|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dome Vans
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
America is drowning in it's own lies and greed. Good riddance to their hegemonic status, give someone else the chance to be the main world power. If that's China then so be it. Hegemonic status comes and goes, America has been on the down slope since the 60's, the scrabbling around now is a vain attempt to put off the inevitable.
Britain is a finished as well. I'm not sure about what part of capitalism has destroyed these nations but I'm sure it has played a big part. I think the ingrown greed of human nature plays a big part. Much like Russia implementing communism in the wrong way. It was a workable theory, it's just that they implemented it incorrectly and got greedy.
Media bias is just one easy way of suppressing bad news that will eventually come out, but not necessarily to the masses. Dictatorships do it, Zimbabwe and Serbia being good examples. But what was the outcome there?
I hate the English media with a passion. Somebody commits suicide, there was a trace of marijuana in their blood, that was obviously the cause, newspapers get hold of it then the real reason is lost in pages of mental illness/dope smoking tirades. Another England manager loses his job because he lost one match. Sack him!
To think I used to laugh at all the drop-outs at University who studied media studies. The idiots really do control the planet.
Last edited by Dome Vans on Thu May 01, 2008 5:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pete82
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by Pete82 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bejarano-korea wrote: |
I think the BBC is very left leaning - this is why it is respected worldwide because it is obvious that the BBC works independently from the goverment line - you may not like its bias against Israel for example - but there are a lot of people who agree with the BBCs pro Palestinian line. I do - I'm biased in my political leanings and I would watch the BBC for my news than any other media source. |
You might want to read Medialens medial alert on the BBC's double standards before you go making up your mind about whether or not the BBC is biased against Israel.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080422_covering_israel_palestine.php
or this http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php
It really bothers me how people seem to need to believe that just because the BBC doesn't rely on license fee and some of it's stories seem to be left leaning then the BBC must automatically to be assumed leftist or anti Israeli. The fact of the matter is that BBC depends for a large part of it's funding from the British license fee. Which thanks to inflation they must periodically ask the relevant government department for an increase in funding. Now it doesn't take a Physicist to work out that if the BBC are overly critical of something the British government or one of it's supporters does then they might not get any further increase in the license fee. Also the people who run the BBC are appointed by the British government themselves and the British government is hardly likely to appoint someone who they feel is likely to shine too bright a light on them or their political friends at home or abroad. Now are they?
For another look at how biased the BBC is, I suggest they click on the following link or purchase a copy of the book titled Bad News from Israel: Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Pluto Press, London, 2004 and they might learn a thing or two about how supposedly biased the BBC is against Israel.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/book-a21.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suwoner10
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Don't you just love "fair and unbiased" news coverage. |
Well, it would be nice to get it, but don't plan on getting it from the BBC. It's better than some but as bad as most. I wish I could find the editorial from a couple of years back where some journalist complained about the anti-American bias and the head of BBC agreed it was true. Didn't change much, though. |
I think most Americans know the BBC is biased against America. And what the Iraq War has to do with needless condescending to people in Mississippi post-Katrina escapes me.
No, its not. The rising commodity costs are barely influenced by biofuel production. The problem is the rising price of rice in Asia, the transition of Plains farmers away from grain production (a long-time coming before biofuels), and the fall of the dollar, which hurts the purchasing power of food-importing developing nations whose currencies are tied to the dollar. |
I can see where this is going, and I'm too tired to have a proper go at this. I'll just say that there is a lot of controversy concerning biofuels, and happen to be on the side that says access to food is affected by it. I saw people in my town in Mexico eating ramen noodles for dinner every night because they could no longer afford to buy tortillas.
 |
Fair enough. I just wanted to say that blaming biofuels for the increasing price of food is too simplistic, especially considering that the overall supply of food has steadily increased. Is it a factor? Well, it sure will be, although again its much too early to blame the costs, which have already risen, on what will amount to future biofuel production.
I'm hardly a fan of biofuels. But the world media have this whole, let's simplistically blame the US' biofuel production for a complex problem. Although, if they were to blame the US' monetary policy/deficit spending and its comprehensive effect of depressing the currency value of many developing nations as co-extant with rising commodity costs, that would be more fair.
But at the end of the day, food costs more because the world is slowly and gradually being lifted out of poverty. |
Biofuels are indeed the primary factor increasing food prices. It IS simplistic.
The US government, pressed by environmental lobbying, has mandated biofuel production. 25-30% of all corn planted is going into biofuel production.
