn't appreciate my reasoned arguments so you called them propaganda. You should address the points I bring up instead of calling names.
America is interested in only its own sovreignty - and that is the issue. I concede that point. We are not particularly interested in so-called "international law" because there is no true international rule of law. Rule of law in the U.N. is whatever is in the best interests of the constituent countries. No, we will not surrender our sovreignty to Cameroon, Mexico, China, France, Germany, Algeria, et. al. Our government answers to us, not to them. How could you expect us to surrender sovreignty to an entity which allows Algeria to head its human rights commission? The U.N is impotent, corrupt, and worthless. We will not corrupt ourselves by kowtowing to it.
We are coming to this discussion from such different arguments that I doubt we can have a productive discussion. You seem to favor internationlism, even impotent internationalism. You seem to come from a Marxist worldview, and you think that America has never done anything good or even benign.
Regarding the American ideal: I'm puzzled that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the American ideal. Have you not studied here? Don't you know us? Your English is so good it seems you must have. If you knew us, you'd realize that Americans are not primarily motivated by currency markets and covering our dollar-costs. That is a Soviet-fed Marxist fantasy. We do have some Americans that share your view in America, but they are primarily self-loathing Marxist-Stalinists like the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks.
Regarding America's economic motivations: Your assertion that America came out even or ahead economically from the Second World War is untenable. Let's just start with the $13 billion in 1949 dollars spent on the Marshall plan. (Equivalent of $75 billion of today's dollars) What about the $49 billion in lend-lease funds, much of which is still outstanding from Russia? You do realize that we were in the greatest economic depression of our history when we began to release that $49 billion in 1941 dollars. That was not an economic decision - it was a moral one.
Regarding my assertion that you are anti-American: Your arguments give lie to your assertion that you are not anti-American. You have to be anti-American to say that America has never shown benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy. What American interest was served in East Timor, Somalia, or Kosovo? For that matter, what American interest was served pulling your fannies out of the fire twice in the last century? A majority of Americans opposed war until Japan pulled us into that war, you know.
Are you honestly saying that Americans shouldn't have defended Western Europe from Soviet Imperialism? REALLY? Do you suppose you'd have the freedom to read and post on Slashdot today in the "Democratic People's Republic of Germany?" You think the Soviets would have stopped their invasion at Berlin of their own accord after Germany had killed seven and a half million Soviets?
Regarding the League of Nations: It failed because it was a tool of British Empire, not a legitimate international body. Nobody was very excited about it. The only way it could have survived would have been with America's leadership. America withdrew because the LoN was poorly executed and tried to limit American sovreignty. Now the UN is going the same direction.
Regarding internationalism and war-crimes trials: You propose that war criminals, Iraqis and Americans, should face international courts. How do you propose to try them without invading? Also, as an American I am not going to take my chances with someone like you as judge. You've already condemned me just for being an American. We reserve the right to try our own criminals.
Regarding Australia: My wife grew up there, so I know a little. Let me know when they complain.
Regarding human rights: There is no reason that any American should go hungry. We have aid to families with dependent children (food stamps), shelters, and enormous domestic food-aid programs. Those that endure hunger have only their parents or themselves to blame because they fail to apply for government aid or they spend their aid money on alchohol. We try hard to make sure everyone has enough to eat. We advertise our welfare programs on TV. Don't give me that 13% of Americans go hungry crap. That is total propaganda. It is true that we have a huge homelessness problem, but it is very complex and has nothing to do with human rights.
Regarding so-called unilateralism: Thirty seven countries are currently backing the U.S. in our war effort. Is there a word for that? Thirtysevellateralism?
Regarding Guantanamo: Detainees have Korans, good food, shelter, and are treated humanely. No American could wish for so much in any Muslim country. Do they have a right to trial? No! They are enemy combatants!
This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less.
I disagree with this analysis, but I think you make a cogent point. We in the U.S. see our right to defend ourselves independent of any international body. We see the UN going the way of the League of Nations and we don't want to be caught in that tar baby.
We have already made an egregious error in going after a second (actually 16th) UNSC resolution. We do not recognize international law that compromises our national interests. The President of the U.S. is obligated to protect us, not save face with the security council and embattled European politicos. (Gerhard Schroeder? You expect us to take him seriously?) I don't believe the politicians, the protesters, or the UNSC is truly concerned about war. I think they want to contain, embarrass, and weaken the U.S. Can you honestly disagree with that assessment?
