It’s not ‘claiming a benefit’. It’s arguing that it’s the responsibility of America to balance its world domination with a respect for world opinion.
I read it differently than that. They are not arguing that the U.S. respect the opinions of the world, but that the U.S. is obliged to only act with the “consent” of the world. Which, yes, would be a benefit on par with the voting rights of U.S. citizens.
You may be interested to know that 14,000 people (not necessarily Brits) have requested Clark County addresses from the Guardian.
(I have read, and can believe, that The Guardian is the most popular British news/info site for foreign hits after the BBC. The reason I can beleive this is that it’s website is streets ahead of anyone else’s. It’s just written by tossers. )
Absolutely.
That said, there was something distinctly faked about the replies.
Americans do not say cheers. Ever. It took me two years to stop saying it when I moved here, and in all that time there wasn’t a single person to whom I didn’t have to explain that I meant “thank you”.
They don’t say flipping either. Freaking or fucking, possibly, but I’ve never heard a Yank say “flipping” in any other sense than “being in the action of turning something over”.
Always possible that these responders are using words from the letters they recieved, but somehow I doubt it.
The bigger issue here is this: Blair backed the invasion of Iraq. Literate and well spoken he may be, but you can’t very well bitch about US foreign policy (even W’s foreign policy initiatives) when the sitting PM is behind them.
This was just hilarious. You really have to wonder if these people have even considered the possibility that Britain just might not want to extradite people who are being charged with “subversive letter-writing”.
Huh? We can’t? Britain is a dictatorship now, is it?
In case you didn’t notice, we bitched and moaned and millions marched, before the war had even begun. Blair ignored public opinion (able to do so because of the way the electoral process gave him such extraordinary power, but that’s another debate).
LOL!
Dear Telegraph. Sir,
I write to complain about the disgraceful attempts by The Guardian newspaper to influence our colonial cousins in the New World. Democracy in “The United States Of America”, as I believe they are calling it these days, is fragile and should not be disturbed by the liberal, communist, shiftless layabouts we read so much about in this subversive, revolutionary pamphlet.
I understand they did this using something called “the internet” and “computers”. If this is true I look forward to the future Conservative Government banning them all immediately and sending the lot of them for a good dose of National Service. After this an invasion of the “USA” should begin without delay, reinstating the Her Majesty the Queen as monarch and put a stop to this damn silly nonsense once and for all.
Yours,
Col. Thomas Blunderbust (ret.), Old Farts Gentleman’s Club, London W1.
Dear Telegraph. Sir,
I write in reply to Col. Blunderbust’s letter in today’s Telegraph. I must protest in the strongest terms about this foolish talk about a ‘New World’. This place is a fantasy made up by revolutionaries, n’er-do-wells and under-employed servants in need of a whipping. You would do all your readers a service if we were to hear no more about it!
Yours,
Lady Margaret Bigbussle, Obscenely Large Manor, Sussex.
As an American who does not particularly share the views typically expressed in the Guardian, let me make my opinion abundantly clear.
Meh.
Waaaaay too much is being read into this. For one thing, the effect of the Guardian’s campaign is almost certainly going to be neglible. There’s so much spam going over the internet, I don’t think anyone is much going to notice any political spam, much less this particular bit of it.
Secondly, so these guys feel they need to participate in the American electoral process. So? They certainly wouldn’t be the first. Hell, let them have their say. Let people consider perhaps a wider range of opinions than they might have. It’s still Americans who will ultimately vote, and in the end they’ll vote exactly how their television tells them to, so who cares?
I’ve been thinking about this a bit. It’s not the first time the Guardian got into an internet spat (there was an incident a few weeks ago with the Diary column and freerepublic.com). I now am suspecting that they’re hoping to suggest that as well as ‘new media’ influencing traditional communication of news, it’s possible for mainstream media to directly influence the debate in places of political significance which it wouldn’t otherwise be able to enter. Including this thread.
It appears that the Britiah media can meddle in another sovereign state’s election, hector them about their percieved failings etc and nothing happens.
But you tell the truth about liverpool and all hell breaks lose.
Poor Boris.
Have to agree. He may not have picked the best time or way to say it, but no-one does public, hand-wringingly demonstrative grief-fests quite like Liverpool. They also do the “unjustly pick-on sulk” pretty well too.
Not that I’m saying it’s a bad thing, I’m just saying. 
I imagine they’re quite tame by some other countries’ standards.
To continue the hijack… Can anyone think of a more futile task than sending dear old Boris to Liverpool in the vain hope he could persuade the populace that he is a decent cove?
The whole spectacle made for embarassing TV viewing.
Today’s Guardian has a long self-assessment of the whole project. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1332041,00.html
And on Boris - how the hell can you feel sorry for that grotesque toad? (…and that’s despite my agreeing with some of that article. Although the Hillsborough stuff was ignorant and offensive.)
I have yet to reach a conclusive opinion on Mr Johnson, but it seems all the world is willing to help me. Taking the general Liverpudlian opinion as read, the above are a couple of more pro-Boris sites.
ps: worth remembering that Boris didn’t write the article, he just edits the mag. Officially at least, though he finds a suspicious amount of time to do other things.
I think the actual author has been kept anonymous, for which ten points to Bozza for doing his job for once. I mean, his job as editor. Not his job as MP. Heaven forbid.
It’s pretty well-known that the author was Simon Heffer. Not least because parts of it were lifted directly from an old article of his about Hillsborough.
D’oh! Well it is now.
:: opens cupboard door to allow Heffer to make his fourteenth escape of the day ::
Sorry Heffs old chap.
I love Boris.
There i’ve said it.
Friends of mine were at Eton with him - he really is like that and always has been.
And you read the Telegraph! I’m getting a great mental picture of you owl .
Does it look like this?
There’s a British forum that’s quite anti this idea too…
link