Thank you for the quote. Asking for it does not automatically imply you are lying. You might be an excellent paraphraser. You might make a mistake, or give a misleading emphasis.
Since you were so angry, I thought it useful to get the exact words (and I was surprised that you didn’t supply them straightaway).
As Mandelstam said, the first quote - which is indeed unpleasant - admits using a stereotype. (I only have to read postings here on the SDMB to see there are a wide range of American attitudes, almost always backed up by polite, intelligent and interesting reasoning.)
The second quote is important. Before I ask you about it, let me tell you about a British equivalent.
The Labour party in opposition said they would tackle health issues, such as removing the last traces of cigarette advertising. Then they got elected. They announced that Formula 1 motor racing, which a) gets plenty of TV coverage, and b) is heavily sponsored by cigarette companies, would be exempt from the new restrictions on such adverts.
Next the news broke that the Labour party had received a £1,000,000 donation from the head of the Formula 1 organisation. Coincidence, or what?
So I think my own Government is easily influenced (corrupted) by business donations. That doesn’t mean I can’t ask about whether Bush is also doing the same thing.
Do the large oil companies have too much control over the President? Will this affect Florida, Alaska and global warming policy?
I don’t think either cite above backs up this assertion.
I assume this is based on the following exchange:
SuaSponte:
“A continuing criticism of the U.S. by almost all European governments (reflecting the viewpoints of their electorate)…”
glee:
“The UK just had an election. The Labour Party won a clear majority, with just over 24% of the eligible voters.
And, according to you, that means they reflect the viewpoints of the electorate!
I suppose Bush represents all the US, because he got nearly 50% of the votes cast?”
SuaSponte:
“Um, actually, he does. It’s called representative democracy.”
Good grief! You imply that European governments represent the views of all their electorate in criticising the US. I point out that in one European country, the Government got only 24% of the possible vote. That means up to 76% of us individuals could be US supporters, and disapprove of the criticism.. Instead of acknowledging my point, you state the obvious - that an elected leader makes the policies for his country. Yes, of course, but please don’t imply that Bush’s views (or those of any other leader) are held by everyone in their country.
Sanctimonious, huh! As if a teacher would be … (voice trails off)
OK, fine, I’ll give you another one. A photo on page 10 of this week’s Economist. It is a large placard with a photo of Dubya, with the words “George W. Bush - WANTED for Climate Crimes.” It is being held by two European protestors (specific nationalities not identified) wearing t-shirts with the placard reproduced on them.
Bush is a “criminal” for rejecting Kyoto. To my mind, that qualifies as saying that Bush’s policies on global warming are evil. That’s constructive criticism.
Can I just point out that these stats are not comparable? IIRC, we had around 50% voter turnout this election, not much different from four years ago. If Bush got around half of those votes, then he and the Labour Party got around the same fraction of votes.
That said, I have no idea what these numbers are supposed to prove.
First of all, euthanasia has only been fully legalised in the Netherlands for a few years. In the last 20 years, however, it was condoned in some cases. Now, I’m sure it is obvious to anyone that this is a long process. You just don’t change the law overnight. Laws change because of a need in society. Gradually, the legal framework adapts and becomes a tight fit that allows no or little gaps for interpretation. But it wasn’t always like that. The report you reference was from a time when many questions DID arise about just how careful doctors were in their procedures. And there is no doubt in my mind that some doctors, partially the victim of an ambiguous legal framework at the time, took their samaritan role a little too far in some cases. But as harsh as it may sounds: it’s the price we collectively paid for the evolution of the legal surroundings of euthanasia. Without precedents, there’s no incentive to rephrase or rebuild laws.
Secondly, you bolded this part: “In 30 per cent of these cases the non-treatment decision had been discussed with the patient. In 62 per cent of these cases it had not. In 88 per cent of all cases where the non-treatment decision had not been discussed with the patient, the patient was incompetent.”
Well, of COURSE. Typically, a patient that “qualifies” for euthanasia is within inches of his life already. They may be comatose, braindead after an accident, drugged unconcious to stop the pain of terrible tumors.
In those cases, where a doctor (with an independant back-up from a colleague) demonstrates beyond the doubt that there is no way of recovery for the patient in ANY way, the decision is made by the next of kin. The patients husband/wife, parents, children. Sometimes patients have stated beforehand when they would chose to die rather than to live. And in some cases, it’s entirely a judgement call for the family. But there is no way in hell a doctor can decide to terminate a patients life without the patients conscent AND/OR the explicit family’s conscent.. Your selective quoting, and certainly the two articles you linked earlier, strongly suggest the contrary. THAT IS WHY I CALLED THEM CLOSEMINDED AND BIGOTED. They’re not telling the full story, and neither are you.
Seriously. What kind of incentive would a country like the Netherlands have to create laws that allow doctors to kill patients at will? You may either agree or disagree with the concept of legalised euthanasia. That is a very personal belief, and I will never attack anyone on that. But when you imply that people in the Netherlands are killed at random without any sort of defense, I can and WILL call you an idiot.