Anyway, here's what I wrote about going to war. Undoubtedtly you will disagree:
War: An Intellectual Exercise.
I've been punishing myself by reading the Not in Our Name web site. There I find that such geopolitical luminaries such as Mos Def, John Edgar Wideman, Barbara Kingsolver, Ossie Davis, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, Edward Said, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn oppose the war in Iraq and have signed a "Statement of Conscience" to that effect.
To those folks, and the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks I'd like to pose a question. Would you ever, under any circumstance, support a war? What would be the litmus test for your support?
If Iraq attacked United States troops in Kuwait with chemical weapons would you support a war? Or would you call it self-defense?
If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia would you support a war, or would you cry "No blood for oil!"?
If Iraq gassed Kurds in the north (again) would that justify going to war? Or would you discuss the difficult Turkist/Kurdish/Iraqi dynamic and deplore the violence?
If Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, would you support war? Or would you talk instead about the suppression of Palestinians?
If Iraq smuggled a suitcase nuclear weapon, smallpox, or a radiological bomb into the United States and used it, would you support a war in Iraq? Or would you talk about root causes? Would you talk about fundamentalism being engendered by poverty and hunger?
The problem with these folks at Not In our Name and A.N.S.W.E.R. is not that they oppose war. The problem is that they oppose the U.S. regardless. The would never support a war, under any circumstances. They will always blame the US first. They will never credit the U.S. with benign intentions, good will, or correct policy.
Much like Marxists who hold to their faith even after the worldwide collapse of communism, the peaceniks can never be convinced that they are wrong. No matter what happens, they can find a reason to oppose the U.S. They are unreasoning in their hatred of the U.S. and their hatred of all things American. So I don't believe anything they say. I can not give credence to someone that could never be convinced under any circumstance.
And here's the truth that they can't cover up with protests and rallies, awful poetry, insipid protest songs and body odor: They care nothing for human rights in Iraq. They don't care about the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, or the Iraqi Shiites. They don't care about the thousands of political prisoners, the tortured, or the hundreds of Kuwaitis still imprisoned. They have thrown in their lot with Saddam Hussein. They have shown their true colors.
You're all over the place here but you do have a point about Dresden & Cologne. But do you really want to start talking about war crimes in Europe that Europeans did nothing about? You want to talk about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald & Krakow?
And more recently what exactly did you guys do about Kosovo before OUR bombs started falling? I'm sorry, but Europeans have a very long and sordid history of war crimes.
See my other post in this thread about "honest and open dialogue." Notice I didn't call you ignorant.
Your points are honorably made and are certainly arguable. While I disagree with your analysis, I have no problem with honest, open dialogue about how Americans should and should not be acting. It's also important that we discuss history honestly and openly.
I was just enfuriated that the grandparent poster called US participation in the Second World War "helping out a little bit."
I really don't understand why the Canadians have it in for us. Furthermore, I don't know why one would choose to troll about this on Slashdot in comments regarding international internet access. Finally, I don't understand why the self-labelled troll gets a +5 funny for transcribing a yank-hating Canadian comedian.
So, to feed the troll's troll: We "dragged our heels" on WWI and WWII because they weren't our wars. Canada is a commonwealth country. We aren't.
If we helped out a bit in WWII, big deal,
Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe.
but I can't take it. No matter how carefully I edit a post, I manage to slip in an error. This is doubly true when I am critical of a typical Slashdot grammar or spelling error.
And those are: definately/definitly/definatly priviledge there/their/there its/it's who/whom
I also don't believe much of what she wrote. For example, the US economy grew in the last quarter at a higher rate than expected. (Still slow, but better) That doesn't jive with her doom-and-gloom economic analysis.
Also, "leaders" say a lot of stuff "off the record" that they want to spin into the general zeitgeist of the press. (i.e. War in Iraq would destroy the world economy, blah blah blah)
You sir, wield a wicked pen. (well, er.. keyboard)
Hats off to you and more power to you.
I couldn't agree with you more. If we only had to contend with evil people, life would be so much easier. Instead we have to deal with laziness, apathy, sloth, and cluelessness. These Tufts students are a perfect example. This is more insidious and far more common. It is harder to identify but it is still truly evil.
