|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Apr 19, 2010 23:26:11 GMT -8
India has more mobile phones than toiletsOkay. There are so many things wrong with this article...both the article itself, as well as the fact it is disseminating. The article doesn't even attempt to get at a root cause of the problem. Allow me: This thread is about what is wrong with the world. I'll let the UN try and tell you: There you go folks. The UN's University director (whatever the snot that is...) thinks it's an irony that a large portion of people in India have cell phones but not functional toilets. His conclusion is that people can't afford the toilets. He calls this a tragedy - the fact that they can't afford toilets. But he never stops to ask himself the question any reasonable human being (of which the world has few of anymore) would ask: IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD A TOILET, HOW IN THE %@#& CAN THEY AFFORD A CELL PHONE?!?!Honestly, this kind of crap (pun intended) about puts me over the edge. Is this article supposed to make me feel sorry for those poor poor people who can dial their friends and family for free on nights and weekends, but can't seem to figure out how to take a dump in a sanitary manner? This UN director is a moron, this article is as dumb as it is short-sighted, and these crap-texting* citizens are the reason their country has one foot still in the third world. AAARRRRRGGGHHH! -Brendan *crap-texting shall henceforth be known as "Shexting"
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 20, 2010 2:35:10 GMT -8
Brendan, Brendan, Brendan... I understand the outrage, but think for a minute here. What you're doing is akin to getting mad at the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. Sure, their contribution to the drug trade is wrong, but it's not like they can set up a business with all the freedom an American has. India currently enjoys the same "freedom" for economic growth that China has, by taking the liberty of giving fuckall about human rights, basic rights. I couldn't find the UN report, but I will pull some things out of my ass because I don't feel like searching right now. Still, I think I'll touch upon a few truths here and there. What is the country's infrastructure history? I know you guys despise government, but your government does provide for the clean water you drink and does a pretty damn good job at it. It also provides for your sewage system so you don't have to run in the middle of the night to the outhouse, but can, instead, concentrate on which type of toilet paper is comfy enough. Now, I don't know in what conditions the British Empire left the country of India, but I'll bet India's top priority, today, is to make its services of value to foreign countries and there's that bit, also, about building nuclear weapons. Whatever government programs there are for waste treatment, they will be implemented at a region-by-region basis and I doubt there are concentrated efforts to make it a nationwide priority. Think of the things that add value to your property. In a place such as India, a toilet will be one of them. But you won't find a community where certain houses own a toilet and others don't. Either the entire community has access to proper waste disposal facilities or none of them do. Pop quiz: When was the last time you knew about someone in the U.S. finding out that his home came without a toilet and the guy had to install one on his own? It doesn't work that way. It's like buying a whole bunch of light bulbs when electricity simply doesn't run where you live. You may be able to buy the bulbs, but not a place where current flows. Why would anyone buy a toilet they can't flush? You're also forgetting Indian culture. We're talking about a place that is still divided by a caste system. Sure, it's illegal to discriminate based on caste and the type of case-related violence and hate crimes have gone down in all major cities, mostly confined to rural areas... the poverty-stricken areas... where 72% of the population lives. The people you are blaming for poor prioritizing of resources also lack proper education, proper nutrition, waste management, and suffer what's, basically, genocide, the systematic violence against ethnic groups. Now, I know it's all their fault for not pulling themselves by their own bootstraps and, somehow, make the incredibly good call of, uh, eating, paying off corrupt officials in order to not be fucked in the ass, or paying for health care, with their shit salary. The pressure to succeed, make it, whatever, is felt pretty hard, indeed. Don't tell anyone, because no one will care, but employers often break the law in several ways. A child slave with a Nokia brick in his trousers wouldn't surprise me (it's so much easier nowadays, owning your very own 8-year-old, leaving him to beg on the streets and ring him up when a "client" is in need of his services as a child prostitute, or you need him to carry some smack for you, manage other child prostitutes, man, the possibilities are endless, thank you, technology). Also, what do you think are the chances of this place having a land line? Again, it