On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:

>
> Interesting because the news I saw from international sources (TVE, RAI
> CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia TV) showed plenty
> of white folks, both rich and poor who had suffered losses.
>
Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting because the news I saw from international sources (TVE, RAI
> > CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia TV) showed plenty
> > of white folks, both rich and poor who had suffered losses.
> >
> Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
>

Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public radio..................

kili

kilikini wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Interesting because the news I saw from international sources (TVE, RAI
> > > CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia TV) showed plenty
> > > of white folks, both rich and poor who had suffered losses.
> > >
> > Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
> >
>
> Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public radio..................

Yup, in NOLA anyway white folks lost more, much more... they had more
to lose. The poor black folks, which is primarilly what the population
of NOLA is/was comprised (a fact), didn't lose much, can't lose what
you don't own. The vast majority of those demolished shacks were
rented... those who will suffer the loss are the owners... and I've no
idea what color the landlords are, yoose tell me.

Btw, the real losers in such cases are the lien holders and insurers,
they will suffer the greatest losses, in the short term... in the long
term all those losses will be absorbed by the "haves" over the entire
country. The poor never suffer any losses... again, can't lose what
you don't own. In fact the poor will benefit most (for many this was a
blessing in disguise), they will be given more to get on with their
existence than the value of whatever personal goods they left behind
that they actually owned... and most either rented their furnishings or
they were on credit with minimal equity... the poor rarely own even the
clothes on their backs, Walmart will absorb that loss... and eventually
pass it on to those who pay.

And there is nothing racist, there are far more pockets of poverty
accross America that have suffered disasters where the impoverished are
mostly white.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> kilikini wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting because the news I saw from international sources
>>>> (TVE, RAI CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia
>>>> TV) showed plenty of white folks, both rich and poor who had
>>>> suffered losses.
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public radio..................
>
> the poor rarely own even
> the clothes on their backs, Walmart will absorb that loss... and
> eventually
> pass it on to those who pay.
>
I wasn't aware WalMart handed out loans for clothing. I've never been to
one where I could carry clothing (or anything else) out the door without
paying for it. Show me a WalMart where I can walk out with clothing then
claim it as a loss in case of disaster and have the company pay for it.
Cite your references, please.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > kilikini wrote:
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting because the news I saw from international sources
> >>>> (TVE, RAI CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia
> >>>> TV) showed plenty of white folks, both rich and poor who had
> >>>> suffered losses.
> >>>>
> >>> Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public radio..................
> >
> > the poor rarely own even
> > the clothes on their backs, Walmart will absorb that loss... and
> > eventually
> > pass it on to those who pay.
> >
> I wasn't aware WalMart handed out loans for clothing. I've never been to
> one where I could carry clothing (or anything else) out the door without
> paying for it.

Oh, fergot, TN doesn't do credit cards... In Grits We Trust.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=128920


Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>> I wasn't aware WalMart handed out loans for clothing. I've never been to
>> one where I could carry clothing (or anything else) out the door without
>> paying for it.
>
> Oh, fergot, TN doesn't do credit cards... In Grits We Trust.
>

I am not a Wal-Mart fan. I hate shopping there and I think they would do
ANYTHING for a buck. (Have I fallen prey to the story the liberal media is
putting out there? Those liberal *******s!) However, their disaster
response seems to have put our Federal and State governments to shame. See
link below. And yes, I did wonder why this story hasn't received more press
coverage and why some muck rakers are disputing how many trucks Wal-Mart
actually sent.

I'll have to take Wal-Mart off my "Axis of Evil Retailers" list.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090501598.html

Pablo

sf wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting because the news I saw from international sources (TVE, RAI
> > CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia TV) showed plenty
> > of white folks, both rich and poor who had suffered losses.
> >
> Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.

CNN Espanol and CNN International both broadcast from Atlanta -
although CNN International also has news desks in Hong Kong and London.
The newswriters in those divisions put a totally different slant on
things. Not only were displaced white Americans shown and interviewed,
Euro tourists in the area were interviewed and displaced Latin
Americans and Asians were shown and interviewed. Yes, the black poor
and the black looters were shown but not exclusively. That seemed to be
the venue of Fox which we watched a few times when we flipped on that
channel because the cricket scores and teams were being discussed on
CNN International. On CNN, the only American material that we that get
are Larry King, Aaron Brown, Diplomatic License, and Wolf Blitzer. Most
of the other material focuses on weekly programming such as "Inside
Africa," Inside the Middle East," "Mainsail" (about sailing), a weekly
program on golf, etc.