There was nothing wrong with my facts, but thank you for your civil reply, seriously.
We come from different points of view, obviously. I don't see corporations as inherently evil or monolithic forces of pure evil. There's a lot more to corporations than you might think. With all due respect, I think it's simplistic to blame the corporations for everything, which is what the anti-global, anti-captalist, anti-war crowd typically do. They blame the corporations and blame America first.
So while your point of view deserves more exposure in the mainstream, I think it's a tad simplistic to say that NBC beats the drums because it is owned by GE, a huge conglomerate.
These corps are made of people and their news divisions are fiercly independent. They have to make a profit, but they aren't responsible for other divisions. Control across those divisions isn't absolute. (for example, look at AOL-Time-Warner)
I just don't believe that the newswriters and NBC/MSNBC are sitting around thinking about the jet aircraft division when they're writing the news. And I don't think corporations are to blame for the evils of this world.
Finally, rather than pegging NBC specifically with guilt by association, you'd do better to analyze its coverage. NBC's Nightly News undoubtedly leans left. And left doesn't necessarily mean "anti-war." But coverage in general leans left. I wrote this about the Today Show's coverage of the mood in Europe. The Today Show is definitely slanted to the left/anti-war.
Anyway - thanks for your challenging reply. Your final statement "Too many times the profit interests take precendence over unbiased reporting" is undoubtedly true. I think that usually manifests itself in poor reporting rather than biased reporting.
How many thousands of people read Slashdot every day?
Considering the enormous number of people who will be momentarily confused by that misplaced "if," would it be too much to ask to spend 10 seconds to correct blatant error such as this?
I admit, I'm about ready to give up on the misplaced apostrophe's, the mispeelings, and the run on sentences that just go one forever without even a semicolon, you know what I'm talking about?
And he owns 11% of the company. You can't be much more in charge than that (especially in a company with a market cap of a bazillion gazillion dollars)
Bias isn't about personalities
on
Salon Asks for Help
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's about what's covered, how long it's covered, and what words are used to cover it.
The ABC/CBS/NBC newscasts, from which most Americans get their tiny bit of news, is very left-of-center in its coverage. Extremely anti-Israel pro-Palistinean, pro Democrat. They use Democratic talking points like scripts. Good grief - look at Dan Rather!
Sixty Minutes, another prime source of news/analysis for Americans is as liberal as they come.
CNN and MSNBC in general have a liberal tenor, but I find CNN's coverage to be excellent and I'm smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Fox News is conservative, no doubt, but it is the only 24 hour news network in the US that leans right.
Most journos are liberals. (The Washington Post staff voted 80% for Al Gore. Similar results in the NY Times, Boston Globe, etc..) The result is conservatives have mustered their forces and they're winning! But the libs have no one to blame but themselves. For so long they had a stranglehold on the media. They created a huge, angry, pent-up demand for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, etc..
I don't have the time or the patience to get into a tit-for-tat on the merits. There are plenty of liberal voices out there. There are more and more conservative voices. Many of both stripes are jerks or idiots. (Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh)
Best of all, now we ALL have a choice. (What, don't you have a sub to _Mother Jones_?)
Yeah, I can hardly get anything done on my Macs for lack of software.
I mean, I can't edit video in FC Pro / Premiere/ iMovie. Can't do Photoshop / Fireworks / Illustrator. Can't do databases with Filemaker / mySQL.
No good text editors like emacs/VI/BBEdit. And Excel isn't available on the Mac after all. Can't get my Epson / HP scanners to work or my Olympus / Epson / Kodak digital camera. Too bad there's nothing like iPhoto on the Mac.
No Toast for burning CDs, no support in OS X for CD burning. No DVD burning support - no Windows emulation.
And worst of all, there's no command line!
And don't even get me started on OS X LAG on my 500 mHz Powerbook G4. I mean, it takes at least 1 second for Safari to load! And I can only run ten apps concurrently before I start to notice performance degradation.
As I write this, there are 1372 comments on this topic! Forgive me if you think this is trite - it is not intended that way: There are lots of hurting little boys and girls in these supremely confident/. uber-geeks.
I think the huge number of responses speaks to the universal nature of regret and the enormous effects of childhood on adults' emotional lives.
