Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.

On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article
, "peter"
wrote:

On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote:


David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?



the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in
the Iraqi and Afghan press?


BINGO!

Ta! Da!

....and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or
Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might
have a slight oiliness.)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/30/2011 3:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article
, "peter"
wrote:

On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote:


David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?



the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in
the Iraqi and Afghan press?


BINGO!

Ta! Da!

...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or
Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might
have a slight oiliness.)



Not exactly. When an LI soldier gets killed, it gets substantially more
coverage in the LI papers, than an the Orlando guy.


--
Peter

On 2011-01-30 12:55:47 -0800, peter said:

On 1/30/2011 3:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said:
On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article
, "peter"
wrote:
On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote:


David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?



the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in
the Iraqi and Afghan press?


BINGO!

Ta! Da!

...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or
Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might
have a slight oiliness.)



Not exactly. When an LI soldier gets killed, it gets substantially more
coverage in the LI papers, than an the Orlando guy.

Just how much coverage do the LI papers get in Sedalia, MO?

....and yet they still taste the same to the Martian.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/30/2011 6:22 AM tony cooper spake thus:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:18:56 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-29 19:28:27 -0800, David Nebenzahl said:

Again, you miss my point.

For me it's 1:1 too. But that's not the conclusion any Martian would
come to if they were to come down to Earth and observe the relative
worth placed on American lives and non-American lives in the US.
Evidence? Just watch the news or read a newspaper ...

That was never your question, implied or otherwise. Why the phuzzynuts,
would I care what a Martian would conclude?
Mr. average Martian would just jam one of his fingers in your token
North American ear, then jam that same finger in the ear of your token
Tunisian, and say, "Hey! That feels the same to me. Therefore these two
life forms, located in different places on this strange planet are
identical. Both should do just fine for that recipe in Mom's cook book."

David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

I may not be all that great at expressing myself all the time, granted,
but I think my critical thinking skills are at least OK.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?

Fair point, I suppose. Naturally, it's human nature to be more
interested in local events. But there's more to it than that.

Let me use the example of the Vietnam War (esp. since "savageduck" seems
sorta fixated on this "conflict"): I offer proof of the relative worth
of human life by way of how the wrong number is always used to describe
this conflict.

I'm talking, of course, about 55,000.

As opposed to that other number, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 3
million. (It's actually not known just how many Vietnamese were killed
during this war.)

Taking the average estimate of Vietnamese killed (1.5 million), I get a
ratio of 27:1. Factoring out the "local vs. distant" bias, let's divide
this by two. That still leaves a ratio of 13:1.

Of course, even this could be dismissed as simply a matter of local vs.
distant interest, except for the implicit assumption (mostly honored in
the breach) that "all men are created equal"--not just nationally, but
globally. In other words, we (the U.S.) always take great pains to claim
how much we believe in the Rights of Man everywhere, not just in our
Homeland.

I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in which
case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human life,
or ... I don't know what the alternative is here.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:11:14 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 1/30/2011 6:22 AM tony cooper spake thus:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:18:56 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-29 19:28:27 -0800, David Nebenzahl said:

Again, you miss my point.

For me it's 1:1 too. But that's not the conclusion any Martian would
come to if they were to come down to Earth and observe the relative
worth placed on American lives and non-American lives in the US.
Evidence? Just watch the news or read a newspaper ...

That was never your question, implied or otherwise. Why the phuzzynuts,
would I care what a Martian would conclude?
Mr. average Martian would just jam one of his fingers in your token
North American ear, then jam that same finger in the ear of your token
Tunisian, and say, "Hey! That feels the same to me. Therefore these two
life forms, located in different places on this strange planet are
identical. Both should do just fine for that recipe in Mom's cook book."

David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

I may not be all that great at expressing myself all the time, granted,
but I think my critical thinking skills are at least OK.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?

Fair point, I suppose. Naturally, it's human nature to be more
interested in local events. But there's more to it than that.

Let me use the example of the Vietnam War (esp. since "savageduck" seems
sorta fixated on this "conflict"): I offer proof of the relative worth
of human life by way of how the wrong number is always used to describe
this conflict.

I'm talking, of course, about 55,000.

As opposed to that other number, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 3
million. (It's actually not known just how many Vietnamese were killed
during this war.)

Taking the average estimate of Vietnamese killed (1.5 million), I get a
ratio of 27:1. Factoring out the "local vs. distant" bias, let's divide
this by two. That still leaves a ratio of 13:1.