You’re free to criticise every country in the world, mine included. I’m not that much of a nationalist as you seem to think I am. Other than during international football matches, I don’t consider myself that much of a “Dutchman” at all. It’s a great country to live in, but then again, you don’t get to chose where you’re born. Why the hell would I defend my country? Are you planning on invading? :rolleyes:
Having said that: each and every poster on these boards better get their facts straight when they choose to debate an issue. You, Zarathustra, are no exception to that rule. Your selective quoting and subsequent semi-factual, suggestive conclusions do not constitute valid arguments in this matter. It comes across like you are trying to validate an opposing opinion by introducing bogus reasoning. Don’t. Disagree all you want, but don’t imply things that are simply untrue.
Is that too much to ask? And did you really think anyone was going to take two articles from an opinion magazine (sans references to valid sources, even) as constructive evidence of you being “right” in this case? Sheesh.
“You people”? I’m not calling anyone a barbarian.
The Lancet is possibly the most respected medical journal on the planet. But as long as I cannot read the referenced article in its entirety, there is little I can do with it. I’m not saying that such a case (a doctor terminating a baby’s life WAY too soon) didn’t happen. It very well may have (although I sure as hell don’t remember such an instance, and trust me, it would raise HELL in the media. Yes, in the Netherlands as well). But it’s another thing to consider an isolated incident the law, tragic as it may be.
You have posted no “truths” so far. You have given us two articles from an opinion magazine. Furthermore, you have selectively tossed around a few out-of-context quotes, only to then apply a stunted and obviously grossly exagerated logic to them so as to… well, so as to what? Make legalised euthanasia look bad? Why? Just say you don’t agree with it.
Or is it your sole purpose to unfoundedly portray a foreign nation as a collective of murdering idiots with no respect for human life? If the latter is the case, I’ll leave it to the Teeming Millions to decide who’s a greater disservice to the Boards: you, or myself.
SuaSponte: My whole point is that if Europeans cast said criticism in a context of the lack of morals of the American people and/or government, they will only succeed in getting Americans like me, who would otherwise agree with you, mighty pissed off.
Sua, This is beginning to become semantics: i.e., arguing about where and to what extent criticism of hot-button political issues shades into moral critique. As you know, I agree with you that stereotyping is unhelpful; that crude name-calling or demonizing of the entire US population is uncalled for. But I have to agree with others, that you haven’t really produced much evidence of “anti-Americanism” in this form.
To further exemplify this trend you wrote: A photo on page 10 of this week’s Economist. It is a large placard with a photo of Dubya, with the words “George W. Bush - WANTED for Climate Crimes.” It is being held by two European protestors (specific nationalities not identified) wearing t-shirts with the placard reproduced on them.*
How exactly does this translate into anti-Americanism, stereotyping of the American people, etc.? It sounds to me as though these people are pissed off at George Bush. All over the United States I’ve seen similarly vitriolic protests against the new president and his minions. Are these American critics of Bush also anti-American? Or are they just anti-Bush? or anti-drilling for oil in Alaska? or anti-Star Wars, or anti-arsenic, or what have you.
It may be the case that you feel that anyone who protests specific policies by lampooning, or by using exaggerated rhetoric is guilty of placing themselves on a moral high ground. Perhaps that is true. But whether it is or isn’t, the tendency to lampoon political figures, or paint their putative errors in the broadest strokes is hardly unique to Europeans.
You also wrote, in response to the EU commissioner who believed that Bush’s policies were dictated by campaign donors: Why is a specific belief not an example of anti-Americanism?
Because, in this instance the belief is based on an alleged connection between a disliked policy, and a known set of corporate interests. Nowhere is there any sense that Bush’s being American has anything to do with that. From what we can tell, this commissioner would say the same thing about a Swedish or Nigerian president who took the same position for the same (alleged) reasons.
Bear in mind: I’m not saying that you can’t find pompous or stereotyping European criticism of Americans anywhere. I’m only saying that you haven’t as yet provided any glaring examples of it. Your best example was The Economist’s describing the stereotype. But you cloud the issue when you then argue that Bush protestors are stereotyping all Americans.
(Aside: for a really great “stereotyping” of Bush himself, which is hilarious, check out http://www.bushorchimp.com)
In the case of the EU commissioner, he may have a point about Kyoto, but the missile defense idea is facially ludicrous. Sure, missile defense would greatly benefit certain companies involved in aerospace, etc. But to pay for it, it is very likely that other weapons programs would have to be axed, thus harming other U.S. companies. Any lobbying would tend to cancel each other out.
I don’t think that means the argument is ludicrous. There are all kinds of reasons why the people who helped put Bush into power want to see the United States behaving like the world’s policeman, dictating global policy in a unilateral fashion; and those same kinds of big-money donors also want to see a military build-up: both for “pork” at home and more police power abroad. Nor is the race for military pork necessarily a zero-sum game, as you imply: the Republicans have managed to divert a ton of money away from other programs and into various forms of “defense” spending in order to increase those allocations during a time of overall cost-cutting. There is no reason to believe they will stop now.
Finally, on the “defense” industry, you wrote: [T]he current issue is defense against weapons of mass destruction, not the creation of new ones, so the manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, if they exist, aren’t pushing this debate.
