Much ado about nothing. Every major metropolitan area has no-go zones. Is this news-worthy? We have wars going on, you know. Children dying and some such...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

What a load of crap. That is neither what they described. Nor is there any point in saying it if in fact it really meant what you contend.

Your Death Panel case is a perfect example of the deceit. Sarah Palin coined this term. When asked to defend the accusation, her staff pointed specifically to sec 1233 of the House Resolution. That is the voluntary end of life counseling.

Now you and conservatives like you want to backpedal and redefine the term to mean any refusal to pay for a treatment. It's horseshit because:
1. They clearly did not mean that,
2. A claim denial doesn't necessarily have anything do do with a "panel",
3. Every insurance plan on earth has services they will and will not cover. So if that's what death panel means, then everyone in America has a death panel hovering over them and therefore Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with their existence.

Palin sees the writing on the wall - that in order to keep Obamacare affordable, you need to convince the elderly they are not worth the extension of life. Emanuel said as much. What do you think will happen with the single-payer progressives really desire? I'm sure Ted Kennedy would get the same care he got, as would any other government elite, but not the people. That's how it works. Do you think Castro gets the same medical care as the Cuban people? How about the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet? Do you think Obama would get the same care under the single payer he wants for 'the people'?

At least with private insurance companies, we have choices. In order to stay competitive, these companies need to pay for what they say they cover in their contracts, otherwise they will lose the business.

Anonymous wrote:This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

What a load of crap. That is neither what they described. Nor is there any point in saying it if in fact it really meant what you contend.

Your Death Panel case is a perfect example of the deceit. Sarah Palin coined this term. When asked to defend the accusation, her staff pointed specifically to sec 1233 of the House Resolution. That is the voluntary end of life counseling.

Now you and conservatives like you want to backpedal and redefine the term to mean any refusal to pay for a treatment. It's horseshit because:
1. They clearly did not mean that,
2. A claim denial doesn't necessarily have anything do do with a "panel",
3. Every insurance plan on earth has services they will and will not cover. So if that's what death panel means, then everyone in America has a death panel hovering over them and therefore Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with their existence.

I think they apologized for legal reasons. The Mayor of Paris announced that she was going to sue Fox over the no-go zones.

"When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Mayor Anne Hidalgo told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday. She added that “the image of Paris” had been harmed, and the “honor of Paris” had been harmed."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/paris-mayor-anne-hidalgo-muslim-no-go-zones

How ironic in the wake of all the freedom of speech debate, the mayor of Paris will sue to defend the honor of Paris. Just goes to show that everyone has their sacred figure, for some it is a prophet, for others a city....

Also, "Le Petit Journal," which is something like "The Daily Show," sent two comics into the streets of Paris dressed up as Fox News reporters. As "John and Mike". The video was funny with the threat of couscous & kebab lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/le-petit-journal-fox-news_n_6512700.html

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

When Fox used the term "no-go zones", the network was not referring to Cabrini Green. They explicitly said that sharia was applied in those zones. No such place has been demonstrated to actually exist. The issue is not that Fox apologized, but that the network admitted that it had been wrong. You should take them at their word.

At this point, which is why they apologized. However, there are indeed areas that behave like 'no go zones'. If I can't go into a certain area because I am at risk, especially for my life, it's a 'no go zone'. I can see why they apologized, however I think that they should have qualified that apology.

This, of course, is due to no lack of trying by Muslims in Europe:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2530/denmark-sharia-hezbollah

Anonymous wrote:This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

When Fox used the term "no-go zones", the network was not referring to Cabrini Green. They explicitly said that sharia was applied in those zones. No such place has been demonstrated to actually exist. The issue is not that Fox apologized, but that the network admitted that it had been wrong. You should take them at their word.

This is such an interesting subject, because I don't believe there needed to be an apology, except to explain what was meant.

There are indeed areas that could be considered 'no go zones', i.e. places that are primarily X or Y and if you are Z, it's bad news to go there. Cabrini Green would be an excellent example. There are indeed primarily radicalized areas where you would not want to go.

It's like the term "Death Panels". If the government, an insurance company, whatever decides they will not pay for a treatment, and you can't afford it, indeed that's a death panel. When Emanuel talks of withholding care for the aging after a certain point, he is talking about a death panel.

You might not like the terms being used, but it's always best to look beyond those terms and see if the actions are consistent with how the term is defined.