If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
down here would rather do without news than watch them.

SD

modom wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 15:24:05 -0700, "itsjoannotjoann"
> > wrote:
>
> A lot of stupid, racist crap.
>
> modom

I agree, people see what they want to see. The south is famous for its
'poor white trash' who are getting as much help as they apply for. But
many 'poor folk' are very proud and won't ask for help.

All the way out here in california people are pretending to be
'survivors' & 'refugees' to get FEMA funds. An announcement was made
about an office opening where people could go and apply if they had made
it out to california and the lines were so long they had to get police
in to control the crowds and try to sort out the real from the fakes.
Course then it went to the other extreme and real survivors were being
asked for identity papers and proofs they could not provide.

I was shocked the other day when i was at the bank and an old lady was
arguing with a bank officer, she knew her mothers maiden name, social
security number and b'day & pin number but they would not let her access
her s.s. funds cause there was too much fraud going on. She was
claiming to be an refugee that only just got out without any of her
papers and asking for a service that had been provided to me on a number
of occasions when i had lost a wallet and that with no questions asked.

Of course Halliburton just got some 70 - 80 million dollars in
government 'bonuses' for its work in Iraq. Its not enough that they got
the contracts to do the reconstruction and got paid for it but to get
these millions as a 'bonus' just really irks me.
---
JL

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:24:29 -0500, modom > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:13:08 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:12:28 -0500, modom > wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Sep 2005 15:24:05 -0700, "itsjoannotjoann"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>A lot of stupid, racist crap.
>>
>>I guess you're one of the brilliant analysts who consider _Huckleberry
>>Finn_ racist?
>
>No.

Hard to prove that by your "analysis" of the OP.

>>Any racism in that post is reflected from the media coverage.
>
>No.

I see you chose to ignore the first sentence: "Things I have learned
from watching the news on TV during the last
eight days:"

But then I've run across this same approach before--'it's always about
race and it's all about the downtrodden.'


>The post contained this statement:
>"Only black family members got separated in the hurricane rescue
>efforts."
>
>That is racially divisive and a lie. As I already said in another
>post, hiding behind an ill conceived attempt at a media critique is a
>****ant alibi. That the post addressed race at all reflects a bias
>about what is normal in America. The norm in NOLA ain't white.

Now who's making remarks that easily could be called racist? Had the
OP said "The norm in NOLA ain't white," you'd be citing that as
racism.

>Furthermore I personally saw pictures of white kids on TV during the
>weekend attempt to reunite families and locate missing kids.
>
>And this one:
>"Ignore warnings to evacuate and the white folks will come get you and
>give you money for being stupid."
>
>That is not accurate and racist. CNN reported that 38% of those who
>stayed behind couldn't leave because they were either disabled or
>caring for a disabled person who couldn't leave. Poverty and simply
>not having a car accounted for large percentages of others who did not
>flee the storm.
>
>And this one:
>"The hurricane only hit black families' property."
>
>That is not accurate and racist. Anybody atending to the coverage of
>the disaster saw plenty of stories about property damage among white
>communities, many of them heart-wrenching.

The OP addresses the overall thrust of the media. Certainly there are
exceptions--upon which you're pleased to jump. But the OP's
piece--and it's admittedly over the top, as much humor deliberately
is--makes a valid point about the general coverage.

Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
re-election), but they ARE exceptions.

>>(try thinking next time, instead of hitting yourself in the jaw when
>>your knee jerks)
>
>Thanks for the advice. You might try reading it out loud to yourself.

Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
these judgments. You clearly don't, now.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On 24 Sep 2005 18:18:50 -0700, "-L." > wrote:

>
>nancree wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> "P.S. How did we get from "Katrina" to "Rita" in just 3 weeks? I
>> thought tropical storm names ran alphabetically."
>
>Not all hurricanes are reported, or develop into storms that approach
>the US. Lee through Phillipe didn't make the news.

