I just visted the New York Times, the Washington Post and the BBC and only on the BBC did I get a hint that something existed outside the USA. Get over yourselves, you are not that important, who wants to know? Not 95% of the world

Feeling sorry for yourself ? Well of course if you are only looking at the Slimes and Compost then your perception will be warped .
But I can look at both publications and find news from around the world. Just may not be front page .
International News - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html)
World: World News, International News, Foreign Reporting - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world)

If I'm looking for a publication where Aussie news dominates ,I usually go to one that is published in Aussie and caters to an Aussie clientele... like The Australian
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)

The trick is to not rely on one or a few sources .

You must not look very hard, virtually every media outlet has international news. Are you just constipated, clete?

Here Clete, let me help...

Washington Post - World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world)

NY Times - World (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html)

ABC News - World (http://abcnews.go.com/international)

Boston Globe - World (http://www.boston.com/news/world/)

CBS News - World (http://www.cbsnews.com/world/)

Fox News - World (http://www.foxnews.com/world/index.html)

LA Times - World (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/)

NBC News - World (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032507/ns/world_news/)

Miami Herald - World (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/#navlink=navbar)

Even our podunk little paper...

Amarillo Globe News - World (http://ap.amarillonet.com/pstories/world/)

Glad to be of service.

Oh... it seems like someone else thinks their country is the center of the world.

Incidentally the New York Times and the Washingto comPost aren't international publications and cater to their readers.

If you read either of those publications they do have international news in them.

I suppose if you picked up any Australian publication they would be Autrailian in focus... wouldn't they? As would any other publication NOT specifically geared exclusively towards international stories... which is most of them.

I have no doubts the BBC is UK in their center of scope... because after all.. the days of the glorious British Empire are long over but they still cater primarily to people in the UK. But lets be honest.. the UK is NOT a huge place. They run out of local stories pretty quick without resorting to covering births and funerals heavily. Not to mention who got parking tickets... and gossip.

Long recognized as the authoritative international news source:

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/)

Oh...it seems like someone else thinks their country is the center of the world.

Incidently the New York Times and the Washingto comPost aren't international publications and cater to their readers.

If you read either of those publications they do have international news in them.

I suppose if you picked up any Austrailian publication they would be Autrailian in focus...wouldn't they? As would any other publication NOT specifically geared exclusively towards international stories...which is most of them.

I have no doubts the BBC is UK in their center of scope....because after all..the days of the glorious British Empire are long over but they still cater primarily to people in the UK. But lets be honest..the UK is NOT a huge place. They run out of local stories pretty quick without resorting to covering births and funerals heavily. Not to mention who got parking tickets...and gossip.

Hi smoothy yes our publications carry local news and some stupid stories at that but the important international news is never far away SMH has two articals of international origin in its lead five today while you have to get a little further down the page in the Murdoch press offerings meanwhile the BBC is entirely international focused but the point is no one is attempting to serve up gossip as front page news as you suggest and you don't have to dig into the back pages to find it

I didn't have to dig, I just clicked on "world".

I don't have to do that, for us the world is not a different place

I don't have to do that, for us the world is not a different place

The first Aussie site I visited was exactly the same. Maybe you could use more fiber?

The first Aussie site I visited was exactly the same. Maybe you could use more fiber?

I hope you didn't follow that link to the Australian provided by Tom that's a parochial Murdoch rag this is much better

ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/)

Yeah that's the ticket... an American broadcasting network gives the best news in
Aussie ;and the publication by an Aussie national is a rag.

yeah that's the ticket ...an American broadcasting network gives the best news in Aussie ;and the publication by an Aussie national is a rag.

Have you left the planet or just touched down on Planet America?

My reference is to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a premier national public broadcaster, and the unfortunately named "the Australian" is a relatively recent addition to daily newspapers used by Murdoch to steal the national newspaper slot for himself. Australians tend not to have national newspapers but major publishers in various state capitals

Have you left the planet or just touched down on Planet America?