Perhaps, narrowly speaking, that’s so. It would help, perhaps, if you read the links I posted and see what you think of them. The broader issue is about a return to largescale military build-ups and, potentially, an arms race of some kind with China. That and the Bush determination to renew Star Wars says to me that there’s plenty of pork in these positions. Nothing new there. Historically, (and your Calif. example bears this out), defense spending has been the right’s major contribution to pumping up the economy. Call it Republican Keynesianism if you like; or call it rewarding one’s golf partners and campaign contributors. In either case, I can understand why it pisses off allies who expect to be consulted about a world-affecting shift in policy (see the Alternet link).
Do the US press comment much on British politics?
Here in the UK, we get plenty of domestic politics, some from the US*, and very little about anywhere else (including Europe).
*natural enough since a) your prosperous economy tends to set the pace for the rest of the world, b) we have a common language, c) you publish a lot of information.
Agreed. (Rather like how your first post succeeded in getting Europeans like me pissed off!)
But even your latest example of a large placard with a photo of Dubya, with the words “George W. Bush - WANTED for Climate Crimes.” doesn’t say anything about the morals of the American people.
You say the cartoon of Bush means he is a “criminal” for rejecting Kyoto, and that then qualifies as saying that Bush’s policies on global warming are evil.
Well (as you konw) there isn’t an offence of Climate Crime. So it’s not a real crime. So they’re not saying he’s evil.
This may all just be a misunderstanding between a European tradition of lampooning politicians (especially through cartoons) and what the Office of President means to Americans.
I wonder if the nearest equivalent in UK terms is the Royal Family, which some newspapers here will never criticise.
North American countries are a couple of hundred years old compared to European nations being, what, at least a couple of thousand? I don’t know the exact figures, but I can hear the Europeans on the board chortling at this statement from here.
Don’t just tease us; what did Canada do that was so unbelievable? It may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of Canadians who know that our country is just as capable of screwing-up big-time as any other country.
I didn’t know the statistics for non-voters in the US, otherwise I’d have used them.
My point was that the elected leader usually can’t claim to have the backing of all the electorate. So if Blair says “Spending £1,000,000,000 on the Millenium Dome was a stroke of genius”, there are probably a lot of dissenters (like 99.9% of the country :rolleyes: ).
Similarly, criticism of Bush by European leaders may or may not reflect what the electorate think.
That’s actually the whole point; the difference between “we disagree with you violently on this issue because we think you are being stupid” and we disagree with you violently on this issue because we think you are stupid."
I think my mistake was providing any evidence at all. This was supposed to be a rant, but I can’t get my GD instincts to go away. I think the only evidence I could find is a MORI poll or some such in which representative samples of the populations of various states are asked “Do you think America is stupid (evil, what have you)?” I don’t know if such a poll exists and if it does, what results were found. I’m only going by what I read in the papers (or online versions thereof) - American, British, German are the ones I check out. And what I ranted about is my perceptions of what I’ve read. Mebbe I’m wrong, or maybe the papers exaggerate.
In any event, I’m done. I’ve made my point poorly, and that’s good enough for me.
glee: “This may all just be a misunderstanding between a European tradition of lampooning politicians (especially through cartoons) and what the Office of President means to Americans.”
That is generous of you glee, and I think that Sua deserves to be treated generously. But it’s definitely not the case! Saturday Night Live made its name goofing on presidents; and Clinton and now Bush are lampooned in cartoons all the time. The bush/chimp website is not unusual!
Sua I can understand what you mean about not having found the examples you needed. As I said, I’ve experienced what I think you were reacting to up-close and personal. Anyway, it’s been an interesting debate.
Despite the people not getting what Sua is saying, I was going to stay out of this. Then Boris Yeltsin was being interviewed on the BBC:
“A lot of people think President Bush is crude, but that is just the American way.”
I am no more impressed by our president than most people, but this was BORIS FUCKING YELTSIN calling him crude. Hello! Mr Pot, just how black IS the kettle?
Need to hang on to the Irish vote in the presidential elections ?
Yeah, that would explain why every single president up til Clinton completely ignored the Northern Ireland issue.
[/quote]
…and those they ran against too ?
My view on Ireland is that historically it was used as a pawn in a much greater game, something like the way the US decided to protect its interests by ensuring that hostile governments were not installed in South America.
Britain has acted appallingly badly and should have moved out long ago, however the more recent problems have been caused partly by pandering to one section of the community who at times held the balance of power in Westminster.
I for one will be glad if we are able to unite Ireland but that will not happen for a long while yet.
I rather imagine so- I fully expected to be taken to task for it and am kind of wondering why your gentle remark was the only one even to mention this, not to mention the fact that you don’t beat me over the head with my ‘presumptousness’…
And this was the reply, or rather, the essence of the reply I expected.
So let me say this really only crystallized for me this afternoon arguing with a fellow countryman, and it’s even now muddy for me, but I will try. It’s going to probably be long and perhaps some disjointed, fair warning to you.
USA is rather unique, in fact totally unique in what it actually is- there have been other countries as…hmmm. Well, as ‘lawless’, ‘crude’, and so forth as us, as ‘free’ as us, but they have all been much smaller.