Not all tropical storms become hurricanes; without the requisite
digging, my suspicion is that none of the L-P group did. Maybe one or
two and they never neared (US) land.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On 24 Sep 2005 20:58:03 -0500, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>Joan's point was clearly that the media coverage was biased. I'm pretty sure
>she doesn't believe any of the points she posted.

By the way, Joan didn't write that--or if she did, it took her at
least two days to get round to rfc with it. I saw it in email or on
another group at least two days before it showed here--and it wasn't
from Joan then.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

pablo wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >> I wasn't aware WalMart handed out loans for clothing. I've never been to
> >> one where I could carry clothing (or anything else) out the door without
> >> paying for it.
> >
> > Oh, fergot, TN doesn't do credit cards... In Grits We Trust.
> >
>
> I am not a Wal-Mart fan. I hate shopping there and I think they would do
> ANYTHING for a buck.

Like su madre, si...

Walmart was simply an example most recognize (even a dumb little
wetback putz like you)... is Sears okay, JCPenny?

I don't think any retailer is any different, they're all out to make
bucks... better than stealing hubcaps, pueblo, pablum, whatever.

Sheldon

On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, "SD" > wrote:

>If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
>keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
>down here would rather do without news than watch them.

Please. calling anything owned by Murdoch "American news" is just....

unspeakable.
--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

Sheldon wrote:

>
> You posted what to normal brained people is obviously "spoof" (someone
> elses), and you, the ****ing imbecile that you are, actually take it
> literally. Like I said, you are the dumbest mother****er to ever grace
> this newsgroup. Wait-a-minute, it's a webtv imbecile, figures.
>
> Sheldon



Shelly, Shelly, Shelly, I'm surprised at you! You claim to be such an
expert on everything but you take someone's address here as being
literal. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Anyone with half a brain, oh wait, that
leaves you out, would know and could check that I'm not posting from
webtv. It's just a convenient address to keep perverts and spammers
out of my mailbox. But what can I expect from someone who uses AOHell?
Not much I can assure you.

(Psst, I'm using a laptop and MSN is my ISP) Have fun!

Denny Wheeler wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, "SD" > wrote:
>
> >If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> >keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> >down here would rather do without news than watch them.
>
> Please. calling anything owned by Murdoch "American news" is just....
>
> unspeakable.


It's American news because it a news channel originating in America,
carrying heavily American oriented news stories primarily for
consumption by the American public although, unfortunately, they are
expanding their global reach. On the other hand, CNN International
originates in Hong Kong and London. It is geared to the Asian and
European viewing audience with a wide range of news that focuses not
just on America.

SD

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:24:29 -0500, modom > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:13:08 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I guess you're one of the brilliant analysts who consider _Huckleberry
>>>Finn_ racist?
>>
>>No.
>
>Hard to prove that by your "analysis" of the OP.

No proof needed. I was characterized as something that I'm not. I
denied the allegation. Are you calling me a liar? I said no. No it
is. Twain's masterpiece is not racist. Neither is Tom Sawyer. Nor
Life on the Mississippi, Roughing It, Puddinhead Wilson, The
Mysterious Stranger, Innocents Abroad, or An Extract from Capt.
Stormfield's Visit to heaven.

Not that any of this matters since you only brought it up as an ad
hominem (see below). You imagine me to be something I'm not. I ask
that you get over it.
>
>>>Any racism in that post is reflected from the media coverage.
>>
>>No.
>
>I see you chose to ignore the first sentence: "Things I have learned
>from watching the news on TV during the last
>eight days:"
>
>But then I've run across this same approach before--'it's always about
>race and it's all about the downtrodden.'
>
No it's not. This time, however it is. Those who suffered so deeply
in the flood did so largely because they were poor, black,
downtorddem. I know that tens of thousands of non-black people also
suffered, but the huge media profile of the black population signifies
something other than bias. Asserting that it is biased presumes a
racist point of view.

>>The post contained this statement:
>>"Only black family members got separated in the hurricane rescue
>>efforts."
>>
>>That is racially divisive and a lie. As I already said in another
>>post, hiding behind an ill conceived attempt at a media critique is a
>>****ant alibi. That the post addressed race at all reflects a bias
>>about what is normal in America. The norm in NOLA ain't white.
>
>Now who's making remarks that easily could be called racist? Had the
>OP said "The norm in NOLA ain't white," you'd be citing that as
>racism.