My reference is to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a premier national public broadcaster, and the unfortunately named "the Australian" is a relatively recent addition to daily newspapers used by Murdoch to steal the national newspaper slot for himself. Australians tend not to have national newspapers but major publishers in various state capitals

Yes, ABC is one if your many state media outlets. I think you should give this one up though, my first response was correct.

Yes, ABC is one if your many state media outlets. I think you should give this one up though, my first response was correct.

How many STATE media outlets do you think we have?

We have the ABC which provides english language television and radio and SBS which provides ethnic( multi lingual) television and radio

I use this one to cross check the reporting in the other media, it helps to get another perspective

Correction, should be ABC IS your state media outlet with multiple outlets.

"The ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation) operates 54 local radio stations, in addition to four national networks and international service Radio Australia. In addition, DiG Radio launched on digital platforms in 2002, currently offering three separate stations."

"Within Australia, the ABC operates four channels. ABC1, the Corporation's original television service, receives the bulk of funding for television and shows first-run comedy, drama, documentaries, and news and current affairs. In each state and territory a local news bulletin is shown at 7.00 p.m. nightly"

"Australia Network, formerly ABC Asia Pacific, is an international satellite television service operated by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, funded by advertising and grants from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Aimed at the Asia-Pacific region, the service broadcasts a mixture of English language programming, including general entertainment, sport, and current affairs."

I think that's 61 radio outlets and 5 TV channels in addition to online content. Would that be about right?

Sounds like Pravda

Speech it is one organisation not many organisations and the many "radio" stations are relays distributing programs across the nation, yes there are multiple TV channels but private television also broadcasts on multiple channels each of the other three TV broadcasters provides national service and most radio stations excepting community radio stations are part of one massive network. We think differently to you, we have for example a christian radio network with over two hundred transmitters

I cannot expect you to understand how a small nation with limited resources might develop and provide services to a sparcely populated nation but often government has to do what private enterprise will not. You may remember only a week ago that we were discussing an attempt to reform media concentration here that is still going on. We make no apologies for taking a socialist approach to the provision of essential services when private enterprise will not step up and we did it not only in media but in banking; our largest bank was once government owned, airlines; our national carrier was once government owned, electricity; our electricity industry was once government owned, Telecoms; once government owned. The National Broadband Network; in the progcess of being built by government. Railways; most services are still in government hands, ports; once government owned, Water; still in government hands. Hospitals; many in government hands, Schools; many in government hands

Tom and yourself would like to suggest there is something wrong with government enterprise but what we find is that a government enterprise can be an efficient means to meet a public need and at an appropriate time divested into private hands

I made a correction, "Correction, should be ABC IS your state media outlet with multiple outlets."

I made a correction, "Correction, should be ABC IS your state media outlet with multiple outlets."

The ABC is not State media, it is media like any other media. Its content is not controlled by the STATE. It is owned and operated by the government, but is a statutory corporation which means its shareholder is the government. The government does not set editorial policy and is frequently critical of government policy

Regardless Clete, your particular rant about our media was unwarranted and I particularly thought the "get over yourselves" bit was petty - and premature - seeing as how your complaint was so obviously wrong.

I'll put it to you speech what does the average american know about anything beyond their borders, and why?

Tom and yourself would like to suggest there is something wrong with government enterprise but what we find is that a government enterprise can be an efficient means to meet a public need and at an appropriate time divested into private hands
Good way for the government to control the press and by extension your thoughts. What you want is what Orwell warned against.

the Orwellian system didn't allow competition Tom, you and I both know it was a thinly veiled depiction of the Soviet system. You cling steadfastly to the idea that private eneterprise is the only true expression of an economic system, but what your system has failed to prevent is the boom and bust

Yeah ,especially when the government intervenes in attempts to control boom and bust cycles... which of course makes them worse. But that's OK .You can keep on believing that Tulipmania was a free market bubble and not the result of government intervention in the market. .

i'll put it to you speech what does the average american know about anything beyond their borders, and why?