This is kindof wild for me. I am currently dating a canadian, we met online, here as a matter of fact, and just met recently and had a ‘discussion’ about this, I am in a stale argumetn about it somewhere else, and then today getting into the argument with a coworker about it.
Forgive me, I will most likely make statements that sound racist, but I have thought them over for years, which doesn’t make them right, but does mean I have had that long to examine if they are racist, and I believe they are not, per se, that they are not necessarily pretty though.
…
As I said above, there are many unique qualities about the us, and, IMO, more personal freedom allowed here than most places, even Canada, from what I can tell- we usually have at least one thing another locale doesn’t have, and that often is a (slowly eroding) right to bear arms. This means such a fundamental difference in mind set, from what I can tell. Another thing is freedom of religion- there are countries that have a standard of living similar to what we in the US enjoy, but if you are of a different faith than the predominant one there, you are curtailed in your activities, from what you might enjoy at home…
We are, it seems, a little more free-wheeling than other people in other places, while at the same time being some of the biggest prudes over certain things in a majority of countries- two examples being sex/nudity, and drugs.
It is hard to make blanket statements. I do not mean to imply we are this wonderful unique, never-before seen, and diamond-like thing. Not so. And there are countries very similar to hwo we are.
Anyway…
So yes, we are a unique bird as far as countries go- we have broken trail on much- we were the first to be a melting pot to the degree we are, and still are rather more lax than other countries about this issue, from what I can tell, in general- I can back this up with personal experience even in just trying to get into Canada. This was my latest bit of travel, attempted rather than accomplished, and I’m afraid I’m still some sour about it.
I went there and was turned back. For offenses which occurred many years ago, even past, from what I could tell, the time limiit at which they would cease to matter for a Canadian citizen. I was told I could rememdy this by filling out some kind of form, the anme of which includes ‘Criminal rehabilitation’, which is supposedly what it would do, one would think. But I asked what it was, and essentially it only asks me to explain the circumstances surrounding said incidents of wrong-doing. And is to be accompanied by a nice fee. I have to wonder how this is criminal rehabilitation, but I can fill it out, and pay the fee, and then be worthy to enter your country.
I asked around- this was my first time going to Canada. In general conversation, I was told it’s all about money. A trucker was ahead of me at the nearest border town where we were both gassing up, and he was buying all the canadian money he could, I asked him why. I was told by several there that if one takes us dollars into canada, with an approximate exchange rate of 2 Canadian dollars for every 1 US dollar, one will be blatantly stolen from. It works like this:
I go to Canada and buy a tank of gas. It goes for whatever it goes for, lets say $20.00. I pay with a US $20 bill. I will not recieve any change, even though at the exchange rate, I should get roughly half of it back, roughly $10.00, or $20.00 Canadian. But I won’t. I won’t get any change back.
That is simple robbery, and from what I could see, it wasn’t happening here- people were trading Canadian for US all over the place, and getting the current exchange.
Truckers, I was told, and again, these were people all in the industry, Canadian truckers, many of them come down here to work exclusively, or as very much as they can, the independents. This is because they get so much more pay for doing the same work. Then they take that pay, convert it to Canadian, and spend it up there, paying no US taxes.
This is taking native jobs from native workers- I hear you groaning, but that’s what it is.
The limited people I dealt with in an official capacity- not all, but several were as rude to me as anyone has ever been without a physical fight, except for cops…
Some of my friends up there, including relatives (my dads side is Irish who came here via Canada), tell me again and again about the anti-US attitude up there- such that there are people who are actually as prejudiced against the likes of me, without ever having met me, as any racist down here is against a member of the particular color/religion they don’t like.
I don’t know what we did, exactly, to merit this treatment. This stuff occurs, and I can’t believe, since it is apparently so widespread, the money scams, the anti-US sentiment, that I can’t believe the Canadian Gov’t does not know, and knowing, lending it’s acceptance to it.
I am told we are much looser in who of your country men we let through. It’s just that it’s not a two-way street.
ok, so one could see this with other countries, but Canada?
So- although I was going to refrain from mentioning this, because it is only my experience and hearsay from many people, still, it is experience, and the hearsay is from those who would know. I didn’t get the impression they were making it up for my benefit. These were US customs agents, truckers who have made the route up to Alaska many times, friends and relatives who live in Canada, etc.
On to your statement about others having a good chuckle over my remark about how much we’ve contributed.
Not to appear smug, just in defense of my country, and this is mixed at best, my feelings about it- I know we have many shortcomings. My only defense to that is, so do you. Everybody does, because we are all human…
US has broken lots of trail, socially, financially, and technologically.
Japan, although yes, in WWII, we knocked them for a loop, we came back and put so much into that country that at the time, I believe it was un-precedented. If not for our efforts, flawed and prejudicial as they were, I dare say they would not be where they are today, and I don’t just mean our reparations, our direct efforts to help get the economy going again. (Again, I know it was very stupid on many fronts, fraught with white mans burden type bullshit, but the effort was made, much money was spent on our part)- This does not include letting japanese task forces come over and boserve our manufacturing methods, and our technological advances, which they picked up and really ran with. In high school, I was told the phrase that best describes the Japanese is ‘Adept, Adapt, Adopt’- I don’t wholly agree, but they certainly did on many fronts. If we had been more like them, they would have learned nothing from us, they would not have been able to import their products into our country, by far the biggest single market they have had, and likely, ahd the tables been turned in the war, we would just have been left to our own devices, or worse, taken over, had they been able to manage that. Again, I dont’ mean to sound racist, it is just how it was.