Huh? It's simply a fact that a large majority of the citizens of that
city are not white. This has nothing to do with avoiding truth.
Quite the contrary.

>The OP addresses the overall thrust of the media. Certainly there are
>exceptions--upon which you're pleased to jump. But the OP's
>piece--and it's admittedly over the top, as much humor deliberately
>is--makes a valid point about the general coverage.

It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
must not treat its citizens this way.
>
>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>
Media, schmedia. Maintaining that the coverage had too many black
faces in it is not a media critique. It's just racist crap.

>>>(try thinking next time, instead of hitting yourself in the jaw when
>>>your knee jerks)
>>
>>Thanks for the advice. You might try reading it out loud to yourself.
>
>Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
>these judgments. You clearly don't, now.

Honey, I've had lots of life experiences, and the rhetorical move you
just attempted is called an ad hominem, a fallacious pseudo argument
equivalent to calling me ugly. That is to say it's childish.


modom

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:53:22 -0400, pablo wrote:
>
> I am not a Wal-Mart fan. I hate shopping there and I think they would do
> ANYTHING for a buck. (Have I fallen prey to the story the liberal media is
> putting out there? Those liberal *******s!) However, their disaster
> response seems to have put our Federal and State governments to shame. See
> link below. And yes, I did wonder why this story hasn't received more press
> coverage and why some muck rakers are disputing how many trucks Wal-Mart
> actually sent.
>
> I'll have to take Wal-Mart off my "Axis of Evil Retailers" list.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090501598.html
>
Operation Timed Out.

I'm in agreement with you on all points. They seem to understand
which side their bread is buttered on and who butters it, so they
responded quickly and compassionately to the emergency.... unlike
FEMA.

BTW: Did you read about Rita and gas? It took 14 hours to go 10
miles out of Houston... quite a traffic jam. Apparently there were
Army issued gas trucks going around to fill up tanks - BUT the nozzels
were the wrong size. This type of SNAFU is so typical of our American
disaster response effort (Homeland Security? What homeland
security?), it's disgusting.

On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, SD wrote:

> If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> down here would rather do without news than watch them.
>
> SD

Sorry, I'm not connecting your nick to a location. Is "down here"
Honduras... Australia/NZ?

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:40:12 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, "SD" > wrote:
>
> >If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> >keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> >down here would rather do without news than watch them.
>
> Please. calling anything owned by Murdoch "American news" is just....
>
> unspeakable.

Compared to when they first arrived on the scene, Fox is doing a
better job these days.

On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>> > wrote:
>>
[I tried to trim this right -- hope I did]
>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>
>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>
>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.

If you are responding to the statements immediately above your
comment, be advised that I did not write them. The graph above that
is mine as is the graph below.
>
>> Media, schmedia. Maintaining that the coverage had too many black
>> faces in it is not a media critique. It's just racist crap.

>>>Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
>>>these judgments. You clearly don't, now.
>>
>> Honey, I've had lots of life experiences, and the rhetorical move you
>> just attempted is called an ad hominem, a fallacious pseudo argument
>> equivalent to calling me ugly. That is to say it's childish.
>
>Apparently not enought of those lief experiences.
>
Since my recent, very minor brush with Rita, I've had any number of
leaf experiences. But lief experiences...hmm. I think I might have
once met a guy named Lief, but that might be wrong. I know I met a
really nice fellow named Bjorn back in college, and I do own a copy of
Pynchon's Vineland, though I never read it.

As to life experiences, I've had my share. I came of age at a time
when buses of Freedom Riders rolled through the south, when people
were killed for voter registration efforts, when my friends -- kids I
played catch with, kids I went fishing and picked berries with, kids I
liked -- my friends were content to keep black folks down. I've been
treated by doctors who had segregated waiting rooms. I've drunk from
segregated drinking fountains, attended segregated schools. I watched
as a public pool in a small Louisiana town was closed when the order
came that it be integrated. I saw a New Orleans amusement park closed
for the same reason. There's more, but these will serve for now.