makes no sense to buy a telephone and hook it up to nothingness. Taking a shit on that water does, though. Growing up in a place like that and getting out of there is not as easy as getting out of South Carolina. I hope you guys can put your reality vision goggles on and understand that. So, again, it's more economical and easier to buy a cell phone than move on to a prettier place where your 1st grade education is worth jack shit. Add the "proper" cell phone users from the wealthier cities and the disparity starts to make sense. You're being too hard on the citizens. Their entire world is comprised of slums with no schools, no civilized water supply, and hate crimes. If recent surveys are to be believed, 77% of American citizens don't believe in the Big Bang. If those shitheads have access to everything these Indians don't, how the fuck are they supposed to figure out a way to get out of their mess? Also, "third world" is an outdated term and does not mean "shitty country". Never did. See, history lesson here because I know the American education system is shit (seriously, "The universe, as we know it, started with a great explosion" and "Let there be light", how the fuck are those two contradictory? Stop telling God what to do and how to do it), there was this thing called the "Cold War". It was fought by two superpowers, one was the USA, the other was the USSR. These two super powers fought for global dominance, each of them was considered the "first world". They fought for this status. Every other country that was up for grabs, that was the third world. All those proxy battles across the world, that was you guys and the commies gaining dominance over another country, a country belonging to the third world. Then Russia's economy went bust and the great USSR was no more (stuff like, get this, endless excursions into Afghanistan helped deplete their resources, hilarious). No cold war, no worlds wanting to be first, no third world, either. The end. I know that at, what, $30,000-40,000 a year there's little incentive to care for a bunch of twats in your district, specially when you fail and get sent some place else to teach as punishment, Catholic style, but c'mon. That wasn't too hard. I was able to do it for free.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Apr 20, 2010 8:00:28 GMT -8
I get what you're saying Hook, and I do believe your take certainly applies to millions living in poverty in India...but that still doesn't change the fact that the UN's deputy-do-right here has a completely bass-ackwards view of the situation. His quote implies that the reason people there don't have toilets is because they can't afford them. He's not looking at poor infrastructure, corrupt government, human rights abuses or unethical business practices - just cold hard cash. So if that's the UN's argument, then I stand by the fact that they are complete and utter morons and one of the things absolutely wrong with the world. If you take his quote at face-value, then the blame absolutely should fall on every citizen who has a cell phone but no toilet, and if that situation does indeed exist, I stand by my irrational rage. Of course the real truth is closer to your explanation and this is why the article itself also sucks harder than a Hoover. The writer makes no attempt to get at the actual cause of the tragedy it so desperately wants the reader to get emotional about. Not only that, they throw in ANOTHER useless quote: Humanitarian? Really? How about a government reform opportunity? How about a public rallying point to effect change for the country? About a wake-up call to hold those in charge accountable? Nah. Let's just keep using buckets to bail out the boat while the hole in the bottom keeps getting bigger. We're the UN - we specialize in pouring money into corrupt systems and then holding wine and cheese parties to congratulate ourselves on how humanitarian we've been. -Brendan p.s. Shexting: a whole new way to drop calls
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 23, 2010 21:56:36 GMT -8
Oh, in that case, sorry for shitposting. That was mean, but I thought you had it in for the poor, rural folk. It's difficult to get mad at the UN for doing its job: nothing. Really, what does that organization do other than give the appearance of order and be used as an excuse for other countries' bad behavior? That's why I mentioned the people in Afghanistan. The UN or, rather, the leading economic powers call the shots. If one of those powers, who promote the UN (at their convenience) ignores the "order" of things, other powers will use that as an excuse to do whatever they want, too. Yeah, I'm thinking about Iraq. I really wish the Bush administration had taken the high road. Kill the Taliban's source of income and empower the little guys. It's difficult, but the right choice always is (don't you guys remember Pacino in Scent of a Woman? Or Samuel L. Jackson's Ezekiel speech in Pulp Fiction? ). Instead of cooperating with drug kingpins, cut their power supply. And about Iraq, want to go in? Go ahead, but be honest, guys. I realize America's sovereignty and future were at stake and not going