In many instances now they make better products than we do, and cheaper, although the two manufacturing spheres are so inter-twined these days that that is a kind of hard statement to make…
My point is, we broke the trail. Often, someone does a thing. It’s new, it’s better than what was before.
And then someon else comes up that trail and takes it further, does better with it. This is natural, and the Japanese have done that in many many areas.
But we broke the trail.
Even now- America is decried in many places as a violent country- piggish, raw, un-cultured and ill-mannered. Sorry, no cites. You either know it and admit it or you know it and don’t admit it.
We have been looked down upon, along with almost every other nation, in Japan. Some of that disdain is ostensible because of the above. We are/were distasteful to many Japanese.
Welp, nowadays, Japan is getting more and more violent, and I think it’s because of these reasons:
When you take away a persons identity, they become lawless, rootless, confused, apathetic, all kinds of negative things. Not everybody does so, and those who do do in varying degrees- we have that problem very big here- witness crime, Alchoholism on the reservations- and it isn’t just an inability to tolerate alchohol- it is violence and drugs and general apathy. Well, those Indians have to a great degree, lost who they were, their beliefs, their traditions, etc. Keeping all the shitty treatment out of the picture for a moment by our government and (white) citizens, this ahs been, I think, the biggest factor in the phenomona mentioned above- again, no cites, I live with it and see it. Do a rudimentary search and you could find all the cites you want to on problems Native Americans suffer.
I say, again, aside from the treatment they have recieved, it is due, in large part, to the cultural identity loss- they are, effctively, ‘nobody’- they have lost who they were, and become, in that process, nobody- they no longer have a culture that to a great extent defines their behaviour, their attitudes and thoughts…they are cut loose, on their own. As far as learning how to cope, how to conduct their affairs, they then have to re-invent the wheel…Problem is, the average person isn’t going to come through this process with a huge degree of success- the ones who do tend to be exceptional.
It happened with the Irish here, the blacks, the mexicans, and so on- there have been a few groups who largely escaped it, but they are groups who have congregated in large enough groups that they were able to preserve some or all of their customs, language and so on, and just by din’t of their numerous presences, were support for each other.
These others though- they have, and still, go through all kinds of problems- violence, apathy, drug addiction, poverty, dis-organization, confusion, etc. This is still happening, and at the same time, is being overcome, with time, experience, and more numbers.
Blacks are making it better for themselves, have been for a while. Mexicans are comign over in numbers enough that hey are making it, Native Americans, not all, but many, are now making some of their own opportunities…
These are general statements describing trends and certain phenomena.
What I am saying is when you take away a persons effective identity, by whatever means, like as not they will begin to do more poorly, to some degree, than if they had their cultural and otherwise identity intact.
This is happening in japan- money is one of the factors that can do this- prosperity can rob you of who you are, of your roots, from a person who is all of a sudden a big rock star, to a whole people sudenly experiencing heretofore unknown prosperity.
It is happening in Japan, and we broke the trail…And the thing is, it’s a natural adjunct of doing so well on such a massive scale.
And we are also, although you wouldn’t notice it, right there in front on learning how to deal with it. Not to say we are alone, but we are up there.
Notice, in history, there are periods where nothign seems to happen. That is illusory though. Things are in development, and then all of a sudden, or comparitively all of a sudden, things change, fairly dramatically. The change is not an isolated incident, merely the most showy part of a drawn-out process fo development, which often doesn’t seem like development at all, but more of a series fo bungles, false starts, bad decisions, etc. But these are in fact, part of a so-called ‘development’- a road of past mistakes.
And that is where we in the US are, as far as dealing with thes afore-mentioned problems. And within our lifetimes, I beleive there will be significant shifts in how people think about and deal with these problems. And the US will be on the forefront of that. Probably not alone, but up there just the same, and you know what this is?
It is simply problems arising from such massive, un-accustomed prosperity, and a losing of identity that that often brings with it. And by no means is it just prosperity, there is also massive displacement, shitty treatment of citizens because of their beliefs, or the color of their skin…whatever.
We have had and still have so much of those problems, perforce we will be in the forefront of learnign how to mitigate them. I mean to a degreee that has not been achieved to date, in both sheer massiveness, and completeness. Either that, or we will ‘die’. And we won’t die. We’re pretty adaptable ourselves, with the obligatory exceptions.
and this is going to be a huge, huge contribution to the world- when it is fully realized, it will be the thing liberals talk about when they say the word ‘should’- it will be good.
If I sound like freaking Mary Poppins, tough shit. I learned long ago that the principle definition of evil is that it is such that it ends- it kills itself. And as a people, we will not be killing ourselves any time soon, although looking at discrete events you would not be able to make that argument with any conviction, I fear…
It’s just that ‘processes’, the kind I speak of, take looooong times, and much ugliness- that ugliness is what brings about the workable solutions…
Ok, so I believe we are breaking trail in that arena.