Rather than spending time with "what-ifs" why not turn this exercise into something that can actually do some good?
Project yourself as a 70-year-old and give yourself some advice right now! Forgive yourself for your mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Start over today and make a fresh start. Begin with the end in mind.
If you are trapped by your past (and all of us are, to some extent) go to a therapist and get help working that out. Don't be defined by your past, what others thought of you, or what others have done to you. Rather define yourself as you aspire to be, not what you're telling yourself you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and Kerry didn't campaign in traditionally black churches every Sunday for the last four weeks.
Oh wait. He did? Do I sniff a double standard here?
In large parts of the western world Islam is portrayed as a rather violent religion, with all that talk about Jihad that originates from a vocal minority of extremists.
Extremists like the Wahhabi promoting Saudi Arabian government?
Oh yes. Does this happen to EVERYONE from New Mexico? I can't tell you how many stories my family has about idiots who don't know that New Mexico is NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
I thought the same thing - when we bought our 4MP Canon G2, I thought we'd print very few photos. Lo and behold, my wife had a different idea. We print almost every good photo. Why?
Scrapbooking, of course!
But with a new baby and 0.19USD per photo, it's definitely worth it.
Can anyone at NBC say "ssh tunelling"?
Yes, but what percentage of the public can do that? 0.5% maybe? NBC just wants to make it hard for the great majority. I doubt they really care if a few geeks "cheat" on them.
It's not NBC that's enforcing it. The IOC will only allow broadcasters to simulcast online if they put these restrictions in place. NBC and others probably required this as a part of their contract with the IOC.
The olympics IMHO has a PR problem. They are failing to reach younger folks who would normally be the ones to care about this
Sorry for the double post here - They have a PR problem because they have a terrible history of corruption (a la the UN) which stems partly from the HUGE broadcast contracts. It's really a nasty cycle.
Isn't tax payer money going to support our USA teams?
Actually, no, it's not.
"Fanny" means buttocks in American English and it is a very benign word. I assumed you would know that because your spelling is American, not Commonwealth. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would never use such an objectionable word.
You do fundamentally misunderstand us. You said that America cannot every be credited with benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy. You said that, not I. And I called you on it. Such a sweeping statement is ridiculous on its face, so you don't want me to bring it up? Defend your statement. Address my questions about the Marshall plan and American policy in Europe during the cold war. Don't bring up Afghanistan as a straw man to draw attentiona way from the Marshall Plan. Tell me how the Marshall Plan was not an example of benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy or concede that America has actually done something right in her history.
Regarding Afghanistan and the Marshall Plan - America is still in Afghanistan. I'm sorry our performance there is not satisfactory to you, but do you seriously think the Afghans are worse off than they were under the Taliban? Hamid Karzai isn't complaining.
I ask you again. If you want me to believe you, you should answer: What American interest was served in East Timor, Somalia, or Kosovo? Insulting me by calling me an ignorant American doesn't answer that question.
Or are you incensed because I continue to argue? Has no one dared stand up to your irresponsible assertions before? I think your "ignorant American" stereotype has run into a counter-example and it enfuriates you.
I didn't call you a Marxist to insult you, but to describe your seemingly intractable attitude.
It seems to me that you harbor lots of anger at America. You didn't appreciate my reasoned arguments so you called them propaganda. You should address the points I bring up instead of calling names.
America is interested in only its own sovreignty - and that is the issue.
I concede that point. We are not particularly interested in so-called "international law" because there is no true international rule of law. Rule of law in the U.N. is whatever is in the best interests of the constituent countries. No, we will not surrender our sovreignty to Cameroon, Mexico, China, France, Germany, Algeria, et. al. Our government answers to us, not to them. How could you expect us to surrender sovreignty to an entity which allows Algeria to head its human rights commission? The U.N is impotent, corrupt, and worthless. We will not corrupt ourselves by kowtowing to it.
We are coming to this discussion from such different arguments that I doubt we can have a productive discussion. You seem to favor internationlism, even impotent internationalism. You seem to come from a Marxist worldview, and you think that America has never done anything good or even benign.
Regarding the American ideal: I'm puzzled that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the American ideal. Have you not studied here? Don't you know us? Your English is so good it seems you must have. If you knew us, you'd realize that Americans are not primarily motivated by currency markets and covering our dollar-costs. That is a Soviet-fed Marxist fantasy. We do have some Americans that share your view in America, but they are primarily self-loathing Marxist-Stalinists like the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks.