in would make it vulnerable, but at least have the cojones to say why. It doesn't take a mythical figure of a leader to defend this position, let alone a great orator. I mean, look at the name below the following quotation: OIL FIELDS AS MILITARY OBJECTIVES - A Feasibility Study Question. Mr. President, both you and Secretary Kissinger have said that in case of strangulation of the West by the oil producers, you would use military force. * The American people would like to know whether you would require a congressional declaration of war or whether you would bypass that constitutional process, as some of your predecessors have done? Answer. I can assure you on any occasion where there was any commitment of U.S. military personnel to any engagement we would use the complete constitutional process that is required of the President. President GERALD R. FORD, Press Conference, January 21, 1975. Source: www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/fields.htmReason to worry: www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supplyPlay your audience for fools and all you'll get is this mess we're all in, one way or the other. So that's another thing that's wrong with the world. Making it harder to read by pouring ink all over it. Are we "spreading democracy" or "buying some time and avoiding a couple of wars"? Dammit, I can't read this text. Oh, and I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again, in keeping with shexting @unitednations: www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2147862The U.N. does more about a fake Colonel Sanders than it does about genocide. Smile! Though, in all honesty, the Double Down might pose a legitimate threat to the world. Just in case: *boooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm*
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 23, 2010 22:16:27 GMT -8
Oh, and I love the guy, but:
No, Roger. You're doing this for sport and you know it. Ironically, there's no intellectual discussion here, just a boring match of Pong. Beep, boop, beep, boop, ad infinitum. Oh, I used Latin. All praise to me.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Apr 24, 2010 22:52:15 GMT -8
The Double Down isn't actually that unhealthy. It's just the idea that gets people. Bread is pretty unhealthy, so replacing it with chicken isn't all the bad.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Apr 25, 2010 9:37:58 GMT -8
The Double Down isn't actually that unhealthy. It's just the idea that gets people. Bread is pretty unhealthy, so replacing it with chicken isn't all the bad. Bread is a lot healthier than fried chicken. What are you smoking? If you replaced the chicken with bread you'd cut the fat content by over 1/3!
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Apr 25, 2010 11:27:04 GMT -8
Damn, you people got me thinking about bread and fried chicken. I've never had a Double Down ... But if I get two buttery KFC Biscuits, each packed into a 54g serving size, with 180 calories and 530 grams of Soduim, to go along with the 250 g Double Down, I'll have one fine (relatively healthy?) sandwich!
-CG
PS: I might need another toilet, and a cell phone so I can sit down and talk about the awesome Double Down with bread!
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 25, 2010 19:35:58 GMT -8
Speaking as someone who went through a rough period of addiction to the KFC menu, I must confess the Double Down doesn't seem that appetizing to me. I'd rather have the gravy that comes with their mashed potatoes as a new beverage offering than get accustomed to holding a "sandwich" that has no "sandwich feel" in the grip of my hand. It's just... just going to be awkward. And that gravy is a gift of the heavens. I don't want to see any ill-feelings towards it in this board. Damn, you people got me thinking about bread and fried chicken. I've never had a Double Down ... But if I get two buttery KFC Biscuits, each packed into a 54g serving size, with 180 calories and 530 grams of Soduim, to go along with the 250 g Double Down, I'll have one fine (relatively healthy?) sandwich! *mouth waters* Carlton, you and I should join a support group, I think. ;D
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Apr 25, 2010 19:56:28 GMT -8
Chris always has such a nice way of putting things.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 25, 2010 20:01:07 GMT -8
I wonder if you can smoke fried chicken.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Apr 25, 2010 20:03:40 GMT -8
Cartman snorted the skin.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 27, 2010 14:30:36 GMT -8
Hey, Brendan, any of your dark-skinned friends been pulled over by the police yet?
edit: Leaving the racist aspect of the immigration law, what's with the Big Brother state of affairs? If a policeman comes up to me and demands I give him my documents for no apparent reason, I'm going to tell him to fuck off (fortunately, they don't have tasers over here). If I'm getting this right, Arizona police now have the green light, nay, the duty to ask regular Joes to hand over IDs if they feel like it. What the...? Who in their right mind would be ok with this?