The crazy part?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052502048.html
| Quote: |
| A Senate panel, responding to high gasoline prices and pressure from farm states, voted unanimously yesterday to require refiners and importers to more than double the use of ethanol and other agriculture-derived fuels by 2012. |
And to get to that point, the country will need to plant an equivilant to ALL the corn planted today in the US to meet this mandate. Forests will need to be culed and turned into corn fields (as Brazil is now doing, cutting rainforest to plant corn for biofuel). It's just one big mess.
This does several things. It creates a price increase in corn. When the price of corn goes up this significantly, other farmers who plant beans, rice, soy, wheat, etc., stop planting their less profitable crop and plant corn. This drives the price of wheat, soy, rice, beans up, because there is a very limited supply of those crops because the farmer's have switched to corn to try to cash in on the skyrocketing profits selling to biochem plants.
Viola. People in 3rd world countries are dying of starvation to line the pockets of bioplant investors (many of them happen to be DC politicos).
The price meat also skyrockets, because grain is too expensive to make a profit.
This is just a case of Lefties getting their way and not understanding the economic consequences. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bejarano-korea
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| bejarano-korea wrote: |
I think the BBC is very left leaning - this is why it is respected worldwide because it is obvious that the BBC works independently from the goverment line - you may not like its bias against Israel for example - but there are a lot of people who agree with the BBCs pro Palestinian line. I do - I'm biased in my political leanings and I would watch the BBC for my news than any other media source. |
You might want to read Medialens medial alert on the BBC's double standards before you go making up your mind about whether or not the BBC is biased against Israel.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080422_covering_israel_palestine.php
or this http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php
It really bothers me how people seem to need to believe that just because the BBC doesn't rely on license fee and some of it's stories seem to be left leaning then the BBC must automatically to be assumed leftist or anti Israeli. The fact of the matter is that BBC depends for a large part of it's funding from the British license fee. Which thanks to inflation they must periodically ask the relevant government department for an increase in funding. Now it doesn't take a Physicist to work out that if the BBC are overly critical of something the British government or one of it's supporters does then they might not get any further increase in the license fee. Also the people who run the BBC are appointed by the British government themselves and the British government is hardly likely to appoint someone who they feel is likely to shine too bright a light on them or their political friends at home or abroad. Now are they?
For another look at how biased the BBC is, I suggest they click on the following link or purchase a copy of the book titled Bad News from Israel: Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Pluto Press, London, 2004 and they might learn a thing or two about how supposedly biased the BBC is against Israel.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/book-a21.shtml |
I wouldn't say the BBC is 'anti-Israeli' that's a bit strong - it is pro Palestinian and is biased against the actions of the Israeli goverment - I would say thats a fair assesement and one I have gathered over watching the channel for 36 years, they are pro Palestinian the same way they were pro-Mandela during the apartheid era.
The BBC was one of the biggest critics of the Thatcher regime during the witches 11 years of power and would attack her policies with their comedy/current affairs programmes - resulting in the embering hatred from the likes of Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail - these bastions of the right wing in our country don't hate the BBC because they attack new labour The BBC hated the tories with a passion! Which was evident of their coverage of the Falklands War, (where they gave away British forces positions on their world service broadcast) The miners strike and the poll tax riots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Suwoner10 wrote: |
The US government, pressed by environmental lobbying, has mandated biofuel production. 25-30% of all corn planted is going into biofuel production. |
That's not true. Environmentalists have opposed corn-whiskey.
| Quote: |
| This is just a case of Lefties getting their way and not understanding the economic consequences. |
Ha. Okay, dude . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shapeshifter
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Location: Paris
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: Sorry, but that's nonsense |
|
|
This is just a case of Lefties getting their way and not understanding the economic consequences. [/quote][/quote]
With respect, you don't really seem to have a handle on the mechanisms and pressures that are driving the biofuels wave. It's primarily the result of aggressive (and highly effective) lobbying on the part of massive agro-business interests that see an opportunity to make a quick and massive buck and are more than willing to overlook the broader socio-environmental problems that this policy track will inevitably create.
That you imagine that "lefties" and "environmentalists" are the ones really behind the movement is conclusive evidence that you do not understand it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| bejarano-korea wrote: |
I think the BBC is very left leaning - this is why it is respected worldwide because it is obvious that the BBC works independently from the goverment line - you may not like its bias against Israel for example - but there are a lot of people who agree with the BBCs pro Palestinian line. I do - I'm biased in my political leanings and I would watch the BBC for my news than any other media source. |
You might want to read Medialens medial alert on the BBC's double standards before you go making up your mind about whether or not the BBC is biased against Israel.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080422_covering_israel_palestine.php
or this http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php
It really bothers me how people seem to need to believe that just because the BBC doesn't rely on license fee and some of it's stories seem to be left leaning then the BBC must automatically to be assumed leftist or anti Israeli. The fact of the matter is that BBC depends for a large part of it's funding from the British license fee. Which thanks to inflation they must periodically ask the relevant government department for an increase in funding. Now it doesn't take a Physicist to work out that if the BBC are overly critical of something the British government or one of it's supporters does then they might not get any further increase in the license fee. Also the people who run the BBC are appointed by the British government themselves and the British government is hardly likely to appoint someone who they feel is likely to shine too bright a light on them or their political friends at home or abroad. Now are they?