Regarding America's economic motivations: Your assertion that America came out even or ahead economically from the Second World War is untenable. Let's just start with the $13 billion in 1949 dollars spent on the Marshall plan. (Equivalent of $75 billion of today's dollars) What about the $49 billion in lend-lease funds, much of which is still outstanding from Russia? You do realize that we were in the greatest economic depression of our history when we began to release that $49 billion in 1941 dollars. That was not an economic decision - it was a moral one.
Regarding my assertion that you are anti-American: Your arguments give lie to your assertion that you are not anti-American. You have to be anti-American to say that America has never shown benign intentions, good will, or correct foreign policy. What American interest was served in East Timor, Somalia, or Kosovo? For that matter, what American interest was served pulling your fannies out of the fire twice in the last century? A majority of Americans opposed war until Japan pulled us into that war, you know.
Are you honestly saying that Americans shouldn't have defended Western Europe from Soviet Imperialism? REALLY? Do you suppose you'd have the freedom to read and post on Slashdot today in the "Democratic People's Republic of Germany?" You think the Soviets would have stopped their invasion at Berlin of their own accord after Germany had killed seven and a half million Soviets?
Regarding the League of Nations: It failed because it was a tool of British Empire, not a legitimate international body. Nobody was very excited about it. The only way it could have survived would have been with America's leadership. America withdrew because the LoN was poorly executed and tried to limit American sovreignty. Now the UN is going the same direction.
Regarding internationalism and war-crimes trials: You propose that war criminals, Iraqis and Americans, should face international courts. How do you propose to try them without invading? Also, as an American I am not going to take my chances with someone like you as judge. You've already condemned me just for being an American. We reserve the right to try our own criminals.
Regarding Australia: My wife grew up there, so I know a little. Let me know when they complain.
Regarding human rights: There is no reason that any American should go hungry. We have aid to families with dependent children (food stamps), shelters, and enormous domestic food-aid programs. Those that endure hunger have only their parents or themselves to blame because they fail to apply for government aid or they spend their aid money on alchohol. We try hard to make sure everyone has enough to eat. We advertise our welfare programs on TV. Don't give me that 13% of Americans go hungry crap. That is total propaganda. It is true that we have a huge homelessness problem, but it is very complex and has nothing to do with human rights.
Regarding so-called unilateralism: Thirty seven countries are currently backing the U.S. in our war effort. Is there a word for that? Thirtysevellateralism?
Regarding Guantanamo: Detainees have Korans, good food, shelter, and are treated humanely. No American could wish for so much in any Muslim country. Do they have a right to trial? No! They are enemy combatants!
First of all, thank you for your thoughts.
This is a war to protect the American dollar and American interests. No more and no less.
I disagree with this analysis, but I think you make a cogent point. We in the U.S. see our right to defend ourselves independent of any international body. We see the UN going the way of the League of Nations and we don't want to be caught in that tar baby.
We have already made an egregious error in going after a second (actually 16th) UNSC resolution. We do not recognize international law that compromises our national interests. The President of the U.S. is obligated to protect us, not save face with the security council and embattled European politicos. (Gerhard Schroeder? You expect us to take him seriously?) I don't believe the politicians, the protesters, or the UNSC is truly concerned about war. I think they want to contain, embarrass, and weaken the U.S. Can you honestly disagree with that assessment?
Anyway, here's what I wrote about going to war. Undoubtedtly you will disagree:
War: An Intellectual Exercise.
I've been punishing myself by reading the Not in Our Name web site. There I find that such geopolitical luminaries such as Mos Def, John Edgar Wideman, Barbara Kingsolver, Ossie Davis, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, Edward Said, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn oppose the war in Iraq and have signed a "Statement of Conscience" to that effect.
To those folks, and the A.N.S.W.E.R. folks I'd like to pose a question. Would you ever, under any circumstance, support a war? What would be the litmus test for your support?
If Iraq attacked United States troops in Kuwait with chemical weapons would you support a war? Or would you call it self-defense?
If Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia would you support a war, or would you cry "No blood for oil!"?