Of course, even this could be dismissed as simply a matter of local vs.
distant interest, except for the implicit assumption (mostly honored in
the breach) that "all men are created equal"--not just nationally, but
globally. In other words, we (the U.S.) always take great pains to claim
how much we believe in the Rights of Man everywhere, not just in our
Homeland.

I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in which
case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human life,
or ... I don't know what the alternative is here.

I'm not at all sure what you attempted to prove. The US government
kept track of how many and fatalities suffered by the US troops.
Evidently, neither the US government or the Vietnamese governments
(North and South) kept track of how many Vietnamese were killed. It
was not known by either government how many Vietnamese combat
participants there were. The North Vietnamese were really not into
sharing information, or - perhaps - even in gathering information.

The structure of the US military allowed the government to keep track.
The structure of the Vietnamese system did not. Is this somehow a
failing of the US?

You say the wrong number is used. From what perspective? If a number
is used by an American author, an American media organization, or the
American government, is not the number of Americans killed the number
of interest?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-01-30 14:11:14 -0800, David Nebenzahl said:

On 1/30/2011 6:22 AM tony cooper spake thus:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:18:56 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-29 19:28:27 -0800, David Nebenzahl said:

Again, you miss my point.

For me it's 1:1 too. But that's not the conclusion any Martian would
come to if they were to come down to Earth and observe the relative
worth placed on American lives and non-American lives in the US.
Evidence? Just watch the news or read a newspaper ...

That was never your question, implied or otherwise. Why the phuzzynuts,
would I care what a Martian would conclude?
Mr. average Martian would just jam one of his fingers in your token
North American ear, then jam that same finger in the ear of your token
Tunisian, and say, "Hey! That feels the same to me. Therefore these two
life forms, located in different places on this strange planet are
identical. Both should do just fine for that recipe in Mom's cook book."

David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

I may not be all that great at expressing myself all the time, granted,
but I think my critical thinking skills are at least OK.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.
Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?

Fair point, I suppose. Naturally, it's human nature to be more
interested in local events. But there's more to it than that.

Let me use the example of the Vietnam War (esp. since "savageduck"
seems sorta fixated on this "conflict")

I wouldn't say fixated, but it was the war of my generation, and one I
have some knowledge of. I also have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of
other conflicts which have effected us both locally and globally.
Now what is it exactly you are trying to say about me?

: I offer proof of the relative worth of human life by way of how the
wrong number is always used to describe this conflict.

Hardly "proof". Total numbers are subjective to the perspective of
those effected, and who is presenting the statistics, and which group
of dead is being mourned or glorified. Which political faction is using
the dead for their own ends.


I'm talking, of course, about 55,000.

Then you are also citing a wrong number, even if you are just
estimating. They are listed on that Wall, go count them. It is quite
stirring to see those names in one place.
If you were referring to US combat deaths in VN, then the figure is
58,159. There are still another 1,719 MIA.
Only a few of those include any of the 10,000 plus Vietnam vets who
died of injuries received in combat after they had been processed as
medical evacuees. Those were not included as combat deaths to fix the
statistics, and keep the numbers down. The same can be said of those
who could not survive reintegration into a society which rejected them.
Gulf and Afghanistan vets are having similar issues today, note the
rising suicide deaths among those vets. Those are somehow not
considered death as a result of combat.

You also forget the Australians, New Zealanders, and South Koreans who
died in Vietnam. Those are not included in your little exercise, and
they remain dead and lost to their families.


As opposed to that other number, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 3
million. (It's actually not known just how many Vietnamese were killed
during this war.)

Also a wrong estimate. The figure of 1-3 million was considered to be
the estimate for civilian dead for both North & South VN. Add to that
the known figures for ARVN (that is Army of Vietnam, or the South to
you) of 220,000 dead & 1,170,000 wounded, and the North with 1,176,000
documented dead and missing. Then you are looking at an estimated 2-5
million dead.

Now add on Cambodian and Laotian casualties, and this statistical
exercise gets tougher and tougher.


Taking the average estimate of Vietnamese killed (1.5 million), I get a
ratio of 27:1. Factoring out the "local vs. distant" bias, let's divide
this by two. That still leaves a ratio of 13:1.

So lowering yourself to statistician establishes your relative value of
life based on locale?
It remains 1:1 regardless of any juggling of figures. If the individual
who dies is a young leukemia victim, a market shopper, or worshipper in
Iraq, or Israel, killed by a suicide bomber, a British, French,
Canadian, or US soldier killed or wounded because of government policy
makes no difference to the local value of that life.


Of course, even this could be dismissed as simply a matter of local vs.
distant interest, except for the implicit assumption (mostly honored in
the breach) that "all men are created equal"--not just nationally, but
globally. In other words, we (the U.S.) always take great pains to
claim how much we believe in the Rights of Man everywhere, not just in
our Homeland.