It's been more than 40 years since that pool closed and I lost those
friendships. And still this disgusting racial divide continues to
poison our nation. This is a shame on us as a people.

>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.

I ask that you support that statement with reasons.

modom

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:58:56 -0700, sf >
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:40:12 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, "SD" > wrote:
>>
>> >If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
>> >keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
>> >down here would rather do without news than watch them.
>>
>> Please. calling anything owned by Murdoch "American news" is just....
>>
>> unspeakable.
>
>Compared to when they first arrived on the scene, Fox is doing a
>better job these days.

That's sort of like saying 'he was nicer to me this time and only
broke ONE leg.'

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler

>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>
>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>
>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.

Hey, that second paragraph above is mine. And what's pseudo-elevated
about it?
(I was going to say something similar about "modom"'s
pseudointellectual BS)

>>>Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
>>>these judgments. You clearly don't, now.
>>
>> Honey, I've had lots of life experiences, and the rhetorical move you
>> just attempted is called an ad hominem, a fallacious pseudo argument
>> equivalent to calling me ugly. That is to say it's childish.

Well, no. That's not ad hominem, sweetcakes. Simply descriptive of
your obvious naivete. <shrug> Not my problem.

>Apparently not enought of those lief experiences.
>
>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.

More so, imo.
--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:25:39p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>>> > wrote:
>>>
> [I tried to trim this right -- hope I did]

Sorry, Michael, but I didn't trim it and should have.

>>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>>
>>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>>
>>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.

I meant that comment for your paragraph above.

> If you are responding to the statements immediately above your
> comment, be advised that I did not write them. The graph above that
> is mine as is the graph below.

<snip>

>>Apparently not enought of those lief experiences.

Heh, my lack of proofreading and spellchecker. Sorry.

> Since my recent, very minor brush with Rita, I've had any number of
> leaf experiences. But lief experiences...hmm. I think I might have

Yes, I'm sure you've had many leaf experiences.

> once met a guy named Lief, but that might be wrong. I know I met a
> really nice fellow named Bjorn back in college, and I do own a copy of
> Pynchon's Vineland, though I never read it.
>
> As to life experiences, I've had my share. I came of age at a time
> when buses of Freedom Riders rolled through the south, when people
> were killed for voter registration efforts, when my friends -- kids I
> played catch with, kids I went fishing and picked berries with, kids I
> liked -- my friends were content to keep black folks down. I've been
> treated by doctors who had segregated waiting rooms. I've drunk from
> segregated drinking fountains, attended segregated schools. I watched
> as a public pool in a small Louisiana town was closed when the order
> came that it be integrated. I saw a New Orleans amusement park closed
> for the same reason. There's more, but these will serve for now.

My parents are native Mississippians and, while I didn't live there on a
permanent basis, I spent a great deal of time there over the course of my
life. I am now 60. I saw and experienced all of the same things you
detailed above, but perhaps not on quite as intimate a level as you, since
I was a periodic resident. I was, however, intimately aware of the
experiences of my relatives. The town where my family lives integrated
peacefully, if reluctantly. Still, there was voluntary social segregation,
which I personally don't think is a bad thing. To no small extent, it was
desired as much by the black population as well as the white population.

> It's been more than 40 years since that pool closed and I lost those
> friendships. And still this disgusting racial divide continues to
> poison our nation. This is a shame on us as a people.

Nothing closed down in that Misissippi town. I presume there is still a
social divide to some extent, but I haven't been there in a while. As long
as there is equality in rights and opportunities, I cannot fault people for
choosing not to mingle racially. It is everyone's right to have only the
friends they want. I see this in the North to almost the same extent.

>>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.
>
> I ask that you support that statement with reasons.

Most of the telecasts that I saw did seem to emphasize the plight of the
black population. I considered it a gross omission, but not a bias. IME,
throughout most of the South there are far more poor and/or jobless blacks
than whites. Obviously, most of those left behind of either race probably
had little opportunity to leave in advance, primarily for economic reasons.
I don't think it odd that, faced with the devastation of Katrina, people
begged to be helped and expected that help, and felt betrayed when they
were not helped. I can't even begin to imagine what spin the effect of
Katrina had on the minds of the victims. Much of the news media reports
what sells. After all, it is still a commercial endeavor.