Technology. Not the only ones, but our contributions are hardly to be dismissed.
Wealth, same same. Yeah, the arguments about our huge, out of proportion consumption…But general wealth has to start somewhere, and then, over time, from the efforts of a comparative few, spread. I am saying no, we are not saints just because we libve in prosperous, largely white US, but that for better or worse, we here have achieved a level of general wealth unheard of till we did it. And some of us, not most of us, but some, are after spreading it around, creating more, so there is eventually enough to go around- some of those aren’t doing it for humanitarian reasons, but just because in doing so, they enrich themselves.
But some are, in fact, doing it for humanitarian reasons.
And yes, per capita, we apparently give less than many other countries, but overall, no one comes close to how much we have and do give away. Again, not often for humanitarian reasons, but enough that it was the biggest insult other counries could think of when they recently excluded us fro the council on human rights.
which is another area we have contributed to, just by dint of our prosperity and societal experiment-yes, even with the violations we perpetrate in this country, over all, we still lead. One has to take into account the sheer size of our population- it is easier to be a benevolent society in a smaller, more homogenized society, and that occurrs, certainly. But for size and diversity, we do damn well, and better than most, and if this is looked at askance, I ask you
Who, out fo those who could be possibly concieved to have had our position in the world, would you rather have had as the leader in world events that we have been the last few years?
USSR?
Maybe Brazil, with their death squads, roaming around and killing marginals, including street kids.
China?
Germany or Japan, when they could have possibly done it, way back with how they were feeling and acting then- not that they got close, but say they had won that war, and take into account how they thought back then and the fact that if they had emerged in a position of world dominance, how would things be for you and I right now? If they were dominant, why would they change their habits and viewpoints, wherein if you or I were the wrong religion, nationality, color, ancestry, we’d be dead, or at the least, severely persecuted, possibly made into slaves, possibly murdered small-scale on a whim, just because they could. I do not say this is the typical modern German or Japanese, but it sure was the mindset back then.
Who then, would you have in the position the US currently holds?
Who was the primary deterrent to the USSR during the cold war? And please don’t make the argument that that wasn’t real. It damn sure was, and even recently higher level officials in Russia have opened up about the Bay of Pigs with statements that have made our elder statesmen break out in a sweat, when they found out what the Russians were actually ready to do, in position to do.
Would you rather we were not there as a deterrant?
Some people say it was not needed, and is not needed with China now- I say bullshit. There are always those in power who are megalomaniac enough to actually do the unthinkable, and take your nice home, and kill your nice self and nice family.
The US, while no angels in that arena, has certainly done better than any other realistic candidate for the position we have held in world affairs.
Again, all I have to do is ask the question if not US, who? China, Russia, who?
If one is honest enough to say ‘Fuck, yes, I’m damn glad its’ you guys and not the chinese now, or the Soviets then that have the position you have’, then hell, admit that yes, we’re fuckups in many areas, hypocrites in lots more, but that’s people in general.
But man, don’t secretly feel this, be the beneficiary of the good things tha twe are responsible for, and then hate us- that ain’t nothing but adolescent jealousy - it’s classic- one hates another one who is doing better- old as humankind.
And hate us many of you do. And if it wasn’t for us, you wouldn’t have it as good as you do, however miserable that may be. One hardly ever, in fact with most it’s never, looks at how things could be…
We are all on a road.
And that’s probably enough incherency out of me.
Although I dont’ smoke dope, I wonder what the bong factor of this post is?
One doesn’t have to be old to contribute. In fact, youth, because of it’s ‘ignorance’, often contributes greatly. ( I speak of the laugh factor of my remark and case that US has made huge contributions to the world)
(this last quote, plainly, is in the wrong place. Oh well, I’ve sat here long enough, tra la…;))
Well, of the (pre-Clinton) losing presidential candidates I can remember, neither Dukakis nor Mondale ever even brought the subject up. And if they had, it would hardly validate your suggestion that asylum was granted in order to win votes, since neither of them had the power to grant asylum.
So then why are you so reluctant to believe that British forces engaged in murder in order to further those interests (whatever they were?) The US certainly did. So did Spain. So did France. Given that Britain was arguably under more immediate threat - and that, by its tolerance of official discrimination under Stormont and RUC/loyalist violence, it had already demonstrated a serious lack of concern for the nationalist community - why would you think it would be above all that?
Earlier you asked for evidence from an unbiased source. Since Britain guards its state secrets more zealously than most Western democracies, it’s very difficult to prove anything. But it’s hard to discount all the corpses (and besides the two I mentioned earlier, you can add Francisco Notorantonio and the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings to the names of people with MoD fingerprints all over their bodies). The Guardian seems to find the allegations credible enough to be newsworthy. The Sunday Herald also ran a series of articles on the FRU, though I can’t locate them on their archive now (possibly something to do with the gagging order that’s since come down on them). They’re archived here, though.
