h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, it could be argued that even USians isn't specifc enough as Mexico's offical name is The United States of Mexico... and thus USA-ians would be more apt. I pronouce it U-S-ians. I don't know if I was the first to adopt the term, I've been using as long as I've been on-line and hadn't seen it used by anyone else until recently but I have seen the term spread...
One of the reasons I like the term, (but not the reason I came up with it,) is that it really p!sses off a certain type of USian.

They listed North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, but that was just spitting in the air!

USians actually works! I just noticed a day or two ago something that was marked "made in the US", then lower on the packaging it said EU or EEUU? We translate the formal name of Mexico as "The United States of Mexico" in English, but in Spanish it's something like "Estados Unidos Mexicanos."

Therefore no Mexicans would be likely to confuse "USians" with themselves. If it applied to them, it would have to be EUians or EEUUians. (Not sure why the letters in the acronym are doubled. I took French in high school, not Spanish.)

So keep using USians. I don't think any Mexicans will complain about it.

EUians made me shudder. The thought that one day the European Union could become a European Superstate is an abomination.

"majority of the muslim and Palestinian worlds positevely loathe the US for the one sided approach in Israel. They even now support further building in the West bank, which was supposed to be handed back."

The reason the Muslim world despises Israel and the US for its support of Israel is because the dictatorships in the Arab countries deliberately stoke up the hatred on the news and in the mosques; if the Arabs-in-the-street are burning Israeli and US flags and blaming the US foreign policy for their problems then they are not blaming the real cause of their problems (their own leaders' corruption) and starting revolutions. It's a classic case of diverting people's attention and uniting them at the same time by picking an battle with a commonly perceived enemy.*

[And this goes double for the Palestinians themselves - as they are increasing realising, their main problem isn't Israel at all - it's the corrupt Arafat who has squandered $5 billion in aid on cronyism and outright theft (not to mention funding terrorism). For example - did you know the PA pays Arafat's wife - who lives in Paris - 100,000 USD a month?]

What is a shame is how willing the EU, the UN and the western liberal media believe the nonsense as well. Thank the Heavens that the US hasn't swallowed it too.

*ironically, when the US tries to do this, for instance in both recent Gulf wars, it seems to have the opposite effect, and polarises opinion even further! Perhaps you need a state-controlled media to make it work properly.

"They even now support further building in the West bank, which was supposed to be handed back."

Arafat was of course offered 97% of the West Bank and financial reparations for the remainder at Camp David with Barak/Clinton but rejected the offer out of hand - he had a political and financial interest in perpetuating the conflict.

Like Fox News do you?

nah - too liberal [actually only available via satellite in UK (I think) which I don't have.] I make do with the clearly-biased-but-otherwise-not-too-bad BBC. Though I do wish Humphrys would be less confrontational-for-the-sake-of-it and not answer his own questions so much when he interviews!

Darn that liberal media. All this time, they've led me to believe that people were angry about Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Apparently it's just great PR by corrupt politicians.

You'd be surprised. Check out www.honestreporting.com.

And, frankly, most of the media is full of crap on most subjects. On the one or two stories I have known the genuine situation (financial stuff in the City) the paper's article is a bunch of gossip and half truths strung together to make an interesting story (rather than a factual one). Makes me suspect the accuracy of all the others.

And if a London paper can't even get the facts right on a story right under its nose, I'm not sure why anyone should expect the plain truth from hacks in less salubrious surroundings. I don't blame them (much)- they're just trying to sell stories to editors trying to sell papers. It's just the so-called intelligentsia who read the article or see the news item and think they know what's what.

Who was it who said "Anyone who doesn't read the papers is uninformed; anyone who does read the papers is misinformed"?

[I think it was Twain but I might be wrong!]

I read HonestReporting once in a while, and you must admit runner04, that it has its own agenda. Its brief is to put the Israeli case, and that's what it does, it's no more objective than any newspaper. Read it in conjunction with http://palestine.org.nz for instance. Get both sides!

Of course honestreporting.com has its own agenda and I fully support getting both (or multiple) sides of any story on any subject. And ditto for history books too. However, in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the majority of the media in the UK (the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent etc.) unquestionably have view-points biased to the Palestinian perspective (for instance, only this week I heard a speaker on the BBC perpetuate the myth, unchallenged, that suicide bombers are poor, dispondent, uneducated youths with nothing to live for - nonsense - they are usually well educated, well financed and frequently middle-class; just heavily indoctrinated).

So anyone wanting a balanced perspective has to look elsewhere. Unfortunately not many people do, so if you've grown up reading some newspapers it's likely you wouldn't recognise balance if you heard it.

*cough*

Sorry, I don't think you get to claim a monopoly on noticing bias just yet.

Just the title of that site is amusing. "honestreporting.com" -- reminds me of when people say, "The fact of the matter is" before stating an opinion.

No, I wouldn't be surprised at successful PR by Arab dictators. They hired Hill & Knowlton for Gulf War I and it turned out pretty successful for the owners of Kuwait.

I'm surprised that people can imagine it's just wicked PR rabblerousers stirring up the Palestinians, not because the Palestinians have any legitimate complaints.

"Sorry, I don't think you get to claim a monopoly on noticing bias just yet."

Who's claiming a monopoly on noticing bias? If I see people repeating weak journalism and calling it fact, I'm gonna call it, every time. Though it's been a while since I've heard any liberals complaining about bias.

"I'm surprised that people can imagine it's just wicked PR rabblerousers stirring up the Palestinians, not because the Palestinians have any legitimate complaints."

Who says they don't? The issue I'm talking about is what we perceive as their legitimate complaints due to what we read in the media versus what their actual complaints are. And legitimacy itself is a matter of view point.

I think I understand your point. You're saying that public opinion, including some people in this conversation, may be tainted by biased media. How do we tell if we're duped, or if we are well-informed people who have studied a variety of view points to ensure that we see around the biases?

Presumably our conclusions are well-informed as long as they match the conclusions of "honestreporting.com"?

Going back a bit here.

~*~One of the reasons I like the term, (but not the reason I came up with it,) is that it really p!sses off a certain type of USian.~*~

Which type? And, for that matter, why did you come up with the term?

"How do we tell if we're duped"

I guess we can't, other than by trying to be...

..." well-informed people who have studied a variety of view points"

or by putting your opinions in the public domain and defending them when challenged... and by changing them if stronger logic comes the other way.

"Presumably our conclusions are well-informed as long as they match the conclusions of "honestreporting.com"?"

I gave that website to demonstrate that media bias exists, as its purpose is to highlight (albeit with its own motives) media with a specific bias. I don't care (as far as this debate goes) whether your pro Pal or pro Israel, the website demonstrates that bias exists. I guess, though, if you're anti-Zionist, you'll just claim that the site is too biased itself to be meaningful, ignore its arguments and continue to believe what you want.

Okay, I think we're at least on the same page when it comes to expecting people to get info from a variety of sources.

To backtrack a little bit, do you have evidence for the claim that suicide bombers are "usually well educated, well financed and frequently middle-class"?

Runner, I have grown up reading 100s of different newspapers and newsmagazines. I think I am capable of recognising bias when I see it...

Runner, I have to say from what I have seen of honestreporting.com, that indeed it *is* too biased to be meaningful! However, I still read it once in a while, just in case it comes up with something objective and previously unknown to me.
Your use of the term "pro Pal" indicates a certain bias in you.. I have come across that term previously, in use only by Zionists!