I'm very glad to know that you and your family is safe.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/dzijap.jpg

Popie-In-The-Bowl

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:27:33 -0700, Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:58:56 -0700, sf >
> wrote:
> >
> >Compared to when they first arrived on the scene, Fox is doing a
> >better job these days.
>
> That's sort of like saying 'he was nicer to me this time and only
> broke ONE leg.'

LOL! Not quite, but they are shaping up.

On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:44:30p, Denny Wheeler wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>
>>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>>
>>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>>
>>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.
>
> Hey, that second paragraph above is mine. And what's pseudo-elevated
> about it?
> (I was going to say something similar about "modom"'s
> pseudointellectual BS)
>

My paragraph was misplaced. It was in response to Michael;s.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/dzijap.jpg

Popie-In-The-Bowl

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> modom > wrote:
>
> > On 24 Sep 2005 15:24:05 -0700, "itsjoannotjoann"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > A lot of stupid, racist crap.
>
>
> There's some truth to what you post, and some truth to the fact that the
> presentation of the post was not kind. But it's also true that most of
> the coverage that I saw involved black people. Who's racism is that, if
> any?
>
> Of course, where I live, we don't have weather (California). That's
> good and that's bad. I happen to like it. I went camping last week,
> and slept in my preferred bed clothing (nothing). It was in the mid
> forties in the morning, but quickly warmed up.
>
> Although we don't have weather here, we do have the occasional
> earthquake. One thing about the OP that struck a chord was that
> according to media reports, Katrina only hit NO, no where else.

That's really odd - the media I watched (MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews) all
reported on Katrina in various places in Mississippi (Gulfport being
the chief one) and other towns/cities along the coast. You must have
been watching some alien network ;-)

N.

On 26 Sep 2005 05:11:07 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:25:39p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>

>>>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>>>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>>>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>>>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>>>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>>>
>>>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.
>
>I meant that comment for your paragraph above.

So this is a vocabulary critique. Noted. But there was serious
content that you never addressed. Drivelness (drivelhood?) not
withstanding, I did say something.
>
>>>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.
>>
>> I ask that you support that statement with reasons.
>
>Most of the telecasts that I saw did seem to emphasize the plight of the
>black population. I considered it a gross omission, but not a bias. IME,
>throughout most of the South there are far more poor and/or jobless blacks
>than whites. Obviously, most of those left behind of either race probably
>had little opportunity to leave in advance, primarily for economic reasons.
>I don't think it odd that, faced with the devastation of Katrina, people
>begged to be helped and expected that help, and felt betrayed when they
>were not helped. I can't even begin to imagine what spin the effect of
>Katrina had on the minds of the victims. Much of the news media reports
>what sells. After all, it is still a commercial endeavor.
>
Much of what you say is surely true. And Denny made a much similar
point about commercial influences on coverage. Frankly that doesn't
really explain the alleged mistakes of the hurricane coverage to my
way of thinking. Why would skewing things towards a black perspective
sell more Claritin and Fords? Do you see what I mean?

The crushed boats and casinos, the smashed houses and churches in
Biloxi have clear news value and should be reported of course. And
they were. We all know about them. But thousands of hungry, thirsty,
desparate people --some of them dying -- stuck in a hellhole for days
with poisoned water filling the streets outside and armed predators
inside has more news value. It's a bigger story regardless of the
race of the people. Therefore it gets bigger coverage. The
contention that the media (which is anyway a huge, complicated group
of often quarrelsome individuals, not a monolithic unified front)
over-emphesized the suffering of black folks is a judgment some have
made. And I strongly disagree with that judgment. It presumes too
much. Too much knowledge of events, too much knowledge of the
processes of news gathering and reporting. And it presumes that a
white perspective is objective. That is one of the roots of racism.

It appears that many white Americans simply aren't used to seeing so
many poor black people on TV. And their reaction has been a
collective "This can't be."

It be.

>I'm very glad to know that you and your family is safe.

