What is Digg?61 Comments
- plingboot, on 05/25/2008, -4/+17I suppose does tend to reflect the majority opinion. But they're the cloest thing we've got to impartial. Rather watch BBC than ITN or Sky.
- matdevdug, on 05/25/2008, -7/+17British people do enjoy attacking each other. I don't think its fair to say that the BBC is propping up the Burma leadership unless they are shipping crates of guns and supplies there in secret news boats. At most they seem to be trying to keep the hell out of an incredibly complex and touchy issue.
- aseriesoftubes, on 05/25/2008, -6/+15Lonely Planet has rightly been under fire for some time for continuing to publish a guide to Burma after the call for a tourism boycott by the democratically elected opposition which has been denied power by the military dictatorship. It was not okay to visit apartheid South Africa for fun and it isn't okay to go to Burma for fun. If you really want to visit to learn something about the Burmese people and champion their cause then you will have made contacts in the country and won't need a guidebook. Otherwise, which part of financially supporting a brutal military dictatorship seems like fun to you?
- LostRiot, on 05/25/2008, -3/+11There is a lonely planet guide for iraq, iran and north korea.
Doesn't mean they are encouraging people to go there, people will have it in their minds they want to go to a country, and lonely planet help them do it in the safest/best possible way.
Its not encouraging an evil regime, its providing a guide to a country. - theducks, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6It wasn't ok to visit South Africa as a tourist because they discriminated racially. Burma just has a different system of government. Totally different kettle of fish. By this logic, it isn't ok to visit Tibet either.
At some point you have to say .. the military junta have been in power since 1962 (46 years), they're no less legitimate than say, the communist party of China. The previous government of Burma was only there for 14 years. - pakakapa, on 05/25/2008, -3/+9Appaling! What's next, foreign governments sending weapons to future dictators and terrorists?
- More4, on 05/25/2008, -4/+9buried, the Times of London is a Murdoch tabloid. Do you believe anything that comes out of the Murdoch press?
The BBC does refer to the country as Burma, not Myanmar. That puts the BBC a small step ahead of most of the media, especially the docile American media. - superplastic, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Oh god, how did you know?!
- Stevanoski, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5So was South Africa.
- inactive, on 05/25/2008, -4/+7Seems to be a waste of time. Over the last 55 years the citizens of these repressive governments could care less about "freedoms" or what other countries think about them or how much other people outside "feel sorry" for them. North Korea, Cuba, China, half a dozen African countries and some Middle East countries have survived without Freedom of religion, speech, press and so on and no amount of hugs or bombs or protests are going to change them. If the people wanted to be "free" they would have overthrown their masters long ago.
- cekk99, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4I am a Burmese-American who has been living in the US for 15 yrs. I finished my undergrad here in US. I also did my formative growing up in Burma. (I left when I was 16.) As a Burmese who still loves his country and as someone who knows both worlds, allow me to tell you this:
*The sanctions only hurt the ordinary people.*
The ruling army elite still get their millions of dollars selling resources (timber, gems, seafood, gas, oil, etc.) to the Chineses and the Russians, the Singaporeans and the Thais. Through the backdoor. In fact, the sanctions and the embargo only cut off the outside world, especially the West, from Burma, strengthening the junta's grip, closing down the society even more. The generals have less to b accountable to, even less to be transparent on their actions.
Intel just started building a 1 billion dollar chip factory in Vietnam. W/o the sanctions that money could also be going to Burma. Yes, the ruling elite (whether burmese or vietnamese) will of course benefit as usual. Elites everywhere including here in US benefit as a rule whenever and wherever business is done. The important thing is that WHEN WESTERN INVESTMENT goes into a country, it stimulates the economy, creats jobs, and puts food on the table for ordinary people. Compare and contrast China circa 1970's and now.