Changing the subject, eh? I'd say they are no more apathetic toward the rest of the world than anyone else.

No speech if you remember the start of the op, right back on subject, you attempts to redirect the argument are rebutted

No speech if you remember the start of the op, right back on subject, you attempts to redirect the argument are rebutted

Sorry dude, you just sounded petty and condescending in the op and I've proven your complaint was invalid. It wasn't that difficult to demonstrate either you need the help of a fifth grader, just didn't try that hard or my guess, you hate Americans for some inexplicable reason. Or need more fiber. I don't have such animosity toward our friends, but you certainly seem to.

I just visted the New York Times, the Washington Post and the BBC and only on the BBC did I get a hint that something existed outside the USA get over yourselves, you are not that important, who wants to know? Not 95% of the world

Sounds like someone with a problem to me... don't see us doing that.

Sounds like someone with a problem to me...don't see us doing that.

Let me put it this way, I wanted to see what you thought about world affairs and I found it a low priority. Perhaps I selected the wrong mastheads but if they are reflective of the way you view the news then I'm not surprised that you are relatively unaware

good way for the government to control the press and by extension your thoughts. What you want is what Orwell warned against.

The problem is that exactly the same type of tyranny can be leveled at a society with a "free press" Such a press controls your thoughts as well. Such a press promotes a pre- disposition to lurch to an extreme position on many issues.

I think we see a manefestation of that here Tutt, definitely signs of brainwashing

let me put it this way, I wanted to see what you thought about world affairs and I found it a low priority. perhaps I selected the wrong mastheads but if they are reflective of the way you view the news then I'm not surprised that you are relatively unaware

If you are looking at the lamestream media as a bellwether for what people are thinking... you are likely to find you are sadly misinformed.

Besides... name ONE country that is more concerned with what someone else's is doing.. than what's happening inside their own borders... you won't find one because local events effect and matter more to people that what's happening to someone halfway around the world.

Hell... just look at how misinformed you and Tut are... not to mention NK about what's really going on here... because you get everything you know for a news source none of you are able to really judge the bias or accuracy of. After all, what penalty do they get for not being 100% correct or accurate? Nothing... right?

Because YOU rely on a media that tells you what they want you to think is going on... not what is actually going on. And what THEY tell you is completely biased by the political viewpoints of the people that run that outfit.

Some of us know how deep that bias can run because we are privey to a lot of stuff the average person isn't... and we see many things that should be reported about but aren't because they don't "further the cause" that that media id pushing...

And its usually the people that have absolutely no access to contrary information that tend to get their panties in a knot the most... because its they who are the truly brainwashed.

I've spent a significant amount of my adult life between Europe and the USA to see how widespread that is... and there is absolutely no rational reason to believe its any different in the remainder of the planet.

YOU (and everyone else) worry about taking care of yourself and your family first... you worry about local events second... national events third.

What happens to someone halfway across the planet ranks dead last on that list for everyone in importance.

But if there is one thing that definitely is NOT true... is there is no lack of International News coverage in any part of the USA. We night not know how many Kangaroos got ran over on a certain stretch of road in the Outback... but the bigger stuff does get coverage in many cases.

let me put it this way, I wanted to see what you thought about world affairs and I found it a low priority. perhaps I selected the wrong mastheads but if they are reflective of the way you view the news then I'm not surprised that you are relatively unaware

Again, since virtually every media outlet we have has what you were looking for I can only surmise you just wanted to rag on the US as is your habit. You may have modeled your ABC after Aunty BBC but we don't. We are what we are, get over it.

The problem is that exactly the same type of tyranny can be leveled at a society with a "free press" Such a press controls your thoughts as well. Such a press promotes a pre- disposition to lurch to an extreme position on many issues.