They were never in danger. It was a glancing blow from what had
degenerated to a tropical storm by the time it reached the latitude of
Cow Hill.


modom

On Mon 26 Sep 2005 10:55:15a, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 26 Sep 2005 05:11:07 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:25:39p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>>>>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>>>>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>>>>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our
>>>>> nation must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about
>>>>>>eyeballs in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they
>>>>>>can. Yes, there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as
>>>>>>there's occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something
>>>>>>other than re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>>>>
>>>>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.
>>
>>I meant that comment for your paragraph above.
>
> So this is a vocabulary critique. Noted. But there was serious
> content that you never addressed. Drivelness (drivelhood?) not
> withstanding, I did say something.

Then it might have been more noteworthy in simpler English. This wa
stilted writing even for you, moreso for this NG.

>>>>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.
>>>
>>> I ask that you support that statement with reasons.
>>
>>Most of the telecasts that I saw did seem to emphasize the plight of the
>>black population. I considered it a gross omission, but not a bias.
>>IME, throughout most of the South there are far more poor and/or jobless
>>blacks than whites. Obviously, most of those left behind of either race
>>probably had little opportunity to leave in advance, primarily for
>>economic reasons. I don't think it odd that, faced with the devastation
>>of Katrina, people begged to be helped and expected that help, and felt
>>betrayed when they were not helped. I can't even begin to imagine what
>>spin the effect of Katrina had on the minds of the victims. Much of the
>>news media reports what sells. After all, it is still a commercial
>>endeavor.
>>
> Much of what you say is surely true. And Denny made a much similar
> point about commercial influences on coverage. Frankly that doesn't
> really explain the alleged mistakes of the hurricane coverage to my
> way of thinking. Why would skewing things towards a black perspective
> sell more Claritin and Fords? Do you see what I mean?
>
> The crushed boats and casinos, the smashed houses and churches in
> Biloxi have clear news value and should be reported of course. And
> they were. We all know about them. But thousands of hungry, thirsty,
> desparate people --some of them dying -- stuck in a hellhole for days
> with poisoned water filling the streets outside and armed predators
> inside has more news value. It's a bigger story regardless of the
> race of the people. Therefore it gets bigger coverage. The
> contention that the media (which is anyway a huge, complicated group
> of often quarrelsome individuals, not a monolithic unified front)
> over-emphesized the suffering of black folks is a judgment some have
> made. And I strongly disagree with that judgment. It presumes too
> much. Too much knowledge of events, too much knowledge of the
> processes of news gathering and reporting. And it presumes that a
> white perspective is objective. That is one of the roots of racism.
>
> It appears that many white Americans simply aren't used to seeing so
> many poor black people on TV. And their reaction has been a
> collective "This can't be."
>
> It be.

On much of this we probably should agree to disagree.

>>I'm very glad to know that you and your family is safe.
>
> They were never in danger. It was a glancing blow from what had
> degenerated to a tropical storm by the time it reached the latitude of
> Cow Hill.

I thought some of your family was in Louisiana. My mistake. I haven't
watched as much coverage of Rita as I did of Katrina.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/dzijap.jpg

Popie-In-The-Bowl

On 26 Sep 2005 20:29:01 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>>
>> They were never in danger. It was a glancing blow from what had
>> degenerated to a tropical storm by the time it reached the latitude of
>> Cow Hill.
>
>I thought some of your family was in Louisiana. My mistake. I haven't
>watched as much coverage of Rita as I did of Katrina.

Yes, I have family in Louisiana. They're fine. It got real wet in
Baton Rouge when Rita passed out in the Gulf, and my parents lost
power for about 12 hours that night. But they are fine now. Uncles,
cousins, aunts, etc. are all reported to be in good shape.


modom

Sheldon wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> kilikini wrote:
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 25 Sep 2005 08:01:02 -0700, SD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting because the news I saw from international sources
>>>>>> (TVE, RAI CNN Espanol, CNN international. Canal Vasco, Galicia
>>>>>> TV) showed plenty of white folks, both rich and poor who had
>>>>>> suffered losses.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, Americans get a different version of the news.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that the truth?!?!?! Listen to public
>>>> radio..................
>>>
>>> the poor rarely own even
>>> the clothes on their backs, Walmart will absorb that loss... and
>>> eventually
>>> pass it on to those who pay.
>>>
>> I wasn't aware WalMart handed out loans for clothing. I've never
>> been to one where I could carry clothing (or anything else) out the
>> door without paying for it.
>
> Oh, fergot, TN doesn't do credit cards... In Grits We Trust.
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=128920
>
>
> Sheldon

If these people are so incredibly poor and are deadbeats as you maintain, no
way is anyone going to give them a credit card.