It's understandable that people will have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear abt such a brutal totalitarian regime as seen in Burma. Sanctions only make whores out of ordinary Burmese girls who have to sell their bodies instead of working at a chip/clothes/shoes factory. Maybe they make 2 bucks a day at the sweatshops but it sure beats getting AIDS. Unfortunately, sentimentalism as understandable as it is, doesn't feed people. - slundal, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Why don't you email the creator of digg and ask why, instead of putting the same stupid comment on every goddam article that you don't consider pure gold?
- aseriesoftubes, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2You've just contradicted yourself:
"*The sanctions only hurt the ordinary people.* "
"Yes, the ruling elite (whether burmese or vietnamese) will of course benefit as usual."
Which is it? Do sanctions *only* hurt ordinary people or do they also help the regime?
I agree however this is a tough call and yes there were similar arguments about the various boycotts in South Africa. As with South Africa, I would suggest we follow the view of the opposition which in this instance is calling for a tourism boycott.
I think broad-based economic sanctions are another matter as we've seen previously in Iraq and Cuba. Your arguments are stronger there but this is not the subject we're discussing. - Borgcube636, on 05/25/2008, -4/+6Aha! I knew their Planet Earth documentary was part of a conspiracy!
- mrtdot, on 05/25/2008, -2/+4Or CNN or Fox in the US.
- plingboot, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3You're an idiot.
Ok so, 'BBC Worldwide' acquired a company who's books happened to promote Burmese tourism... That's it. They're hardly to blame for a company's actions before they owned it. BBC News have nothing to do with it at all! - zaknick, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2dude tourism brings in hard currency "at least euros" which would be controlled by the junta just like in Cuba...
- DifferentAngle, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2he's referring to how the times is owned by newscorp
- eigenweasel, on 05/25/2008, -7/+9"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"
Andrew Marr (of the BBC), the Daily Mail, Oct 21st, 2006. - ploke, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Amnesty International (Canada) could really use digg's publicity machine on this one. It is a petition to ban arms sales to Myanmar.
http://digg.com/world_news/Say_No_to_Arms_to_Myanm ...
http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/myanmar_ ... - fish42, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1british version of fox? heve you ever watched either channel. its like comparing a broadsheet to a tabloid. bbc news puts out some of the best news you can get hold of (imo) radio 4 owns every other radio station for news. no adverts and presenters willing to have a go at both the opposition and the ruling party. world service is pretty good also, i catch ti in the evening when radio 4 goes off air.
- ufee, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1CCTV
- akamurph, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Are you surprised? The BBC is full of lefties and appeasers.
- aseriesoftubes, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1There is plenty of racism in Burma against the minority peoples - including slavery - if that's what does it for you but the real point is that the government is imprisoning, torturing and murdering its own people to stay in power.
The difference with Tibet is that the Tibetans have not called for a tourism boycott. The military junta stole the elections in *1990* and the person who won those elections is still around and still being denied her legitimate right to run the country. I'd say that's a good enough reason not to go?
(Yeah, headnickels, I learnt everything I know about Burma off the internet. That and five years working for a human rights organisation.) - aseriesoftubes, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1The charge made for your visa went straight to the government - meaning that in your own small way you have become a financial supporter of the dictatorship. Most foreign tourists are spied on during their visit. So if you did get a chance to talk to local people about how they feel about the regime and how the country is regarded in the rest of the world are you sure you were not observed? If you were you may have got the people you talked to into serious trouble.
- Scheissen, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2Unintended consequences...socialism get out.
- sanman, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1b-b-but what about "engagement"??
that's what everybody always says about China :P
mustn't "alienate" the regime :P
these days, the human rights activists have the double-standards down pat, in order to call some glasses half-empty and others half-full
it's all a game these days - Lavarock, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I know someone who's essentially a refugee of the previous government's ruling family.
- darkfish, on 05/26/2008, -2/+3With all due respect to Daw Aug San Suu Kyi and her allies, while I am totally against the junta and their murderous reign, I disagree with her plea to boycott tourism in Myanmar. Isolation of the regime - YES, isolation of the innocent people of Myanmar - NO. Isolation plays into the hands of the regime. They control all information to the public. Through daily contact with visitors, ordinary citizens of Myanmar can gains some perspective of their own country and their place in the world. Just look at what complete isolation did to North Korea.
