Slashdot Log In
You Cannot Turn it Off: News Addiction
Posted by
michael
on Sat Sep 15, 2001 01:40 AM
from the modern-crack dept.
from the modern-crack dept.
BizangoBob writes: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help. There's a great piece about news addiction in the Washington Post. It made me feel I'm not the only one."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I know what you mean!! (Score:3, Insightful)
We endlessly follow every possible civil liberties encroachment though
I read Slashdot compulsively. I also read Slate, Salon, and the NYT daily. Have I really learned anything important, or am I just wasting time? I tend to think more towards the later.
This is a timely topic in wake of the recent tragic events. I have been refreshing CNN and MSNBC's website obsessively searching for the latest (often wrongly reported) news.
OTOH what is the alternative? It seems today, it is important to process a lot of information quickly. I'm just not sure that I know what is important.
News Saturation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:News Saturation (Score:2, Interesting)
What's truly disappointing is how much of what they've reported has turned out to be wholly false. Like that story of five fire-fighters being rescued from the rubble. Or the talk of many buried victims using cell phones to call for help. Or the report that several men who had been arrested at New York airports last night had knives and airplane technical manuals in arabic; and one man was falsely claiming to be a pilot. (Last I heard most had been released, none had any link to terrorism, and the guy claiming to be a pilot really was.) Or a tale that Atlanta was another intended target for the terrorists. ("Baloney" said one government offical.) Or the immediate assumption that explosions in Kabul were due to an American attack. (It was just rebels hitting an ammunition dump in Afghanistan's never ending civil war.)
Does anybody check their facts anymore? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that something journalists are supposed to do?
more please (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:2)
Suggestion (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Suggestion (Score:3, Funny)
OK. but there is always the radio
Waiting for more coherent news (Score:2, Interesting)
I was glued to the TV/computer the first day, and most of the second day too. I realized something the second day, however. Everything I was hearing was speculation. I figure that if I wait a week to really dig into the articles, things will be more coherent and more of the facts will be layed out for me. Once a real breakthrough is made, I'm sure people will be buzzing about it. I havn't stopped watching the news completely, but I'll save the rest of my attention span for something other than pictures of people jumping off of buildings.
why go far (Score:2)
But seriously the graphic images of the attack that are being shown repeatedly can have a deep psychological effect on the ppl. watching it again and again (u can't help but watch!) can make a deep impression on your psyche and can even lead to extreme emotions and even depression.
The only solution is to talk about it ! even if no one knows the answers .. just talking about the problem can be of great help.
A suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
- Please consider making a "permanent" story -- or call it a forum. When i
want to post something about the tragedy, i'm forced to choose between three
options, none of which is great: I can submit a story, and odds are great
that you will have to reject it. I can post a comment to an old story, where
it will likely be missed since the story is off the front page and will
certainly be missed when the next update is posted. Or, i can wait for the
next update and hope i hit it early.
If you had one huge permanent story instead of lots of smaller ones, people
would sort by "Newest First" to get news, which is what they should do
instead of just waiting for the next story to be posted. It lets new +1 and
+2 comments have a chance regardless of how early they're posted.
Also, raising the maximum comment rating above 5, if technically feasable,
would really help in these stories, where dozens and dozens of comments are
rated at 5...
Re:A suggestion (Score:2)
There's got to be a better way than one *huge* forum -- maybe some sort of sidebar collection of stories and forums or something. Of course, that's moving towards violating the very straightforward paradigm that Slashdot's been following since way back in the day...
The enormity of it all (Score:2)
The the space shuttle Challenger accident
The Oklahoma city bombing
The death of princess Diana
The impeachment of Bill Clinton
And now the WTC destruction. This easily tops them all. It has truly been a mindwarping experience of how so much destruction has been brought about by so few. The news addiction happens because we want every shred of a detail so we can put the story together and understand what happenned. The story is large and in the front of our minds. Knowing the horrific beginning we want to rush and know the ending of the what, where, when and how.
It's curious - do we live in an era that such large spectacles can be counted on happening every few years??
Re:The enormity of it all (Score:2)
I am not being a smartass. Please read on.
The OJ trial was the #1 story of EVERY news broadcast, EVERY DAY for about 2 years. Half of every broadcast was dedicated to OJ, it seemed. I used to think that was an LA thing, but people tell me it was the same way all over the country. You guys must remember this... it was insane how much coverage there was. If you used a TV or radio you could not escape it. Criminal trial, civil trial, custody hearings...
