Questions...
SO I've noticed that my traffic is horribly slow the past week or so. Now I've also noticed that some other bloggers are complaining about the same thing.
But I've also noticed that comments from my regular visitors have dropped off as well. SO I'd like to know why. Am I boring, or do you just not have anything to say? I'd like to know that I'm not scaring everybody off with my trying to get some other things going on over the past week.
Now with that said... I'd like to move on to the shield of happiness that corporate media imposes on us.
I was watching nightline last night, and it was a special about the famine currently ravaging Niger. Now I had seen short blips about this before, but only on the BBC never on American Corporate Media.
So they showed the BBC clips and then started to talk to a representative from the UN about why the aid was so slow in coming to people that desperately needed it. It pretty much boiled down to our ability to take natural disasters. While the UN had been warning the world that aid would be needed there even last year, the tsunami and Darfur and the recent slum burning in Kenya(?) had diverted our attention.
In the meanwhile they said that 2.5 million people are at risk in Niger, 800,000 of them are children.
For those of you who haven't seen some of the footage coming out of there. The children look like grays, you know... the little gray aliens that kidnap people in their sleep. Huge heads on top of tiny bodies.
They showed one family preparing dinner, one small rat... for six people. And they considered themselves lucky that night.
At the end of the program the UN rep said that they wished that they had a rotating food fund, so that they don't have to fundraise while people are dying. So that they could feed these people before it gets to this stage. Right now that only have about 1/4 of the estimated money needed to feed these people, and that's in Niger alone not the surrounding countries.
Now my question is why don't we have a rotating fund like what is needed? We're spending tons of money on these wars, but we can't spend a miniscule amount in comparison to feed people who are starving to death.
Where is the morality of killing our children in a war over oil and letting innocent people die because mother nature rolled them the wrong numbers? Why isn't the "moral majority" screaming about the lag in helping people who desperately need it?
I hope, that if nothing else, this entry informs those who weren't aware. And hopefully it can help in some small way.
But I've also noticed that comments from my regular visitors have dropped off as well. SO I'd like to know why. Am I boring, or do you just not have anything to say? I'd like to know that I'm not scaring everybody off with my trying to get some other things going on over the past week.
Now with that said... I'd like to move on to the shield of happiness that corporate media imposes on us.
I was watching nightline last night, and it was a special about the famine currently ravaging Niger. Now I had seen short blips about this before, but only on the BBC never on American Corporate Media.
So they showed the BBC clips and then started to talk to a representative from the UN about why the aid was so slow in coming to people that desperately needed it. It pretty much boiled down to our ability to take natural disasters. While the UN had been warning the world that aid would be needed there even last year, the tsunami and Darfur and the recent slum burning in Kenya(?) had diverted our attention.
In the meanwhile they said that 2.5 million people are at risk in Niger, 800,000 of them are children.
For those of you who haven't seen some of the footage coming out of there. The children look like grays, you know... the little gray aliens that kidnap people in their sleep. Huge heads on top of tiny bodies.
They showed one family preparing dinner, one small rat... for six people. And they considered themselves lucky that night.
At the end of the program the UN rep said that they wished that they had a rotating food fund, so that they don't have to fundraise while people are dying. So that they could feed these people before it gets to this stage. Right now that only have about 1/4 of the estimated money needed to feed these people, and that's in Niger alone not the surrounding countries.
Now my question is why don't we have a rotating fund like what is needed? We're spending tons of money on these wars, but we can't spend a miniscule amount in comparison to feed people who are starving to death.
Where is the morality of killing our children in a war over oil and letting innocent people die because mother nature rolled them the wrong numbers? Why isn't the "moral majority" screaming about the lag in helping people who desperately need it?
I hope, that if nothing else, this entry informs those who weren't aware. And hopefully it can help in some small way.
posted by Phoenixwaller | 9:39 AM
1 Comments:
I was speaking more of the political 'Moral Majority' the one that our president claims to be a part of. Where it's ok to send our young people off to war for oil, but we can afford to lets possibly millions of people die of starvation.
Post a Comment
<< Home