For another look at how biased the BBC is, I suggest they click on the following link or purchase a copy of the book titled Bad News from Israel: Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Pluto Press, London, 2004 and they might learn a thing or two about how supposedly biased the BBC is against Israel.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/book-a21.shtml |
| Quote: |
THE LONG FALL FROM GRACE
ISRAEL AND THE GUARDIAN
The Economist - Jul 29th 2004:
....
By way of contrast, "Bad News from Israel"--the work of a group of
academics at Glasgow University--is a pretty dismal production. And
what a waste of its producers' time and effort. After reviewing more
than 200 British television-news programmes and questioning more than
800 people, the researchers conclude by means of content analysis and
focus groups that the Israeli point of view is over-represented and
that viewers are being denied a full account of the history of the
conflict.
However, massive quantification counts for nothing if the research
method is flawed. The method of this book is to label as "pro-Israeli"
any piece of reportage that does not conform to the particular
anti-Israeli narrative of the researchers from Glasgow. It begins
promisingly, with a potted history of the conflict acknowledging that
everything about the story is hotly contested. And yet in much of what
follows it is taken for granted that the present INTIFADA is a war of
liberation against a brutal and illegal occupation, and that any
journalist who fails to hit the audience over the head with this point
of view at every opportunity is falling down on the job. It is
pro-Israeli bias, for example, to use the word "terrorism" to describe
the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians at bus stops. Read something
else. Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel. By Daphna Baram. Guardian
Books; 296 pages; GBP17.99
Bad News from Israel. By Greg Philo and Mike Berry. Pluto Press; 315
pages; $19.95 and GBP10.99
http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?num=429&a=32 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: BBC is crap |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Because the US has been increasing its production of biofuels, to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, they are harming the world's food supply, increasing costs making it harder for the rest of the world to eat. |
That's what CNN has been reporting too.
Fair and unbiased doesn't mean pro- or anti-American, instead, going where the story is and telling it as it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie_B
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bejarano-korea wrote: |
| blade wrote: |
| bejarano-korea wrote: |
I think the BBC is very left leaning - this is why it is respected worldwide because it is obvious that the BBC works independently from the goverment line - you may not like its bias against Israel for example - but there are a lot of people who agree with the BBCs pro Palestinian line. I do - I'm biased in my political leanings and I would watch the BBC for my news than any other media source. |
You might want to read Medialens medial alert on the BBC's double standards before you go making up your mind about whether or not the BBC is biased against Israel.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080422_covering_israel_palestine.php
or this http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php
It really bothers me how people seem to need to believe that just because the BBC doesn't rely on license fee and some of it's stories seem to be left leaning then the BBC must automatically to be assumed leftist or anti Israeli. The fact of the matter is that BBC depends for a large part of it's funding from the British license fee. Which thanks to inflation they must periodically ask the relevant government department for an increase in funding. Now it doesn't take a Physicist to work out that if the BBC are overly critical of something the British government or one of it's supporters does then they might not get any further increase in the license fee. Also the people who run the BBC are appointed by the British government themselves and the British government is hardly likely to appoint someone who they feel is likely to shine too bright a light on them or their political friends at home or abroad. Now are they?
For another look at how biased the BBC is, I suggest they click on the following link or purchase a copy of the book titled Bad News from Israel: Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Pluto Press, London, 2004 and they might learn a thing or two about how supposedly biased the BBC is against Israel.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/book-a21.shtml |
I wouldn't say the BBC is 'anti-Israeli' that's a bit strong - it is pro Palestinian and is biased against the actions of the Israeli goverment - I would say thats a fair assesement and one I have gathered over watching the channel for 36 years, they are pro Palestinian the same way they were pro-Mandela during the apartheid era.