If Iraq gassed Kurds in the north (again) would that justify going to war? Or would you discuss the difficult Turkist/Kurdish/Iraqi dynamic and deplore the violence?
If Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, would you support war? Or would you talk instead about the suppression of Palestinians?
If Iraq smuggled a suitcase nuclear weapon, smallpox, or a radiological bomb into the United States and used it, would you support a war in Iraq? Or would you talk about root causes? Would you talk about fundamentalism being engendered by poverty and hunger?
The problem with these folks at Not In our Name and A.N.S.W.E.R. is not that they oppose war. The problem is that they oppose the U.S. regardless. The would never support a war, under any circumstances. They will always blame the US first. They will never credit the U.S. with benign intentions, good will, or correct policy.
Much like Marxists who hold to their faith even after the worldwide collapse of communism, the peaceniks can never be convinced that they are wrong. No matter what happens, they can find a reason to oppose the U.S. They are unreasoning in their hatred of the U.S. and their hatred of all things American. So I don't believe anything they say. I can not give credence to someone that could never be convinced under any circumstance.
And here's the truth that they can't cover up with protests and rallies, awful poetry, insipid protest songs and body odor: They care nothing for human rights in Iraq. They don't care about the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, or the Iraqi Shiites. They don't care about the thousands of political prisoners, the tortured, or the hundreds of Kuwaitis still imprisoned. They have thrown in their lot with Saddam Hussein. They have shown their true colors.
You're all over the place here but you do have a point about Dresden & Cologne. But do you really want to start talking about war crimes in Europe that Europeans did nothing about? You want to talk about Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald & Krakow?
And more recently what exactly did you guys do about Kosovo before OUR bombs started falling? I'm sorry, but Europeans have a very long and sordid history of war crimes.
See my other post in this thread about "honest and open dialogue." Notice I didn't call you ignorant.
No, I would be surprised. That would mean the French hand't already surrendered!
Your points are honorably made and are certainly arguable. While I disagree with your analysis, I have no problem with honest, open dialogue about how Americans should and should not be acting. It's also important that we discuss history honestly and openly.
I was just enfuriated that the grandparent poster called US participation in the Second World War "helping out a little bit."
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
I really don't understand why the Canadians have it in for us. Furthermore, I don't know why one would choose to troll about this on Slashdot in comments regarding international internet access. Finally, I don't understand why the self-labelled troll gets a +5 funny for transcribing a yank-hating Canadian comedian.
So, to feed the troll's troll:
We "dragged our heels" on WWI and WWII because they weren't our wars. Canada is a commonwealth country. We aren't.
If we helped out a bit in WWII, big deal,
Your impudence is loathsome. Thirty-thousand Americans are buried in Normandy alone. To minimize that enormous sacrifice is to insult the memory of the soldiers who died to liberate Europe.
but I can't take it. No matter how carefully I edit a post, I manage to slip in an error. This is doubly true when I am critical of a typical Slashdot grammar or spelling error.
there/their/there
And those are:
definately/definitly/definatly
priviledge
its/it's
who/whom
etcetera
Certainly I agree.
I also don't believe much of what she wrote. For example, the US economy grew in the last quarter at a higher rate than expected. (Still slow, but better) That doesn't jive with her doom-and-gloom economic analysis.
Also, "leaders" say a lot of stuff "off the record" that they want to spin into the general zeitgeist of the press. (i.e. War in Iraq would destroy the world economy, blah blah blah)
I take this report with a big 'ol block of salt.
The World Economic Forum wasn't mentioned in the mainstream press?
Really?
You sir, wield a wicked pen. (well, er.. keyboard)
Hats off to you and more power to you.
I couldn't agree with you more. If we only had to contend with evil people, life would be so much easier. Instead we have to deal with laziness, apathy, sloth, and cluelessness. These Tufts students are a perfect example. This is more insidious and far more common. It is harder to identify but it is still truly evil.
There was nothing wrong with my facts, but thank you for your civil reply, seriously.
We come from different points of view, obviously. I don't see corporations as inherently evil or monolithic forces of pure evil. There's a lot more to corporations than you might think. With all due respect, I think it's simplistic to blame the corporations for everything, which is what the anti-global, anti-captalist, anti-war crowd typically do. They blame the corporations and blame America first.
So while your point of view deserves more exposure in the mainstream, I think it's a tad simplistic to say that NBC beats the drums because it is owned by GE, a huge conglomerate.
