expressing displeasure with ones words and committing acts of violence are two separate things. i enjoy my right to do the former and do not support the latter by any means.
Lemme guess. Airplanes scare you. Understanding statistics and statistical analysis is KEY to understanding the meaning of the word "risk." Yes, basing your opinion soley on personal experience IS a silly thing.oh statistics, how can one argue against that with silly little things like personal experience.
Originally posted by amp
Originally written by Kat
(parsed) I think irrelevant of Mr. P's. ranting (snip)
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So Kat, in this I have tried to point out the simplicity of the present reality of TV coverage inasmuch as it took less then 15 mins to present to me all of what you saw over the entire period of time that it took for you to see all of 9/11 on TV, while back in the late twenties, during the Stock Market crash it, took ~four (~4) DAYS for that news to reach Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada.
No longer anywhere near the present reality, and it is a short time, as there are people that are still alive today, who where alive then. This is the difference.
Next we address the need of the Children to know, they must find out, sooner or later, as what is going on now, is now, a part of their American History lessons. Who should it be that tells their children what they now must, and NEED, to know?
I attempted to point out that parental responsibility is irreplaceable, and that no teacher, in any school anywhere, (other then the parental teacher at home) Knows your child better then you, the child's primary caregiver, hence it is clear to me who it is that needs to explain to there children what is gong on, and when they get to know that.
Yes, the 'when' they get to know, is exceedingly difficult, because of the first paragraph.I couldn't agree more, nor do I think I could have said it any better.
In all of the observing I do, I have seen that the media, in Canada, are watching the media all over the world, (No doubt that Canadian journalists are not the only ones, but it's what I know of) the media watching the media. Part of the repost told of CNN's coverage of the Bombing of two different marketplaces, one in Baghdad, and the other in Kuwait.I honestly avoid T.V. to the extent that I could not give a qualified opinion on what each channel is/is not reporting but I have noticed an incredible amount of comparitive reporting online. I'm glad to see it, however I'm skeptical of all of their motives and which view is objective and/or honest unbiased reporting.
Apparently they spent an inordinate amount of time covering the one in Kuwait, very little on the one in Baghdad, "Clean Hospital shots" (People who look like they might just have the flu) as opposed to the international press having run the clips of the man, from the Baghdad market, on a stretcher, being taken away, showing him with nothing but "bloody stumps" left, where his legs had been. While in the Kuwait Market place attack, apparently, no one was hurt.
Problem here Kat is called propaganda, Your President doesn't want all of you to see, just how bloody, what he is doing, really is. I have some mixed feelings here. I do believe that there is without doubt propaganda in the U.S. news..well in actuality all news. I do my best to compare reports in the media to the first hand news of people I know around the world. Sometimes it correlates at other times it appears as though they must be speaking of two differant worlds. On the other hand, I also believe that U.S. news is effected by ratings and consumer influence, perhaps inordinately. I cannot imagine that there would not be outrage by americans if such graphic displays were put on national television. I would be outraged if anyone I knew where displayed for all the world to see in such a manner. Maybe, I'm mistaken but I do not think I'm the minority view in this matter in the U.S. So, because of this I don't think I can just blame my president. Even if I were to blame someone I would probably look above and beyond him, as I do not think it's the 4 term president that pulls the strings in corporate America. Problem for me Kat is that I am not anti-American, I'm really wanting for a better word then "anti-american" to describe what I see as a singular focus on the united states while totally ignoring equally negative actions of other countries or the ability to excuse other countries for whatever reasons and yet not grant the U.S. that same privelage. This is what I'm referring to when I say "anti-american". heck American society has taught me lots, so much so that, the problem is now that, I find that what your country is presently doing, tank and artillery siege of Baghdad, with overwhelming Air Superiority, (DOMINANCE) that the Iraq's in that city are completely defenseless against, and Blasting them in a rain of Bombs, is about the most Anti-American, clearly Un-American, thing that I could possible think of, as per what all of you, Americans, have taught me, about yourselves! I've stated before my mixed feelings about this war, so I won't get into it here. But, I probably would not use the term "rain" of bombs" to describe a very strong and comparitively (I know this term will make you angry but..) on target bombing campaign that is avoiding..(again..comparitively)...civilians. I'm not sure I would say it's un-american either....
Is this a good rant Kat? I think it was a thoughtful and well reasoned reply. I enjoyed this exchange. Thank you.
Originally posted by Kat….sorta!
I have some mixed feelings here. I do believe that there is without doubt propaganda in the U.S. news..well in actuality all news. I do my best to compare reports in the media to the first hand news of people I know around the world. Sometimes it correlates at other times it appears as though they must be speaking of two differant worlds. On the other hand, I also believe that U.S. news is effected by ratings and consumer influence, perhaps inordinately. I cannot imagine that there would not be outrage by americans if such graphic displays were put on national television. I would be outraged if anyone I knew where displayed for all the world to see in such a manner. Maybe, I'm mistaken but I do not think I'm the minority view in this matter in the U.S. So, because of this I don't think I can just blame my president. Even if I were to blame someone I would probably look above and beyond him, as I do not think it's the 4 term president that pulls the strings in corporate America.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So Kat, you don't think that it is your Presidents doing, the aphorism of Mass media News marketing "If it bleeds it leads" is now, for some strange and in-apparent reason, no longer applicable, Why?
That you don't recognize the efforts that are propaganda inclined, especially given the nets ability to ensure that 'somewhere' the story gets out, lends to you having a position that seeks, and wants, for deflection from the reality.
Problem is that all good judgments, are only enabled, when they are derived from the reality in it’s fullest presentation.
They say that the “Truth is the first victim in war” even though I can guarantee that the truth of it is being played out to it’s fullest, without error, or lie, it is only in the recounting of it, that it is victimized, hence the people’s of Iraq suffer that fate from the support that your President is getting, for his war effort, via propaganda.
Originally posted by Alias
You could say that about any leader and any war. What's your point?
Originally posted by Alias
Broken, as in 'grammatically incorrect' to the point of rendering the sentence unintelligible.
Sorry Kat, I can't seem to find my "Parsons to English" dictionary. I've given up.In all seriousness, with absolutely zero sarcasm,
Could someone please translate Mr. Parson's post for me?