Because I can drive a car, and I can’t do that in Saudi Arabia.
Because I can own a gun, and I can’t do that in Britain.
Because I can travel freely, and I can’t do that in North Korea.
Because I can confront my accusers if I am on trial, and I can’t do that in China.
Because I can rely on fair and free elections, and I can’t do that in Russia.
Because I can have an abortion if I need one, and I can’t do that in Ireland.
Because I can freely practice the religion of my choice, and I can’t do that in Iran.
Because I can raise my daughters free of the specter that their genitals will be mutilated without their consent and over my objections, and I can’t do that in Sudan.
Because I can elect not to serve in my country’s armed forces if I choose not to, and I can’t do that in Israel.
Funnily enough, when most Americans think about their freedoms, and what they have or don’t, they don’t think of them in terms of dry-cleaning bags and access to lube. They think about them in terms of being free to slag the President in the harshest of terms, without fear of reprisal; being free to go to a mosque, temple, church, forest clearing, or other religious gathering without fear of persecution; being free to watch CNN or Fox News, read the Wall Street Journal or the Village Voice, listen to NPR or right-wing talk radio, just as they choose, without fear the government will silence some purveyors of information. We enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom of association.
None of which is to say that America is perfectly free, or perfectly anything. It’s not. And you might even argue in return that Ireland is also free, as is Norway and France and Germany and [insert the country of your choice here]. Which is okay with me – you want to start a movement of “Ireland – Land of the Free” be my guest. But the originator of the idea of freedom as a personal and national ideal, was the United States. We are the original land of the free, and if you’re going to try to take the title away from us, you’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than whine about the fact that you might be fingerprinted at the border.
Not completely. To argue that you would have to say that consular offices around the world hand out immigration visas without any regard as to who may enter the US. That more closely agrees with a refugees that land on US ports.
I would suspect that like Canada you have a list of desirable attributes you wish a potential immigrant to possess and relates to various immigrant targets that a country sets for itself. Canada has a target of 300,000; though to date I don’t think we hit that. Might be closer to 250,000 a year.
Now I found some immigration information from 1996, though not from a government source so take them with a grain of salt.
Countries 1996
Mexico 163,572
West Indies 116,801
South America 61,769
Africa 52,889
India 44,859
Central America 44,289
China 25,106
Canada and Newfoundland 15,825
United Kingdom 13,657
Poland 8,481
The total immigration numbers from that year apparently were around 600,000.
Now looking at the number of official migrants from Mexico I can understand your position that a government target does not simply make people shrug their shoulders and stay home. I would imagine the number of illegal migrants from Mexico was at least as large as the official numbers.
That’s why freedom should be carefully defined. If freedom means I can be happy at your expense, then whichever of us is stronger is free and the other is a slave. If, on the other hand, freedom means the absence of coercion, then I am free to do what I wish on my property but not on yours. I am free to walk wherever I have permission from the property’s owner, but not where I don’t. Same same for you.
That is the point. It’s sickening for everyone to go around touting the “land of the free” when it clearly isn’t. I do believe that it is probably one of the freest countries, but it has a long way to go to being what it should be. That is the point.
Gee, what a scathing indictment of the U.S. It seems to me from these examples that the freedom lacking – and which is implictly urged – is the freedom from personal responsibility. You are not free to consume food where it is illegal to do so. You are not free to be demonstrably drunk in public. You are not free to drive while intoxicated. You are not free to build the Taj Mahal in your back yard – no, not even if an exciting television show will do it for you for free – if you’ve moved to a location prohibiting it. You are not free to take drugs, without potential consequences, when you have voluntarily accepted and held a job where you are subject to random drug testing. You are not free to send your retarded child to our country with the expectation that we will not attempt to return him to you.
My God, it’s just like the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. :rolleyes:
Well, alas, they can’t marry here either. And to divorce someone you have to be separated for five years.
Having said that, many US punishments for criminal and civil transgressions, such as the ones listed in your post, do seem to be absurdly draconian.
Actually, Jodi, you can own a gun in the UK. You just need to get a license for it. And if you’re going to get all historical about this, the freedoms encapsulated in the US Constitution began their life in 1215 at Runnymede in England. These original freedoms extended only to the nobility at the time, but then again your original freedoms only extended to white males at the time.
FTR, these are the rights of Irish citizens, as defined by the Irish constitution:
nyctea, I’m not going to respond to all your claims, but this in particular irked me:
If you’d happen to have RTFA, the woman in question (1) admitted her mistake, (2), missed a court date on her proceedings (maybe not 100% her fault either, but you make damn sure when you’re going to be in court on driving-impaired charges), and, oh yeah (3) was actually driving impaired.
I am not *ever going to fight for the right to drive impaired.
Jodi, it’s like jjimm said…the point is that “many US punishments for criminal and civil transgressions, such as the ones listed in your post, do seem to be absurdly draconian.” The PUNISHMENTS don’t fit the CRIMES. You see? It’s like cutting someone’s hand off for stealing. Not quite as bad, but in the same vein.
And jjimm, RE: “Well, alas, they can’t marry here either.” I don’t think this thread ever meant to be a comparison between Ireland vs. US. The fact gays can’t marry is the BIGGEST reason this country shouldn’t be called the land of the free.
I guess different people are sickened by different things. To me, complaining that it shouldn’t ever be called “land of the free” because it’s not perfectly free, is like arguing that your local Burger King shouldn’t be called the “Home of the Whopper” because it’s not the only home of the only Whopper.
Well depends on what your definition of “impaired” is. The government seems to have set it at a arbitrary lower level for political reasons. The other point is, was one drink worth the punishment she recieved? Hell no. The punishment does not fit the crime at all.
You have no way of knowing if she was impared. Her test happend to fall above a fixed number. Does this mean she was actually impaired? Perhaps, but possibly not. Most people are not impaired after one drink.
Au contraire. The Magna Carta said nothing about freedom of speech, assembly, association, press, and very little about freedom of religion (the Church of England shall be free). The “original freedoms” of the MC largely dealt with property rights, not individual rights, and were not based on the idea of “freedom” of the individual at all. Sure, at the time the U.S. was founded, “land of the free” meant “land of the free white land-owning males,” but that was still a sight more free than any country had yet dreamed of being – including monarchist England.
But like I said, if you want to argue that England, or Ireland is also a land of the free, I don’t mind. I never said we were the only one and, unlike the OP, I don’t feel it makes my country any less great if yours is a great country too.
Again, in response to Jackmannii and Jodi and others, I am in no way defending drunk driving. The point was, and it should have spoken for itself without having to to explain it, is, the punishment was way too harsh for the infraction. Same goes for the woman on the Metro. Like I said, it’s in the same vein as cutting off someone’s hand for stealing.
As for the guy fired for smoking pot? The point there should have been obvious. Not only did the punishment not fit the crime (losing his entire career and livelihood, and probably a lifetime of struggling to get and hold even the most menial jobs), but we have to question the law itself: the fairness of the ban on a substance thought to be even less harmful than alcohol, and the fairness of the drug tests. Basically, we have no right to do what we want on our free time and in our own homes even if it doesn’t affect or harm anyone else.
Hogwash. While your post at least provided some concrete points for discussion concerning relative freedoms in this country, the OP posted a steaming pile of semi-coherent blather about laundry bags and dildos. If he happened to hit a nail on the head, it was purely as an accident of his hammering blindly in all directions.
Well, if you don’t count being yelled at on the air by Bill O’Reilly, that is.