Well, frankly I have my doubts that it will ever happen, though I do think it’s possible that at some point the western and southern parts of the statelet will revert to the Republic (God help the Catholics left behind in the rump NI though). For the purposes of this thread the pluses and minuses of a UI are less important than the methods the British Army has used to discourage those who support it. In the civil war that would inevitably follow any attempt to unite the island, I can’t say, going by past and recent history, that I have many doubts which side British Army guns are going to wind up being used against.
I think you were unlucky in that Puddleglum started a rambling offensive thread just before you, and then refused to give any cites. This gave us Euros the wrong mindset when replying to you.
Obviously you’re a poster worth debating with (and he isn’t).
Perhaps we’ll meet again (some sunny day…)
‘rather unique’ :eek: ‘totally unique’ :eek: - please look it up. (to help, one usage is an impossible qualifier, the other a tautology )
Surely the USA has strong laws, especially over freedoms.
The USA is certainly special, but perhaps mainly because of its strong economy. The British Empire relied a lot on foreign resources, e.g. India.
No, it’s your freedoms, particularly democracy, that make the difference. It’s another thread, but:
Afghanistan has no gun controls, yet no democracy. It bears no resemblance to the US (and you certainly wouldn’t want to live under the Taliban).
Whoah! Do you mean England? We have a similar standard of living and a State Religion. But I can say in public “there is no God” and nothing will happen. What restrictions do you mean?
More free-wheeling than, say, Holland? I think not!
Is your death penalty ‘freewheeling’?
‘some of the biggest sex prudes ever’ - have you compared Hollywood to Bollywood?
Yes you must supply examples and cites.
Repetition.
England produced Magna Carta (to no man shall justice be denied etc.) in 1215.
Who defined gravity, calculus, the laws of motion, the spectrum of light? (this is a trick question)
Who invented the railway, computer, TV, telephone?
Who discovered penicillin, DNA?
I could go on …
Well that’s where we differ. How about ‘You don’t know it, but you think you do. And when asked to prove it, you can’t. But you still say it’s obviously true.’
CITE!
Look, I think you’ve got some interesting points. But you need to be better organised, and provide some supporting evidence.
Also it’s much easier to concentrate on one point at a time.
Start a thread in IMHO about something you want to say.
I’ll come and offer my opinion - and so will many others!
Much of what the US is about is taking what the UK was and pushing the boundaries out further, in the meantime the UK has moved on a great deal also.
First was the Magna Carta then the taking of state powers by parliament form the Crown, then the whole parliamentary system itself.
Examples might also include separation of Legislature and Judiciary, the adversarial court system, first past the post voting, open purchasing of company shares unlike quite a few nations who have where there are voting shares and non-voting shares.
One thing that is to our credit is the outlawing of slavery which we achieved before any of the other major powers of the 18thC and 19thC.
I would regard the UK as a latecomer to liberalisation, especially from prudery, we had to learn a great deal about personal freedom from Continental Europe.
glee- I don’t mean to be argumentative- you are or seem to be a nice person, not given to little snippets of un-answereble rudeness, which I value very much.
Having said that, the impossibility of ‘rather unique’ and the tautological quality of ‘totally unique’, I think, are not barriers to understanding what I meant- I rather suspect you can divine the meaning I am trying to get across…rather suspect, rather unique, kind of the same- one is a partial verb, the other a partial adjective. But again, the main thing is that I don’t believe the usage of these phrases are a detriment to understanding what is meant.
You are correct that a great deal of the US’ specialness is attributable to it’s strong economy, and further down, without actually saing it in so many words, I point to some reasons why, and to me, it was implicit in much of my argument- I was indeed imagining anyone who took the time to read that big pile as saying to themselves ‘well, yeah, but it’s only because they have all that damn money…’
i am not sure what you are saying with the part about Britain relying on foriegn sources?
Well, but our freedom to bear arms is one of the basic freedoms we have, and it does indeed make for a very different mindset- there is a huge difference between one who at least thinks they are ready to shoot in defense of their freedoms and one who leaves the preservatioin of those freedoms up to others. I do not say we over here aer ready to shoot, but some are, and many think they are, and I think that if things got bad enough fast enough, many would in fact be ready to take to the streets armed. It’s just that through misrepresentation of facts, and by doing it in very little easy-to-swallow bits, we are losing these rights without a stink from the bulk of our population.
the democracy is not so much a freedom in itself, although you are right as far as that goes, but more important, when correctly used, to insure the other freedoms.
And the difference between US and Afghanistan only serves to butress my ‘rather’ and ‘totally’ unique argument- yes, they have a similarity with us in the arms department, but then we differ radiclaly in our organization, our laws, and enforcement of those laws. So what is being said is that there is a country with which we share a similarity or two, but then have many very fundamental differences from.
For one thing, as I mentioned, the sheer size of what we deal with is very different from Britain- size indeed, makes a hell of a difference.
Let’s say Britain has a black population of 2 million, with a total population of 10 million. I am pulling these and subsequent numbers out of a hat, strictly for illustrative purposes, btw…
Now, the US has a black population of 15 million, with a total population of 70 million.
ok, then there are bound to be some racial tensions in either scenario, simply because in that many people, there will be quite a few racists in both the black and non-black populations.