I think it all comes down to subjectivity vs. objectivity as it relates to Fox News. I think they are rooted in the concept of subjective truth as opposed to objective truth in their reporting. A subjective truth is true for the person(s) making the judgement, even though it may not be true for others, i.e. "It's cold in here". An objective truth is true for people of all cultures, times, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true, i.e. “People need water and air to live”. From an entertainment perspective, which in my subjective opinion is what Fox News is more geared to - entertainment - I think Fox News just finds it quicker, easier, and more captivating to report subjective truths about stories that appeal to their target audience as opposed to taking the time to actually dig around and get all the facts in an attempt to report objective truths about stories which may not be as entertaining or as appealing to their target audience. I think Fox News sees themselves as more liken to a branch of the entertainment industry than a part of the journalism industry and thus they aren't as regimented in following the journalism code of ethics.

They live in a bubble with their own alternate reality. They dismiss any US-based criticism as "state-run leftist propaganda" and have grown comfortable with that. But once you get outside the US, it suddenly becomes glaringly obvious that their little alternative reality news bubble is a thin veneer, easily pierced...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not it's, darn spellcheck

Spell check wouldn't make that error. That was all you.

not PP, but it's not spellcheck, it's voice-to-text or AutoCorrect. When I say or type "its" on my iPhone, it automatically changes it to "it's."

As far as the substance, the fact that anyone thinks that FOX News will do anything approaching the description of "thoughtful inquiry" is smoking something. Perhaps right wing politicians such as Bobby Jindal should maybe think twice or look for another source before parroting crap like this and actually attempting to make it part of what should be a meaningful dialogue - that would be nice. But won't happen either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its not it's, darn spellcheck

Spell check wouldn't make that error. That was all you.

Actually, spellcheck tried to make that error again when I posted the correction, and I had to override the suggested change. But thanks for your concern!

Anonymous wrote:Its not it's, darn spellcheck

Spell check wouldn't make that error. That was all you.

Its not it's, darn spellcheck

10:08 again. I should add, Fox News should conduct a thoughtful inquiry into why it's reporting is so bad and embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is remarkable to me is that they actually bothered to admit it. Maybe someone said they were going to come down hard on Murdoch or Sky TV.

I'm surprised by the retraction also. The largest investor in News Corp after Murdoch is Al-Waleed bin Talal. a member of the Saudi royal family and, obviously, a Muslim. Recently, Murdoch tweeted:

"Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible."

which suggests that even peaceful Muslims should be held responsible for the violence of other Muslims. This idea of collective guilt is not something limited to Murdoch, but it is a dangerous way of thinking. After a week or so Murdoch retracted the tweet. Almost at the same time, Fox retracted its allegations. It's possible that Murdoch's investment partner reached the end of his patience.

That would mean that Christians need to be held responsible for Anders Breivik, and that right wingers and libertarians need to be held responsible for cop-killing sovereign citizens.

IMO the issue is more self-examination and willingness to reform, rather than requiring condemnation along the lines of "those other people are bad Christians/Jews/Muslims." Yes, condemnation by religious leaders of extremists within the faith will reach some of the faithful, but it's never going to reach ISIS or al Qaeda. So continuously demaninding that Muslims condem terrorism, besides seeming not a little patronizing, has limited impact.

So, a capacity for communities to be introspective, to examine key tenets, and to undertake reform if necessary.

Of course! Absolutely! Christians need to ask themselves if there's anything in their holy texts or traditions that justifies bombing abortion clinics and such, and, if there is something, Christian communities should conduct thoughtful dialogues and inquiries as to whether change (aka a new Reformation) is needed.

Jews should ask themselves if there's anything in their holy texts or traditions that justifies the treatment of Palestinians, and, if there is something, Jewish communities should conduct thoughtful dialogues and inquiries as to whether change is needed.

Muslims, too, should ask themselves if there's anything in their holy texts or traditions that justifies terrorism, and, if there is something, Muslim communities should conduct thoughtful dialogues and inquiries as to whether change is needed. Re an Islamic Reformation, the reaction on the Radical Islam thread, where DCUM's Muslim(s) called a WaPo op-ed writer an "angry whack job" for suggesting that women be allowed to pray alongside men, isn't promising. That whole op-ed piece, written by a Muslim woman, makes the broader point that reform is so difficult precisely because some conservative Muslims have organized to circle the wagons against any perceived suggestion that change is needed, and ugly insults against potential reformers from within the Muslim community are one of the results.