These corps are made of people and their news divisions are fiercly independent. They have to make a profit, but they aren't responsible for other divisions. Control across those divisions isn't absolute. (for example, look at AOL-Time-Warner)
I just don't believe that the newswriters and NBC/MSNBC are sitting around thinking about the jet aircraft division when they're writing the news. And I don't think corporations are to blame for the evils of this world.
Finally, rather than pegging NBC specifically with guilt by association, you'd do better to analyze its coverage. NBC's Nightly News undoubtedly leans left. And left doesn't necessarily mean "anti-war." But coverage in general leans left.
I wrote this about the Today Show's coverage of the mood in Europe. The Today Show is definitely slanted to the left/anti-war.
Anyway - thanks for your challenging reply. Your final statement "Too many times the profit interests take precendence over unbiased reporting" is undoubtedly true. I think that usually manifests itself in poor reporting rather than biased reporting.
How many thousands of people read Slashdot every day?
Considering the enormous number of people who will be momentarily confused by that misplaced "if," would it be too much to ask to spend 10 seconds to correct blatant error such as this?
I admit, I'm about ready to give up on the misplaced apostrophe's, the mispeelings, and the run on sentences that just go one forever without even a semicolon, you know what I'm talking about?
But give me break That's not even the right word!
Yeah, of the board of directors.
And he owns 11% of the company. You can't be much more in charge than that (especially in a company with a market cap of a bazillion gazillion dollars)
It's about what's covered, how long it's covered, and what words are used to cover it.
The ABC/CBS/NBC newscasts, from which most Americans get their tiny bit of news, is very left-of-center in its coverage. Extremely anti-Israel pro-Palistinean, pro Democrat. They use Democratic talking points like scripts. Good grief - look at Dan Rather!
Sixty Minutes, another prime source of news/analysis for Americans is as liberal as they come.
CNN and MSNBC in general have a liberal tenor, but I find CNN's coverage to be excellent and I'm smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Fox News is conservative, no doubt, but it is the only 24 hour news network in the US that leans right.
Most journos are liberals. (The Washington Post staff voted 80% for Al Gore. Similar results in the NY Times, Boston Globe, etc..) The result is conservatives have mustered their forces and they're winning! But the libs have no one to blame but themselves. For so long they had a stranglehold on the media. They created a huge, angry, pent-up demand for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, etc..
I don't have the time or the patience to get into a tit-for-tat on the merits. There are plenty of liberal voices out there. There are more and more conservative voices. Many of both stripes are jerks or idiots. (Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh)
Best of all, now we ALL have a choice. (What, don't you have a sub to _Mother Jones_?)
Yeah, I can hardly get anything done on my Macs for lack of software.
I mean, I can't edit video in FC Pro / Premiere/ iMovie. Can't do Photoshop / Fireworks / Illustrator. Can't do databases with Filemaker / mySQL.
No good text editors like emacs/VI/BBEdit. And Excel isn't available on the Mac after all. Can't get my Epson / HP scanners to work or my Olympus / Epson / Kodak digital camera. Too bad there's nothing like iPhoto on the Mac.
No Toast for burning CDs, no support in OS X for CD burning. No DVD burning support - no Windows emulation.
And worst of all, there's no command line!
And don't even get me started on OS X LAG on my 500 mHz Powerbook G4. I mean, it takes at least 1 second for Safari to load! And I can only run ten apps concurrently before I start to notice performance degradation.
Need I go on?
As I write this, there are 1372 comments on this topic! Forgive me if you think this is trite - it is not intended that way: There are lots of hurting little boys and girls in these supremely confident /. uber-geeks.
I think the huge number of responses speaks to the universal nature of regret and the enormous effects of childhood on adults' emotional lives.
Rather than spending time with "what-ifs" why not turn this exercise into something that can actually do some good?
Project yourself as a 70-year-old and give yourself some advice right now! Forgive yourself for your mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Start over today and make a fresh start. Begin with the end in mind.
If you are trapped by your past (and all of us are, to some extent) go to a therapist and get help working that out. Don't be defined by your past, what others thought of you, or what others have done to you. Rather define yourself as you aspire to be, not what you're telling yourself you are.
Finally, set your goals and shoot for the moon.