Jill

kilikini wrote:
>
> Me, too. Funny, my white cousin was lost for a few weeks, then found in
> Mississippi in a church. My white cousins have no home and are living in a
> hotel with no clothing or any material goods. Where's their $2,000 cash
> cards? Where's their relief effort?
>
> kili

You have to apply to receive the card. If they are too dumb to figure
that out, they don't deserve it....

-L.

sf wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, SD wrote:
>
> > If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> > keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> > down here would rather do without news than watch them.
> >
> > SD
>
> Sorry, I'm not connecting your nick to a location. Is "down here"
> Honduras... Australia/NZ?

Honduras

SD

On 27 Sep 2005 12:01:34 -0700, SD wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> > On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, SD wrote:
> >
> > > If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> > > keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> > > down here would rather do without news than watch them.
> > >
> > > SD
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not connecting your nick to a location. Is "down here"
> > Honduras... Australia/NZ?
>
> Honduras
>
> SD

Sandi? When did you change to SD?

In article >,
modom > wrote:

> That is not accurate and racist. CNN reported that 38% of those who
> stayed behind couldn't leave because they were either disabled or
> caring for a disabled person who couldn't leave. Poverty and simply
> not having a car accounted for large percentages of others who did not
> flee the storm.

<kicking myself for joining the fray> What about the 62% who stayed
for other reasons? And why did all of those buses remain empty and
stationary? And how many more people would have been stuck if it had
been up to the mayor and governor, who thought they had everything under
control?

It was a _NATURAL DISASTER_ an _EMERGENCY_, and 80% of the city was
evacuated rather than the 65% they expected. Emergency relief responded
faster than in other recent hurricane disasters, yet somehow our
government failed these people. It's more like their local government
failed them by insisting they didn't need federal aid, up to the few
days before (meanwhile MS knew to ask for help in advance), not
mandating evacuation and not providing a way out for those who couldn't
get out themselves.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

In article >,
modom > wrote:

> No it's not. This time, however it is. Those who suffered so deeply
> in the flood did so largely because they were poor, black,
> downtorddem. I know that tens of thousands of non-black people also
> suffered, but the huge media profile of the black population signifies
> something other than bias. Asserting that it is biased presumes a
> racist point of view.

The reason most of the victims in New Orleans were black is because
80% of New Orleans is black! The reason most of the victims were poor
is because New Orleans is full of poor folk! That there are lots of
poor black people in a town with lots of black people and lots of poor
people is not that surprising.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

In article >,
modom > wrote:

> But thousands of hungry, thirsty,
> desparate people --some of them dying --

Didn't we learn a few months ago that dying of thirst and hunger is a
quiet, peaceful, natural death? (yes I am being sarcastic)

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

Ranee Mueller wrote:
> In article >,
> modom > wrote:
>
> > But thousands of hungry, thirsty,
> > desparate people --some of them dying --
>
> Didn't we learn a few months ago that dying of thirst and hunger is a
> quiet, peaceful, natural death? (yes I am being sarcastic)
>
> Regards,
> Ranee

I don't think anyone argued that dying of thirst or hunger was anything
of the sort - they merely argued that Teri Schiavo was brain dead and
so wouldn't know the difference. Jeb and Good Ole Boy W sure have
milked the hell out of her 15 minutes though...they'll exploit anything
to inflict their religion on the good people of the US of A...

-L.

sf wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2005 12:01:34 -0700, SD wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > > On 25 Sep 2005 13:14:15 -0700, SD wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I really need to see how screwed up American news is, I can always
> > > > keep tuned to Fox and watch Geralso, Greta, and O'Reilly. Most of us
> > > > down here would rather do without news than watch them.
> > > >
> > > > SD
> > >
> > > Sorry, I'm not connecting your nick to a location. Is "down here"
> > > Honduras... Australia/NZ?
> >
> > Honduras
> >
> > SD
>
> Sandi? When did you change to SD?
>
>

A few weeks ago. Decided to no longer use my name in newsgroups.

SD