My friends used to joke about what might be a bigger news story. We had to come up with some pretty bizarre stuff before it sounded like it would beat OJ. And it all involved celebrities. Couldn't think of anything IMPORTANT that would get as much coverage.
I guess my real question is what the hell is wrong with us, where some washed up football guy makes the #1 story every day for so long? Are we truly only interested in shallow things like celebrities, or does real news like the current disaster have a chance with the people?
I will be very interested to see what the coverage looks like a year from now. Who will have the staying power, The Juice or Osama bin Laden? I want to believe that as a people we are not as shallow as we appear to be most of the time.
Unfortunately, now I will get to find out for sure. And I'm afraid I will find out that the world is right, that Americans are a shallow, forgetful people. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
For the morbidly curious, here's an OJ chronology [umkc.edu]. Insane how long it went on, and how important it seemed to people.
Jeremy Glick, from Dateline (Score:5, Insightful)
Please read. Please mod up so people will see.
The method of my madness. (Score:2)
1. goto drudgereport.com [drudgereport.com] scan for new news
2. goto cnn.com [cnn.com], then msbnc.com [msbnc.com] for new news
3. goto Slashdot.org [slashdot.org] and shacknews.com for new news
4. Get frustrated that there is no new news and turn on the (freakin) tv.
5. Sit in front of the tube, clicker in hand looking for the news I want.
6. Get annoyed that I'm not hearing about shit blowing up in the middle east.
7. goto 1.
yes, i'm going nuts.
-Jon
coward. (Score:2)
A: I'm only about 50% sure that killing/scaring/generally pissing more people off is the best action. I logically see this as an un-fightable war much like the war on drugs instantiated by the Reagan administration.
But to explain my comment, as an American I very much want to see retaliation, it's illogical irrational and emotional but it's (more then anything) what I want to see.
B: to echo millions; I before Tuesday I was not a patriotic person, I was cynical and felt no connection to the rest of the county. Now I am ready to fight, with a gun for America.
-Jon
Morale (Score:3, Interesting)
Cathedral (Score:2)
News addiction? (Score:2)
Re:News addiction? (Score:3, Funny)
You misspelled "Fox News Channel".
Wanting to do something (Score:2)
One more thing, all you who went to give blood for this tragedy please remember to give again in 4 months, the need for blood is a 365 day of the year thing, And I take pride in telling my co-workers and friends I can't go with them to give blood because I gave a week before the attack.
You can go back to sleep now. Here's why: (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.
I am confident that, in the end, the good will far outweigh the bad in this thing. But it's going to take time.
- A.P.
Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and we'll see if this item of "Breaking News" is true for a change.
we have to go in and take out the Taliban "government" but do it in a way that doesn't kill many Afghani people, since they're not the ones who did this either.
The reason the Taleban is in power is because there are significant numbers of Afghanis who support it. And even the factions that are opposed to it detest the US just as much. If we go to war against Afghanistan, we have to accept the fact that lots of people who were not involved in terrorist activities are going to be killed. If the government is destroyed, what replaces it might be just as bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't attack if that's what needs to be done, just that we have to be prepared for the consequences.
The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with.
I hope we don't have to deal with all fundamentalist regimes. They're not the only one.
Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.
Iraq does not have a Islamic fundamentalist regime, if that's what you meant to imply.
Going in and carpet-bombing the country isn't gonna be the way to do it though.
Afghanistan is a particular problem. If you count the invasion by the Soviet Union, and the civil war that ensued after they sent the Soviets home with their tails between their legs, Afghanistan has been at war for 22 consecutive years. There's little there to bomb. The cities are full of rubble, and roads are muddy ruts. There are thousands of experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors. If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.
I think that's why you haven't heard much about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan
I think the reason we haven't heard about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan is that it's just not good military strategy inform the enemy of your battle plans.
Oops, the URL should be: (Score:3, Informative)
Manufacturing Consent (Score:5, Insightful)
The talk is of reprisal, and how the United States is going to respond to the attacks. Granted, nothing can justify what has happened, and there is no rationalization for what was done. However, could we perhaps get a bit wider perspective or perhaps even some critical thought/discussion regarding what has happened from CNN?
