Search Results: engaged

FYI The "American Forces Network" online will show you what's playing worldwide if you want to see for yourself.

Now, first I realize it's VITALLY IMPORTANT that troops get news from home - it makes them less homesick and provides a sense of normalcy when you hear the Yankees collapsed in 5 games (Let's Go Mets)!

But should they be getting news from a network where the following happened:

"The hosts “have open access to spread their conspiracy theories to US troops,” VoteVet states. “And now we know they knew they were lies — just to boost their ratings in referencing Fox settlement of the Dominion Voting lawsuit of libel $800K for their "knowingly false claims".

In fact, Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC is a USA commercial broadcast television network owned by the Fox Entertainment division of Fox Corporation. As such, it avoids the stricter standards required of other journalism outlets.

In fact, during the lawsuit Fox Attorneys stated in the record:

The 'general tenor' of the show should inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

The Trump appointed judge then states: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

She added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable as they are entertainment.

The decision specifically references Fox News prime-time hosts Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, each of whom was accused in recent court filings of knowingly spreading Donald Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud.

So, should troops be watching "entertainment" as news? Purveyors of false claims, lies, misinfo & disinfo per the courts?

FUN FACT: Only 1% of the artifacts that the British museum holds are on display. This prevents the entire planet from engaging with world history. Do they have the right to deny us our planetary heritage?

There are a number of arguments AGAINST returning artifacts to their countries of origin, including:

Safety: The artifacts may not be safe in their new location.

Loss of artifacts: Museums would lose many of their artifacts, which could make them nearly empty.

Visitor numbers: Museums would lose their most prominent artifacts, which could hurt their ability to attract visitors.

Economic loss: Museums and private companies would lose financial opportunities.

Lack of facilities: The source country may not have the proper facilities or personnel to receive the artifacts.

Unclear destination: The ancient kingdoms from which the artifacts came may no longer exist, or they may be spread across multiple modern countries.

Colonialism: Returning artifacts obtained during colonialism does not make up for the destruction of colonialism.

Legal acquisition: Most objects in museums were legally obtained and have no reason to be repatriated.

There are a number of arguments FOR return to indigenous cultures:

Cultural objects, as part of cultural and political identity, belong with the civilizations that developed them.

Stolen or plundered property should be restored to its rightful owner because it is ethically correct.

The greatest way to appreciate and comprehend art is in its original context.

What do you think?