Okay, I confess.
Humour has gotten the better of me on this one.
I quote: –
“Thousands of monkeys roam the capital, mostly around government offices, and are considered a public nuisance.“
We’ve got similar problems at the British House of Commons – especially around lunch time 😉
Rest of the article is here.
This – at first – strikes one as a relatively well balanced article.
Unless you know anything about medicine.
Most of those quoted in this article are psychologists – not psychiatrists.
Oh, and to help some of you along, click here for the generalised definition of schizophrenia.
Example – good lord, I’ve lost count – of an unbalanced (biased?..) report.
Nuclear Nightmare comes True
So says TIME magazine.
The BBC however, seem more fascinated about the cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammed and therefore only report on North Koreans test as
North Korea claim Nuclear Test.
I love the slant news gets from around the World.
Even within the Western World the agenda by media headlines is embarrassingly obvious.
Now, this next bit is where my ignorance needs helping out… It’s been believed for yonks that North Korea has had nuclear strength.
Why is this one test causing such an uproar?
Is it simply because it’s proof?
What a fabulous headline!
I have a passing appreciation of Star Trek but am certainly not a huge fan yet this attention grabbing headline certainly pulled me in.
I’ll bet you something however – the reporter who had to write the article is no Star Trek fan 😉
The full article is here.
I bet Christies is relieved the article isn’t entitled,
“Christies underestimate Star Trek” – because they did.
The post title is of my choosing.
If I left it to the BBC or other
attention grabbing news reporting institutions, I could expect to read instead:
The ethics committee of the US House of Representatives has opened an inquiry into a scandal over a former Republican congressman’s explicit e-mails.
(For the whole article, click here.)
Please note, I am not making light of Foleys alleged behaviour but I am hi-lighting how it is further sensationalised.
I’m even amused by the article title.
It’s wonderfully generalised, ensuring that those of us who had absolutely sod all interest in Foley, might read the article nonetheless because huge numbers of us have email : –
US Congress begins e mail probe.
Bugger being paranoid in Tehran – headlines like this are liable to have a few Americans worrying 😉
The following comes from the same article!
Blair promises ‘more for troops ‘
(What is ‘more‘?)
Addressing military personnel on the fifth anniversary of operations in the country, Tony Blair pledged “every support and every protection“.
Thank you, Prime Minister.
Now, please qualify ‘every’.
Those overdue body armour jackets, per chance?
More support from other Nato Nations, maybe?
The commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Ed Butler, responded to the prime minister’s offer of more resources by requesting helicopters.
and just a paragraph or two further down….
Kim Howells,Foreign Office Minister responsible for Afganistan: –
.” said that while British commanders felt they had all of the equipment they needed, they would like more support from some other Nato countries which were not “punching their weight”.
Oh. Cancel the helicopters then…
We must have misunderstood.
Politicians are masters of verbal fallacy.
When I start my day, I don’t sit back as many do and just let the news wash over me.
Instead, I listen and within moments I am nigh assured of an opportunity of mirth.
Today, one of the BBC Top 10 World Headlines is an interview of Nigel Farage – newly elected leader of the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party)
He is quoted as saying,
Mr Farage told the BBC: “We’ve got three social democratic parties in Britain – Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are virtually indistinguishable from each other on nearly all the main issues,” he said.
“Frankly, you can’t put a cigarette paper between them and that is why there are nine million people who don’t vote now in general elections that did back in 1992.”
Let’s just look at that for a moment – especially the three pieces I’ve placed in bold.
What on earth does ‘nearly’ mean?
And how can Nigel be assured that it is because of this – alledged – lack of difference between the three main parties that 9 million people chose not to vote?
As to the cigarette paper comment – now there’s a fallacy but an effective one! 🙂
In fact, Nigel is such an empath that he knows this: –
He said that “a lot of people… feel like me that we’re not being given a choice, we’re being given no opportunity, that there is no real voice of opposition in British politics – that is what UKIP is here to provide”.
What is ‘alot’, Nigel?
7 people, maybe?