Today there was a poll on CNN.com that makes my point perfectly: "If Afghanistan refuses to hand over Osama bin Laden, should the U.S. bomb Kabul?" 79% of respondents said yes, we should bomb Kabul.
Hello, my fellow citizens! The people of Afghanistan are currently living under the tyrannical rule of the Taliban, having just come out of a long and very punishing war with the former Soviet Union. Not only has all the major infrastructure *already* been bombed, but the people are suffering tremendously as it currently stands.
Even more to the point, what could "we" possibly gain by bombing Kabul, which is a CITY full of CIVILIANS, after all? Does it make any difference whether it's a cruise missle or jetliner causing the explosion? Do you think the Taliban government, the only ones with access to food and equipment, will still be in Kabul when the bombs start to drop? Hardly--they'll be off in the hills with bin Laden, and the only people left to suffer the brunt of such an assault would be the civilian population.
The point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream media is so caught up in the idea that we could bomb Afghanistan that they've forgotten whether or not we should. After all, the only real way that we'll get bin Laden (or whomever is responsible for these crimes) out is by _going_in_after_them_. That will cost American and NATO lives. And, it can be aruged that it runs the high risk of polarizing other Muslim nations against what they could only perceive as an invasion by the West.
And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear bombs at their disposal.
Where is there any discussion of these facts in the mainstream media? That is what I truly fear, more than anything else. The manufacturing of our consent to what amounts to acts of genocide against civilian populations--and that ultimately leads to only greater and greater violence.
Try: http://www.zmag.org [zmag.org]
Umm, maye you should think (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Umm, maye you should think (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but it's quite possible that Commander in Chief George W. Bush might. Don't forget, ultimately, the military gets their orders from Congress and the President.
Basically, Congress has to give permission for the President to use military force (which I believe has already happened), and once that has happened, the President is in basically complete control over the direction the military compaign goes. Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.
Which would be a very bad thing indeed; although if we're all lucky, Bush's advisors will direct him in a less severe course of action.
It's Simple, Really... (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia is going to have to rethink it's internal denial. Egypt is going to need to temper it's internal repression of fundamentalist idiots and move toward better intelligence gathering and sharing with the West. Even Israel will need to do a better job of discriminating between its local political opponents and the dangerous terrorists with over-reaching international agendas. I wish them all wisdom and good fortune, as they will need both.
The Taliban has seemingly made their choice. With Omar's mealy-mouthed sidewinding and impotent defiance of human rights for innocent civilians either inside or outside their borders, they've as much as sealed their fate to burn in the fires of implacable war and then burn again in the eternal fires of Hell for their complicity with such inhuman evil. No Paradise awaits those dupes of a twisted Islamic vision, just everlasting anguish of damnation.
By the way, Islam is a religion much like Christianity, Judaism, and others: it counsels peace and goodwill. Only hotheaded fanatics pervert it to their paranoiac schemes toward power. Unfortunately, there are more Islamic hotheads with dreams of Paradise than can be allowed to live in this world.
Pakistan was likely presented with "an offer it couldn't refuse" and chose, however reluctantly, to stand with the forces of justice. They will close their border with Afghanistan, cut off its fuel supplies, provide bases for a multinational force to remove the Taliban and terrorists, and allow multinational military overflights during this war. Pakistan's choices were exactly two: either you are with us, or you're against us. I'm sure it was just this... clear.
And there will be a war over this. No one kills 5,000 innocent civilians without being hunted to the very ends of the earth and brought to a very stern account. Osama Bin Ladin (I spit on your very name and wish you an excruciating death worse than a shit-eating pig's, you mutant whelp of diseased fornicating dogs), say your prayers - you'll be meeting Allah sooner rather than later, and I think you'll be dismayed with His plans for your eternity.
It's definitely not simple! (Score:3, Interesting)
My country stayed neutral during the cold war. My country has participated in peace keeping for ages and hosted conferences where nations have brought closer to each other.
I can't find the words to describe how sad and disappointed I am to hear how USA demands my country to give up on our neutrality and choose side. It's absolutely revolting how the strongest country in the world forces countries to look at the world in black or white.
Based on a poll 29% of US citizens do not support bombing. Is USA going to make these people "bear the concequences?" Or is US going to respect their right to free speech and own opinions? If so, why does US prohibit this right from peaceloving countries?
