MikeS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I didn't hear anything about it on the US news. I
> bring this one up as I have friends in Nepal (my
> first expedition was to the Terrai there).



Lee has addressed, this, and I remember seeing it. So much for that...lol.



> they do try and portray the
> UN in an undemocratic light (maybe that is fair,
> but it also does a lot of good too). This bais in
> your news does not suprise me since the US owes
> the UN so much money (over a billion $ I
> believe)!

You might want to check your facts on that. We are the single greatest contributor to the UN, and I do not think there is a back debt. We have repeatedly withheld funding for a variety of reasons... the least of which has been major accounting problems we've identified... but that's not the same as being "behind".

If you think your lawn service is going out of business in the next week or two, you don't prepay a year. Demanding transparency is hardly an unreasonable request.





>
> Also, another point from your original post, you
> said something like "I'll bet none of you know of
> this legislation"! Coming out of Brussles??? OF
> COURSE WE DON'T!!! There is so much coming out of
> Brussles that is so contriversial that it rarely
> makes the news. That is why the EU is in such a
> mess. The politicians want it to take one
> direction and the people, so it seems by recent
> referendom results, want it to take another.



"Of course we don't"?

Wow. So the idea is to bury the theft of civil rights in a pile of crap do deep you don't notice it's being taken?

Where's your "whistle-blowing" media watchdogs?

HINT: We didn't have them until we got RID of the "fairness doctrine"... and many more people could get the news out.




>
> Other than loving Dr Who I have no reason to stick
> up for the BBC, but I genuinely was appalled by
> the news services (notice the plural there) in the
> US in 2001 and can't believe it has improved that
> much since then. Remember also that roughly 50% of
> the population in the UK only have 5 channels, and
> none of them are dedicated news channels.



A growing portion of America is getting their news from either cable news sources or even strictly the internet. The "big three" have lost so much market share it's almost funny. Take the Dan Rather/CBS Memo-gate scandal from last year. The major media was pawning off forged documents to try and shift an election. Even now, the Rove controversy is hilarious if you find all the facts. The "secret agent" he supposedly outed hadn't been "secret" in over five years; drove to work every day using the front gates of the CIA at Langley; and was made known to Rove by none other than a REPORTER first!

But, until recently, all we've heard on the major network news is that Rove outed a secret agent. How ridiculous! Why let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign??!!!

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.