Re: different topic - personal

From: John Smith (a_at_nonymous.com)
Date: 07/03/05 

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:43:44 -0400

JF Mezei wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>> Unfortunately people are people - most of the time blissfully
>> ignorant of tragedies and events because it's NIMBY (not in my
>> backyard). Or because they are simply worried about their own plight
>> - they aren't keeping up with the Jones's, or they (in much of North
>> America at least) really *need* that new SUV so they can't 'spare'
>> any money to help those who really need basic
>
>
> I don't think people are THAT bad. The problem is that they are not
> educated
> by the media which, in the instance of a superpower, tends to focus on
> domestic affairs and only discusses international issues if it can
> lambaste
> the UN, and this is mostly simply because they see the press release
> from the white house of some congressperson who provides them with
> read-to-broadcast
> sound bytes lambasting the UN.

Few people watch documentaries, which are usually made weeks if not months
after the events.

Few watch serious daily news programming - ones which don't feature 50% of
its coverage to the 'intern scandal of the week' and the remaining minutes
to fawning over politicians with softball questions so they can retain their
'access' to those politicians and political parties, the East Wherever
Cheerleader Festival and homecomming football game, or firefighters resuce
kitten from tree stories.

For those of you not in Canada or the USA, something like 60% of youth aged
16-24 rely on 'The Daily Show' (
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml )as their
principal source of news. Don't get me wrong about this - this satirical
show - on balance - probably does a better and more insightful job of
covering the real news than all the major US networks combined.

> Darfur was uncovered by the BBC who brought it to the forefront
> (except in the USA). Eventually the USA was forced to admit there was
> a problem and the USA demanded it be called Genocide and blocked some
> of the efforts the UN wanted
> until they could get their "genocide" thing. Why Genocide ? Because
> the USA
> did not want to recognise the ICC since it would make the USA's
> leaders and military leaders possible criminals tried at the ICC. By
> calling Darfur a genocide, it goes to a different court and avoids
> the ICC alltogether.
>
> After wasting much time, the USA reluctantly agreed to let Darfur be
> handled
> by ICC with the caveat that this is not to be seen as a precedent of
> the USA recognising the authority of the ICC. Of course, USA media
> do not discuss
> this so americans do not see how things are really going on.

What's new there? Everyone 'knows' that there is one law for the rich and
famous and another law for those that aren't. The US sees fit to apply this
domestic principle internationally. Only when something particularly
egregious occurs - a Worldcom, Enron, etc.... do any of those who "aren't"
get hauled into the wrong side of a courtroom - and even then it is often
with great reluctance by prosecutors that they are.

Country X wants a military base in Country Y, or has an aircraft
manufacturer that wants to sell 20 planes to the air force or the national
airline of Country Y - blind eyes get turned, excesses are ignored, palms
are greased.

> Oh, and last week, Bush proudly announced he was doubling aid to
> Africa.
> Whoopty doo. Just before Live 8, and the G8 summit about Africa.
> makes him
> look good on american TV. What the USA media didn't really say is
> that this is nothing new. The USA promised doubling of aid a few
> years ago and this is the
> same thing being re-hashed. Good PR, but nothing new to the folks
> dying in
> Africa. (And the USA isn't the only country whose politicians use
> similar PR tricks, but this example was blatant, especially since the
> USA is a country
> that is quite far from the 0.7% of GDP target for donations to
> developping nations.
>
>
> The biggest gift the USA and Europe could give africa is banning the
> export of subsidized wheat and other agricultural products to Africa
> so that Africans
> would stand a chance to grow their own crops and sell them locally.
> This would provide employment and generate economic activity.

Sure they'll do this, as long as Monsanto gets a sole-supplier contract for
GM seed for the whole country.

> But reducing debt is much easier politically since it doesn't have
> political ramificatiosn at home with the farmers. Preventing farmers
> to export their subsidized wheat to africa would deprive local
> farmers from an outlet to dump (litterally) their subsidized
> products, so politicians much prefer to be seen doing soemthing else
> than the fix the real problems.

Same for European butter I suspect.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----