Works for me ... (Score:2)
It does for me. I feel insecure in events like these as long as I don't know everything. After absorbing as much news as possible, it settles in and I accept it. THEN I feel better.
Call me a news junkie, but that's the way it works for me.
-Martin
News vs. Knowledge (Score:2)
News is not knowledge. News is a thin layer that rests atop the mountain of our experience and knowledge.
This is why some people can't understand why we didn't just shoot down the second WTC plane while it's pretty obvious to me. This is why people blame religion or, conversely, discount completely the role of religion in this sort of event.
People who are news addicted tend to know what happened but lack a very basic understanding of why. I have seen a lot of these people lately, and I've experienced a lot of frustration trying to point out seemingly obvious mistakes in their logic.
Maybe, then, we need news reporting closer to that of the BBC or newspapers, where at least some depth is included (of course, at the cost of speed). Maybe we just need a better educational system -- hell, I took college-level philosophy classes without reading a page of Locke or Descartes, psych with no Freud of Jung, history without Gibbon.
Maybe I'm ranting -- it's late and I'm tired.
lots of us (Score:2)
I'm doing it too. Its 4 in the morning, and what the heck am I doing up? I'm reloading CNN, reloading slashdot, reading more comments, reading foreign papers, watching TV in the background, I have NPR on the radio.
I keep expecting to find something new, and every now ad then am rewarded. A new insight, a new discussion, a new way to start a ground war, a new way to keep the peace.
What started it all was when it was happening. Just when you thought you new, another thing happened. A plane hit the tower. When you absorbed that, another plane hit the other tower. When you absorbed that, a plane hit the pentagon. When you absorbed that, F-16s were rushing off to intercept ANOTHER plane heading towards DC. It just kept coming, every 15 minutes there was something new, something big. Another plane crash, another plane missing, the president is in florida -- no, he's in Louisiana, wait he's at the bunker.
Always something new, then we heard about the phone calls, the personal stories. i imagine the people on that last flight making the decision to fight back. I keep waiting for another piece of news -- it was too painful to realize I had missed something if I went to the bathroom that morning. If you stopped listening for a minute, you'd tune in again to hear that another plane was down.
Now I keep expecting to hear about an attack somewhere, like the gulf war, started at night where our superior technology gives us sight while the others are blind.
I don't want to wake up and know that I missed the first 6 hours of what happens next.
Having been there -- Cannot turn it on (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess this is me still in shock and denial
Sorry if this is offtopic or whatever
I still don't know what I'm doing since I saw this
A prediction (Score:2)
U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.
The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.
The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about 100,000 people per year.
The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S. government's yearly average.
I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.
The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.
Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to violence? [hevanet.com]"
This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help."
Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.
Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year. (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing more would help, yes:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
By not training him? No.
By enabling the Afghani people to kick out Soviet invaders? Last time I looked, the Soviets withdrew.
George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel.
He reduced support for both sides as tensions increased.
Violence is assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action.
Violence has been committed. However, you notice there was no reflexive bombing campaign.
Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful.
To you, yes. To most people around the world, sadly, no. Would it were so but it's not, and that determines the nature of the conflict. Study the history of terrorism in the 70's and early 80's.
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer.
No, sometimes a part of the answer. Most of that time was spent in the Cold War, which by the way, did not finally become World War Three.
The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years.
Finally, you got one right.
Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people.
No. There are reams of psychological research on this subject. Any arguments based on this premise are therefore wrong.
Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country?
They seem to think so. And much as I'd like to move the Jewish state to Florida, it won't happen. As long as you deal with reality, the U.S. is always asked to go into places we have no direct involvement. The alternative, isolationism, has not been successful and is also the coward's way out of not trying to influence the world to something better. The fact that we haven't been perfectly successful means we're still human.
The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries.
Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Yes. Like all things, that varies by individual, but then I've been called a fascist for suggesting we overturn the government educational system that creates it.
Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.
No. They react more extremely than they normally would. Both to the good (Red Cross donations) and bad (bomb now). On sober reflection, they go back to donating less and not wanting indiscriminate conflict. You'll notice the government you condemn did not take the easy bomb them the first night and make ourselves feel better route.
Answers?
True power is not adversarial.
Check. But if you don't include some ability to threaten those who threaten you or others, things turn out badly. Try living in a place without police if you don't believe me.
Don't let personal anger be a problem.
Our government is doing better than our people here.
The average American cannot be held responsible for the violence of the U.S. government.