Those involved in combat tend to dehumanize their opponent. We did it
in the Civil War even when we might have been brothers. The National
Cemetery at Gettysburg was for the Union dead.
The "gook", "slope", "dink", "Jap", "Nip", "kraut", "fritz", "yank",
"reb", "Ivan", "hadji", or what ever name is used remains one dead man.
I gave up on that type discrimination a long time ago. Yet I still have
my personal biases, and opinions which are sometime difficult not to
express.


I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in
which case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human
life, or ... I don't know what the alternative is here.

Yup! We are for the most part hypocrites, blind to the other side of the fence.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"John A." wrote in message
...

Inverse square law? Or something similar? Anyone try to quantify it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogardu...Distance_Scale

--
Charles E Hardwidge

tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:18:56 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-01-29 19:28:27 -0800, David Nebenzahl
said:

On 1/29/2011 5:51 PM Savageduck spake thus:

On 2011-01-29 17:01:13 -0800, David Nebenzahl
said:

On 1/29/2011 12:49 PM Savageduck spake thus:

On 2011-01-29 11:09:09 -0800, David Nebenzahl
said:

On 1/29/2011 6:41 AM Bowser spake thus:

On 1/29/2011 3:10 AM, David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/28/2011 10:56 PM Rich spake thus:

On Jan 28, 4:39 pm, Savageduck
wrote:

French photo-journalist Lucas Mebrouk Dolega 32, dies after
being hit in the head by a police fired tear gas grenade in
Tunis while covering the disturbances in Tunis for Paris
Match.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-lucas-mebrouk...

Maybe like hockey players did, one day they'll finally start
wearing protective helmets during riots in violent, Third
World ratholes? Even a bike helmet would have saved the guy.

I'm sure Tunisians would love to hear their country referred
to that way ... but of course, who cares about them? Their
lives aren't worth as much as ours are.

That's true. But what's the exchange rate?

Pretty easily calculated, using news stories in the MSM and
their relative ranking (i.e., page placement in the newspaper,
etc.).

I figure it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50:1 to 100:1.

As of 09:45AM, 1/29/2011, 1.41 Tunisian Dinar = $1US = ?0.74
(...er, there's an Ap for that)

So your wide range guesstimate was not too close.

So what does the currency exchange rate have to do with it? I
think you may have missed my point here, which is the "value" of
human life.

For me still 1:1.

Again, you miss my point.

For me it's 1:1 too. But that's not the conclusion any Martian would
come to if they were to come down to Earth and observe the relative
worth placed on American lives and non-American lives in the US.
Evidence? Just watch the news or read a newspaper ...

That was never your question, implied or otherwise. Why the
phuzzynuts, would I care what a Martian would conclude?
Mr. average Martian would just jam one of his fingers in your token
North American ear, then jam that same finger in the ear of your
token Tunisian, and say, "Hey! That feels the same to me. Therefore
these two life forms, located in different places on this strange
planet are identical. Both should do just fine for that recipe in
Mom's cook book."

David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the
story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is
of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast
conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves
behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media
outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of
that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted
incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the
public that the media serves?

Well. its also reporting what it knows something about. It may not have any
details of the other lives or families.

George Kerby wrote:
On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article
, "peter"
wrote:

On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote:


David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to
the story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what
is of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the
Mideast conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family
he/she leaves behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the
Orlando media outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time
period of residents of that area rates coverage only if they all go
at once or in some noted incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or
is it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to
the public that the media serves?



the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get
in the Iraqi and Afghan press?


BINGO!

Yes. In general, newspapers are beholden to their readers, and not the whole
world. They send their reporters out to locations in order to gather news
that their readers want to read. The fact that they report the death of a
local motorcyclist over the many deaths of afghanis is only a reflection on
that, and not a moral statement of the relative value of the human loss of
life.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby
said:



On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article
, "peter"
wrote:

On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote:


David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical
thinking.

A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a
road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to
the story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches.

Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence.
They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television
stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq.

Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more
worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that
newspapers and television news programs give space and time to
what is of local interest?

When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the
Mideast conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family
he/she leaves behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the
Orlando media outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time
period of residents of that area rates coverage only if they all
go at once or in some noted incident.

Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is
it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting
to the public that the media serves?



the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get
in the Iraqi and Afghan press?


BINGO!

Ta! Da!

...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or
Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might
have a slight oiliness.)

But, as the cook said to the cannibal who complained about the excessive
price of "hippie" on the menue: "Did you ever try to clean one of those
things?"