The BBC was one of the biggest critics of the Thatcher regime during the witches 11 years of power and would attack her policies with their comedy/current affairs programmes - resulting in the embering hatred from the likes of Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail - these bastions of the right wing in our country don't hate the BBC because they attack new labour The BBC hated the tories with a passion! Which was evident of their coverage of the Falklands War, (where they gave away British forces positions on their world service broadcast) The miners strike and the poll tax riots. |
Your avatar looks like the kind of brainless shite the BNP would put out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For good or for bad we live in a system of nation states. Each states pursues its interests at it sees them. If the US has determined that it need to up ethanol production then it is the US's right to do so. As far as I know there is no law that states that the US must export food products to other nations. If Mexicans can't afford corn tortillas because of the rising cost of corn, then Mexico best increase internal corn production. Sounds like a problem for the Mexican government to solve. Its not the US's fault that Mexico labored under crappy governments for most of its existance
Faulting the US for rising food costs is also ignoring the role of speculators in the commodities markets. (Much like speculators are driving fuel costs). Lots of factors come into play NOT just the USs wise decision to ry to reduce its dependence on oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie_B wrote: |
Your avatar looks like the kind of brainless shite the BNP would put out. |
Hey, welfare scum vote BNP too you know. Let's be fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saw6436 wrote: |
| For good or for bad we live in a system of nation states. Each states pursues its interests at it sees them. If the US has determined that it need to up ethanol production then it is the US's right to do so. As far as I know there is no law that states that the US must export food products to other nations. If Mexicans can't afford corn tortillas because of the rising cost of corn, then Mexico best increase internal corn production. Sounds like a problem for the Mexican government to solve. Its not the US's fault that Mexico labored under crappy governments for most of its existance |
You might be right but the thing is the US has been heavily subsidizing crops such as these for years and then dumping the excess on foreign markets at a bargain basement prices. Now they have decided to put the excess production into ethanol production which has left many developing countries in a real though situation.
| Quote: |
Faulting the US for rising food costs is also ignoring the role of speculators in the commodities markets. (Much like speculators are driving fuel costs). |
The US in this instance is obviously not solely to blame in this instance. The EU and other countries should also shoulder their fair share of the blame too but another fact that is often overlooked is that much of the money being poured into commodities markets is money that is being borrowed at low interest rates in the US from banks because people no longer feel confident in investing in the property market thanks to the sub prime lending mess.
| Quote: |
Lots of factors come into play NOT just the USs wise decision to ry to reduce its dependence on oil. |
If the US wants to reduce it's dependence on oil it should start with leveling a further tax on the price of tax say 10 cents on the gallon of course people in the US don't like paying taxes and prefer to give all of their money to oil companies. This money could be then used to fund research into developing alternatives to oil i.e research in developing Nuclear energy from Thorium a more abundant alternative to Uranium. Another idea would have been to remove the tax rebate on SUV's but of course it's a bit too late for this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^ Yep, the US has been selling its surplus at bargin basement prices for years. And much like cheap oil, it would appear that those days are over. It is a pity that the poorer people/nations will be hit hardest by rising food costs but thats how it goes. The US relied on cheap oil to fuel its economy for years, now it has to suck up high oil prices and pay the price.
I totally agree on increasing the gas tax and applying a "fuel use tax" on less efficient vehicles (SUV, etc). Frankly if you can aford to shell out $40-$50,000 for a gas guzzler than you can afford a $500 a year gas consumption tax. I further agree that additional tax revenue should be earmarked for energy research, more efficient transportation, nuclear power, whatever. In this instance the US went for Ethenol as it offers the quickest return for the least cost (for now). Personally I believe Ethenol is a deadend as it stands now. I would much prefer to see agricultural waste being used to produce fuel if were going to go that route.
Also bear in mind that, in general, food prices have been historically DECREASING over the last century or so. So, a price correction is also occuring.
As to subsidies for the Agri-business, I am totally opposed to subsidies. All they do is play havoc with the "true" consumer price. Bush vetoed the last Agri Bill and it is one of the things he has done that I agree with. Traditionally subsidies were ment to help farmers through rough spots (Drought, Crop Failures, etc) but now they have taken on the form of an entitlement. That costs the taxpayer through higher direct taxes and taxes them again through higher prices at the supermarket. And it costs the international community in higher food prices.
Ending subsidies would drive out the ineficient farms and allow poorer nations to compete on a more level playing field (both are good things). But, for the US to actually change or alter its internal policies to conform to the whim of the international community (as some media reports imply) is idiotic. Agriculture is a strategic industry and in the nation state system such policy is solely the business of the nation. Nor, should states feel obligated to help other states whose poor decisions have ruined their agriculture (DPRK, Zimbabwe, etc) True, the people suffer but they can always vote with their feet or guns.
Bit of a ramble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The US most certainly ought to raise the gas tax but windfall taxes on oil companies make zero sense unless the US is also willing to put a tax on imported oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