And you propose letting people who do so get away with it. Bringing them to justice in any form will require force.
The bottom line
...is that we live in a world, not a college classroom. It can be a harsh and brutal world sometimes. What's coming will not be good, but it will be less bad than the alternative. Study world history 1976-1980 for an abject lesson.
'Net better than TV (Score:4, Informative)
parade of maudlin moments (Score:3, Insightful)
Excessive News Coverage == Win for Terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
The longer that these news outlets contrinue to push this 24/7 news schedule, the longer it will take the rest of the american (and other countries as well) people to return to a sense of normalicy, which is what we ought to be striving for to show the terrorists that this attack did little to stiffle the American spirit. Sure, I'd expect to have soem expanded news coverage as events break, but we should be watching regular programming at this point. Particularly this weekend, as families have a chance for family time, it's important that the networks offer fare that the entire family can enjoy as opposed to more news coverage.
And yet another sign that terrorism has won a bit is the fact that several movies, TV shows, and video games are being pulled for the time being or revamped in the short term to accommodate the loss. In some cases, such as Anrold's new movie or FOX's "24" or the video game Majesty, this makes sense; events are too close to reality that pulling them for the short term just makes sense. I also being not holding the bulk of sports events this weekend is also a reasonable step (both emotionally and technically; how do you get all those people from one side of the country to other with air travel only just starting to get back to normal?) But then you also have cases where, for example, a new Tim Allen comedy in NYC is pulled since it simply involves the WTC, a new Jackie Chan movie being pulled and revamped completely despite the amount of footage already shot since Chan's character in it was a window washer for the WTC, C&C Red Alert 2 being pulled since it shows NYC on fire on the cover of the box, Microsoft immediately altering the next version of it's Flight Sim to remove the WTC from the NYC area (and in the UK, the flight sim being removed from shelves as it was claimed that the terrorists could have learned to fly from that), and numerous other examples which are more knee-jerk than thought out. Again, each of these knee-jerk actions are wins for terrorism, because that's the type of lifestyle that we've come to enjoy and expect, and now, at best for the short term, that's gone.
Yes, at least according to the President, we're in a National Emergancy, so I expect some parts of our lives to be distrupted. But it is much more important to show that the American resolve and spirit cannot be broken as easily as it was, and thus, we must strive to get back to normalacy in our lives, and unfortunately, the constant barrage of news is not helping.
Why News addiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
People do understand that fact on some level; learning about something does give them information to act upon.
Here is some information which has not been reported in the general news: guess who the commander-in-chief of the Afghan military is.
I'll type the article in in part since it is on an extremely slow server even without the slashdot effect.
"MOSCOW, Aug 30 (UPI) - Russia's Foreign Ministry on Thursday condemned the appointment of Saudi terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime, the official RIA Novosti news agency reported."
I am not setting this up as a link because for some reason the Slashdot editor (in Netscape) insists on putting a space in the number 216037, and I can't get the link to work. If you wish to see the original - copy and paste the address into your browser and delete the space.
http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=216 03 7
Several comments:
My experience. (Score:3, Interesting)
When I saw the first news I headed over to all the news sites that I could find (I found out shortly after the first crash) and I was engrossed. My first reaction was one of "woah!" and I just wanted to follow everything that was happening, almost on the edge of my seat waiting for the next thing to happen. Figuring that a building could not possibly stand up after being hit by a plane, I headed over to here [howstuffworks.com] (love that site) to find out everything that I could about how those buildings were built. I was glued to the screen for a good 2 hours, until a thought stuck me. I was looking at one of the images, and said "man, that looks so fake" and caught myself thinking (one of those 1/2 second back-of-your-mind thoughts) "they should have done a better job on the CG of that one"...
BAM!
Then it hit me. Almost all of the images looked like something out of a movie. I had been so desensitized that, upon seeing these images, my mind just assumed that they were fake. It did not want to accept the idea that they were real, so it was neat to want to see all about it that I could find.
Man was I disgusted with myself when I figured that one out.
Flame me down if you want, but I know that I wasn't the only one who thought that way. Once it sunk in that this was real, and those falling bodies out of the windows were real people, and after the first tower collapsed knowing that for the same reason the second one would collapse, and looking at it and knowing that there wasn't shit that I could do, and knowing that the people outside and the firefighters knew the same thing, man. That was a shock. I tried to donate but the stupid amazon form wouldn't accept my postal code, so I went and gave blood instead. I was half of the mind to go down there to see if there was anything that I could do to help (I was about a 5 hour drive away, I'm 1.5hr from the US border in Toronto) but when the borders were closed, and I came to my senses, I realized how entirely useless I was.