But back to the racial profiling ( ;D ). Unless height comes into the equation (though I'm not that small at 5'7''), and I make sure to wear my SPF 5,000, I'd be less bothered by da poe-leese in Arizona than Yavar (a full-fledged citizen who, ok, is not a civilian, but is not a civilian because he's in the service, for chrissake) would in visiting Brendan. That's nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Apr 27, 2010 18:51:24 GMT -8
If I'm getting this right, Arizona police now have the green light, nay, the duty to ask regular Joes to hand over IDs if they feel like it. Sorry Hook...you've become a victim of the sensationalists on this issue. I've never seen a law covered in the news so poorly. The reason this law came into being was that local police, in the course of their normal duties (catching speeders, finding drugs, domestic disputes, etc.), were often coming across illegal immigrants and were simply not allowed (under the then current state of police procedures and the law) to take any action other than to call ICE (Immigration Control Enforcement) - and a majority of the time, ICE would either be too busy or simply not consider it important enough to show up. The result was a very well-founded belief that illegally entering/living/working in Arizona was a perfectly fine thing to do. This also resulted in a bankrupt social-service system, overflowing Emergency Rooms, an increased crime-rate, a boost in drug trafficking, and on and on. So after years of waiting for the federal government to live up to their responsibility for dealing with those in the country illegally (or even just secure the freaking boarder so you can't just wander across like you're strolling through Wal-Mart), the AZ State Legislature decided to empower local law-enforcement to have the ability to detain/arrest someone if it was discovered among their usual course of investigation/law-enforcement that someone was illegal. Contrary to what everyone screaming on TV says, a police officer cannot just sit outside Taco Bell and approach burrito-munching 'foreign-looking' folks and ask for their ID. Asking someone's immigration status cannot be the police's primary reason for pulling someone over or questioning them. The best analogy is the seatbelt law in most states. In most states (not all, but most) a police officer cannot pull you over just because you're not wearing a seatbelt while driving even though wearing a seatbelt is the law. He must have another reason - speeding, incomplete stop, improper lane-change etc. and only THEN can he also assess a penalty for not wearing a seatbelt. It's a ridiculous exaggeration to claim that Phoenix police will be standing on the street corner grabbing Mexican-looking people at random. I know that's what the media wants everyone to believe since it's certainly a much juicier story, but the reality is in fact quite different. So I'm sorry Hook...you would be quite safe here unless you also happened to be selling drugs, endangering lives on the freeway, or shooting at mailboxes. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 27, 2010 19:29:48 GMT -8
Sorry Hook...you've become a victim of the sensationalists on this issue. I sure hope so. I went to the local news affiliates, but they've been no help, so I'm reading the bill right now. From a cursory look of the 1070 Bill, it looks like you're right. Because this issue is huge, I won't go verifying every single detail, but every instance of something "fishy" is accompanied with "as long as doesn't violate Federal Law". So, yeah, I'll assume there's a federal law that states you can't ask a person for his or her ID just because they're eating a burrito. Example of the media's distortion that Brendan is citing. This image is funny: But this is what the bill says: "E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION." An officer may stop you if, well, you're breaking traffic laws, dammit. And "this section", the rest of the bill, can't replace federal regulations, so it's true, a police officer can't stop you just because he thinks you look foreign. Brendan is correct. edit: It looks like, to me, all those Senators and Representatives talking smack of this bill are promoting it as racist and extreme because they want to be the ones that look like the heroes once the federal government does anything about immigration reform. So as to redirect my original disgust, they're getting it right now. You may not feel it, but my disgust is following new coordinates. Or maybe... you have, but haven't noticed... Hey, as far as I know, there hasn't been a release of Grand Theft Auto: Tucson, why would I do that? Besides, do I look all "¡Viva Mexico!" to you? They should arrest me for that hair, though.
|
|