Change will come to Myanmar not through shutting off all contacts between the populace and foreign visitors, but the opposite - increasing contact. As visitors, we need to inform ourselves before taking a trip there. Avoid government run hotels and tours. There are plenty of choices to make. Some decent travel advisory sites such as http://www.myanmargoodnewstravel.com/ is a good place to start on your research.
Myanmar is an amazing country with wonderful people and culture. - zaknick, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2The government of my country snubs honest simplicity, but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two.
- Roughing It
mark twain - cekk99, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2Very well said!
- zaknick, on 05/25/2008, -4/+5i agree ...most Americans are unaware of the historic abuses by tories and their "upper class" disdain for normal everyday folks... they'll learn if McCain wins
- darkfish, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1And your point being? The world has changed since Africa was struggling under Apartheid. And Myanmar is again, a very different place. Would you suggest we apply isolation as the only solution to tyranny?
The bottom line is: do some research, avoid giving money to the Myanmar government as much as possible. On the whole, the benefit of continuing travel to Myanmar will outweigh the negatives. - dkapuchino, on 05/25/2008, -15/+15Tourism could actually be a good thing. If tourists are allowed to interact with the local population, they might very well learn more about the freedom and liberties they deserve. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have burmese tourists coming to our towns and homes.
- cdigioia, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0I think it was a minor error in his phrasing. By "only hurt the ordinary people" - he meant they only *truly* hurt the ordinary people - truly meaning ordinary people are the only ones who may starve to death, be sold off as child slaves, etc., not the ruling elite.
- mentalmerc, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0Good idea there. Anyone who wants to know about Burma and the real reason why the media is covering it might want to read this.
http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/one ... - solid12345, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Actually that is a fair point, personally I think Bush's view of "freedom for everyone" is crap. The Arabs much prefer their strong man dictator or Islamic Mullah than democracy.
Democracy only works in individualistic societies, collective societies where everyone dresses the same, acts the same, worships the same religion, they are incapable of democracy.
Why is it liberal democracy has not been a hit in Russia since the fall of the USSR? They are historically a collectivist society and glory of the nation comes before personal liberty and the people like it that way.
If you want any final proof, look at who all the democratic activists in nations like Burma are, usually western educated and more culturally akin to the west than their own people which is why their movements fail. - dullnation, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1It's true.
- xenoc1de, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2That is besides the point. No one called for a tourism boycott in any of those countries, and tourism does not fund a military dictatorship which has denied power to the democratically elected opposition.
- MikeFallopian, on 05/26/2008, -1/+0Tourism brings in money, but a lot of the money goes directly to regular people (shops, hotels, restaurants). Furthermore, it introduces people with a western liberal perspective into the country, which can only be a good thing. The regime should be opposed, but tourism is not a bad thing.
- neocr0n, on 05/25/2008, -4/+3Buried as *****.
- diggit08, on 05/25/2008, -6/+5So... tourism = terrorist?
Does that mean Afghanistan and iraq are getting a Howard Johnson? - boombye, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1We already did with Bush. At least most of us did.
- cdigioia, on 05/26/2008, -1/+0Very well said (well, for an informal Digg post I mean).
- cdigioia, on 05/26/2008, -1/+0Yeah! We should embargo them! That's worked great to remove the regimes in Cuba & N. Korea. It's been great for the standards of living too, especially in the most embargoed country - N. Korea. Man, it's awesome how many people starve there - that'll show those jerks in charge.
I see cekk99 beat me to it with a much better posting - but honestly. "Supporting the regime" - whatever, you're supporting the local population too, helping them eat. You're also giving them outside connections, making it harder for a bad government to brainwash everyone. - Stevanoski, on 05/26/2008, -3/+1Same arguments made about South Africa. Don't know the solution but the Left needs to get it's priorities straight and then stick to them.
- FeargusMcDuff, on 05/25/2008, -11/+7How dare a news broadcaster be neutral! If only they could take a leaf out of Fox News' book...
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is