I just hope that some good does come out of this. I stopped watching the news after about 4 hours because I was disgusted at the media trying to grandstand with every little bit of information that they had, and watching the rumours go from the first emergance, and hearing them spread from newsteam to newsteam like a bad game of broken telephone, I knew that I had to stop.
Ack. May the passing of the deceased pave the way for a new era of peace and harmony amongst all beings on the earth. I would hate to know that all of this happened and the result was nothing more than a little revenge. Lets hope that this anti-terrorism coilition will stand tall over time and help to eliminate this uglyness.
Ars Technica (Score:3, Interesting)
For those of you wishing some sense of closure, perhaps the Ars Technica thread will assist. It contains dozens upon dozens of photographs of people around the world memorializing the tragedy.
It is touching. And in between the pictures, the words of support and gratefulness will move you.
If there is a single positive outcome to this terrible event, it is that over a billion people have realized the important truth: we are all one people, united in humanity because we are all human.
Together, we could create a utopia. Divided, we create terror, pain, and tragedy.
Let our next thoughts, next decisions, next actions lead us toward a better world.
forget CNN (Score:3, Interesting)
Research the history of the conflict, get to know all sides of the story, get to know the people we will eventually be fighting. Something as simple as going to the "world trade center attack" category on Yahoo! and surfing around is a good start.
Ponder the incredible ripple effect an attack would have on the rest of the world, and how difficult are the decisions we face. There are a million variables in the diplomatic equation in this crisis -- I hope Joshua is working on the problem full-time.
Re:I'm afraid we're just getting what we deserve. (Score:2, Funny)
You make the call!
Religion is NOT to blame (Score:2, Insightful)
No true Christian could ever possibly bomb a hospital. No true Muslim could ever possibly commit a terrorist act. Anyone who would do such a thing is a murderer, not a Muslim or Christian. The two concepts are not mutually compatible.
In order to end the senseless killing, we as a society need to do two things: Stop teaching hate, and effectively deal with mental illness. No other remedy will succeed. Well, maybe one other. We can always exterminate ourselves.
Re:Religion is NOT to blame (Score:2, Interesting)
Although I am an agnostic, you do have a point. You can abstract the causes of these acts beyond religion. Underneath, the common and necesary factor is hate and intolerance. Religious fanatasism may help an individual justify murder, but it need not be present. The individual must, however, be so consumed with hate that, in thier futility and rage, can rationalize attacking innocent strangers over some petty difference. The difference can be nationality, religion, race, etc... Some people are able to hate individuals on the other side of some difference because they have not overcome thier primal instincts to fear that which is different from one's self. The real problem is getting people past this instinct.
Re:Religion is to blame (Score:3, Informative)
We could go into all of this now, and I could explain why your "insights" are sadly shallow, but I suspect you're just trolling. Shame on you for doing so on the backs of 5000 innocent people.
However, on the off chance that your viewpoint actually is that shallow, may I suggest some basic reading: "The Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong. It's an excellent primer on the role of religion and root causes of fundementalism.
Re:Religion is to blame (Score:3, Insightful)
Skyshadow's implication here is spot-on. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous... the arrogance that comes from believing that your way of life is so much superior than mine that it gives you the right to impose it on me often turns deadly. I don't suggest for a moment that we should launch a pre-emptive strike on those two gentlemen's persons.... but bombing the bejeezus out of their credibility is something every sane American should do every chance they get.
Let'em talk... but make sure they're the poster children for the Fool of the Month Club.
Re:Ridiculous! (Score:2)
The net has been a blessing and a curse for me. There are a million things I am interested in, with more coming up all the time. And now there is this wealth of info at my fingertips... It is often very hard to stop studying up my newest obsession and GET SOME DAMN WORK DONE.
Sounds like it could be an addiction to me, but i don't know the proper psychological criteria for the term.
It's the Commercials (Score:2, Interesting)
It's probably NEVER happened before and this is what's causing the widespread television addiction. Full length interviews, they don't force the callers off the line because they have to "take a short break". Im dead serious about this folks.