I'll take my chances with a free press and choice rather than my news being filtered by government apparatchiks.

I'll take my chances with a free press and choice rather than my news being filtered by govenment apparatchiks.

I much prefer the consumer be the judge than have a government media referee.

LOL, everybody watches to see what we do here, as it affects other countries more than smaller countries.

LOL, everybody watches to see what we do here, as it affects other countries more than smaller countries.

And there is a lot of truth in that... and it has nothing to do with arrogance either... its just how it is.

How many people Watch Urguay to see what's happening there? Not many right... because what they do or don't do really has little effect on the Worlds affairs..

LOL, everybody watches to see what we do here, as it affects other countries more than smaller countries.

And when something significant happens like a hurricane in Haiti Americans jump to help - personally.

We night not know how many Kangaroos got ran over on a certain stretch of road in the Outback....but the bigger stuff does get coverage in many cases.

Oddly enough the only place that information would be reported is in the US because it might be of interest to some liberal lame arse who would want to beat us over the head with it, telling us how our kangaroo management is deficient and how much better their wildlife management programs are.

I wouldn't even know how many abo's got run over in the outback but we certainly get told every time some equally lame arse abo footballer thumbs his nose at authority, such is the quality of local news, and you can bet we look to see if things are happening with more import.

Here's a current event across the pond. France's Socialist prez got a judicial smack down last week on his 75% tax on the wealthy but never fear, he's rebooting it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9960694/Defiant-Francois-Hollande-vows-to-tax-companies-75-on-salaries-over-1million-euros.html)into a 75 tax on salaries over a million Euros.

Yeah, that's going to jump start their economy. Of course with all good Socialists, libs and progs taxing the rich has nothing to do with fixing anything or raising revenue... he's just imposing his morality on others (http://www.npr.org/2012/05/10/152445464/new-french-president-pledges-to-tax-rich-75-percent).

Maybe it will give his ratings a boost though, but if you ask me any guy who spends 45 minutes trying to convince his country he's not a "bad president" has already lost that battle.

There are taxes and taxes Tom and 75% is excessive, I remember when we had a 95% tax on the rich, no one was rich, at least they didn't admit it, now they pay 47.5% if you can get them to admit it

Dude, I am not tom. Geez people.

Sorry again speech you guys are so alike, but I note our rich pay more than yours do so there must be a point of indifference

Yeah there are taxes and there are taxes ;and there's banks seizing people's money in Cyprus ,and the State of Kalifornia is seizing it's citizens money with retroactive taxing . It's enough to turn a lefty Dem into a Tea Party Patriot... maybe.

Today was a bad day. After meeting with my tax accountant, I am now cutting a very large check to the State of California, all of which resulted from Proposition 30 and the “retroactive tax” that was levied on my 2012 income.

This despite the fact that I already paid my 2012 taxes back in September.

While the law stipulates that I must surrender this money, I refuse to acknowledge this as a tax at all. This is not a tax. This is an asset seizure plain and simple. The term “retroactive tax” is a despicable euphemism. It is no different than when Hugo Chavez used the benign-sounding “nationalize” to describe his seizure of private property in Venezuela.

Now before I go any further, let me tell you what I am not.

I am not a Tea Party member. I am not even a Republican. Twice I have voted for Barack Obama, and I was supportive of his tax compromise earlier this year. I am not a person who opposes paying taxes, even higher ones. I am a very reasonable person who respects the great opportunity that America has given to me.

But there is a very clear and unambiguous line between taxes — regardless of how high they are — and asset seizures. The State of California has taken money from me. Money that I already earned and paid taxes on, and I will not tolerate this act of theft.

So what am I doing about it, other than speaking up?

Well, I am moving my new company — which is now closing a round of venture funding from world-class investors — to the East Coast. Because my last company created almost 200 jobs, most of which were in San Francisco, this is not good news for the State of California.

As I write this, I am hiring people on the East Coast who might otherwise have been hired in California. Some have already been hired. My California employees will be relocating to New York by early next year.

I will also be leaving California next year and de-establishing residency to be with my new company. No more 13.3 percent of my income for you, California. How does 0 percent sound? That sounds good to me.
Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California | PandoDaily (http://pandodaily.com/2013/03/25/because-of-asset-seizures-i-am-starting-my-new-company-outside-california/)

yeah there are taxes and there are taxes ;and there's banks seizing people's money in Cyprus ,and the State of Kalifornia is seizing it's citizens money with retroactive taxing . It's enough to turn a lefty Dem into a Tea Party Patriot .............maybe.

Because of asset seizures, I am starting my new company outside California | PandoDaily (http://pandodaily.com/2013/03/25/because-of-asset-seizures-i-am-starting-my-new-company-outside-california/)

So exercise your right and leave, no one is forcing you to stay, do a Deupardu

That would be one course , the other is to stick around and try to influence the course the nation takes. It isn't a given that this ever escalating money grab is the way it will be or should be. I don't blame Goldberg for the course he is taking in leaving the People's Republic of Kalifornia . The greatness of federalism is that he has that option within the United States .He can vote with his feet.
It's an entirely different matter when the national government is complicit in the plunder. There are many fewer nations where liberty and government restraint is written into the constitution . So although he is joining Tiger Woods, and Phil Mickelson in saying 'hasta la vista ' to Governor Moonbeam's money grab. It is less desirable to leave the greatest nation man has created.

No, that hasn't worked in sicxty years either, leave now while you can and your capital is safe

States Limiting Freedom Pushes People Out (http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/states-limiting-freedom-pushes-people-out)

Type "New York is" into Google and the first option it presents is "New York is killing me."
No kidding ! Not only are we one of the highest taxed people in the country ;but all the users fees ,fines etc are more money grabs . The latest one is highway patrols have been giving tickets to drivers who drive too long (in the subjective view of the officer) in the left hand lane .

No kidding ! Not only are we one of the highest taxed people in the country ;but all the users fees ,fines etc are more money grabs . The latest one is highway patrols have been giving tickets to drivers who drive too long (in the subjective view of the officer) in the left hand lane .

Nothing new in that Tom it's been illegal to hog the passing lane for years here, perhaps you are learning from us

If you aren't obstructing the traffic flow then where is the harm ? I use the left lane and let the 18 wheelers and the slow pokes have the right lane .I move over when faster vehicles are coming up behind .

Rules are rules

I'll break traffic rules every time I think there is a safety issue involved .

It's cr@p like this that make NY the least free state in the US.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/29/study-new-yorkers-enjoy-less-freedom-than-residents-in-any-other-state-in-u-s/

Then leave, go where your free spirit is respected

In time... I certainly isn't going to hang around here when I'm on a fixed income in retirement. . On top of very high state income taxes ;the property taxes here is like paying an additional rent on my home.

So Florida then? You should come here, property taxes aren't bad and tax is definitely good for older people, good concesssions, and there are places where the snow doesn't blow, and that medical insurance you complain about, well it isn't that bad either

I'll never move to Florida. That state is a repository for people waiting for their turn to die. I've narrowed it down to a few states ;the closest is Pennsylvania where I can hang with the bitter clingers.

I'll never move to Florida. That state is a repository for people waiting for their turn to die. I've narrowed it down to a few states ;the closest is Pennsylvania where I can hang with the bitter clingers.

So going to the amish

Possibly . I like the country around Gettysburg .I could see myself working a small veggie garden and attending Civil War reenactments.

Still harsh winters in that part of the world

So ? A home with a fireplace and a stocked pantry.. My view of the cold is that you can always put on more clothing . When it gets hot ;there is only so many you can take off.

Obviously you haven't heard of air con and swimming pools, what I find is I can't get warm even in a heated house, you reach that stage right now it is cold and this is only autumn and we haven't seen a frost yet