However, the amount of tensions here will be proportionately greater, and a person who is a little pissed is less apt to be violent than a person who is mightily pissed- I say this to show that while one can experience the same joy, hate, successes and problems, the degree to which these are experienced makes a big difference.
So, yes, we are different from your country, despite our similarities. I tried to make plain that my blanket statements should be taken with a grain of salt, that they were illustrative of some very general and widespread phenomena, but that yes, there are plenty exceptions to any statement like that- so, while you may not be much more restricted as a society, and enjoy a similar standard of living, there is a huge difference in sheer numbers, and this does present us with unique problems and opportunities- therefore, in certain ways, we are rather unique- different from your country.
So, there are two countries we are very different from on certain planes.
I don’t know what Bollywood is, I’m afraid.
Yes, in an uncivilized way, our death penalty, which I am against btw, is freewheeling- like this:
There is Conan, uncivilized, not having all the ‘proper’ morals and manners, etc.
There is Leticia, very civilized, I’m sure, uses all the proper grammar, and so on.
Conan, one of his uncivilized traits is that he kills people, while it’s the furthest thing from Leticias mind.
Who, in this poor analogy, would be labelled ‘free-wheeling’?
Yes, in certain aspects, more free-wheeling than Holland simply because we have gone places Holland never has, if nothing else, because of our size. Has Holland done any space shots lately? Have they been on the moon? Doesn their GNP even come close to ours?
If not, then I submit that yes, we have gone where Holland has not, economically, socially, financially, spritually. Again, this is due, in large part, just to our sheer size, which could be becoming a lame argument, or stale, but in none the less valid for all that.
Are you saying that on the one hand we are less refined than Holland and on the other more prudish with the whole question and then the remark about Hollywood/Bollywood?
I don’t understand. I apologise.
No, not when I qualify and deal generally with topics that are or have been pretty well covered in the international news.
You either read me and attribute some intelligence to me, and make your own cites, or don’t. I am not a Great Debater, and this is a technique used by many here who are respected. (no, I wont’ provide cites to that last…heh…)
Anyway, it seems that one gains respect by making successful arguments here- I am not a lawyer, and while I would like your respect, it is not necessary. I dont’ mean to be rude with that. Again, I would like it, and future happy exchanges between us, but it is not necessary.
Some of my arguments are erroneous, and I know it- either in degree, basic suppostions, or what have you.
But they are not all so. And even if it is not the best tactic, I speak more to engender thought, not bash you over the head with cites, facts, etc. That is not my style so much. This is not a bad thing IMO.
Again, much of what I say is or has been reported about enough that even I have been exposed to it, so I feel safe in suspecting someone like you has- someone who at least is communicating on an MB based in another country- that shows some level of general involvement and activity- the fact that you do so intelligently underscores my feeling of safety in these assumptions.
rather like the ‘rather’ argument- I stated up front that my post would most likely be meandering, and as such, it’s bound to have repitition, on the one hand. On the other, i ahve seen that repitition is certainly not a bad thing- sometimes repitition is what it takes to get a point across.
Either way, this adds nothing of substance to the dialogue, with respect sir/madam.
Yes, you could. And I will poiint to where I say often one party breaks trail on a thing, and then another party comes along and takes it even further, better, etc.
These things are indeed products of you or your colonials, but then, does the Magna Charta and it’s enforcement compare with our Constitution and it’s enforcement? yes, in many ways- both, for long periods of time after they were written were so much horse shit- yoru lower classes did not enjoy its benefits for a very long time, compared to your wealthy, and in our country, the same existed, and still exists, as in yours.
But I posit that we have still taken it to levels you have not, again, because of the magnitude of our population, and the magnatudes of its differences- we are still dealing with a rather large slavery issue with some people- iot wasn’t so long ago there was large-scale slavery in this country- in the country itself, not one of its holdings- not that this is a good thing, but so we have had to go through lots of growing pains that I rather think you have not had to. Or at least there has been a difference in scale and intensity.
Have you done as much with the computer, the railway, the tv, telephone, DNA as we have? You may point to Dolly and other experiments, but we also have those.
Again, sheer size coupled with sheer wealth is a big factor here, but it still is a huge difference.
Yes, we do differ. But it’s not that I can’t prove it, it’s that I am assuming a level of informed observation on your part. Must I prove yellow is yellow?
Again, I could go out and round up lots and lots of cites to back what I am saying, but choose not to. For reasons stated above, and these:
time factor
the fact that I have seen, over and over again, people here and elsewhere, in personal arguments and national arguments and international differences, take the same sets of data and twist them to say any damn thing they want. Useless, in large part, to me.
I have observed that no matter how many cites one uses, it makes no difference, usually. People will either be open and receptive to an argument, or, far more commonly, not, to be kind about it. I could cite many examples here on this board that I have observed, but again, I think you could provide your own cites and experiences to back that statement, if you so chose. Whether you do or not is up to you- I just like this kind of discourse, but while I would be stoked to influence your thoughts on these or other matters, I entertain no real plans or hopes of doing so. I have not noticed many minds being changed here or elsewhere in my life. Therefore, no cites, it’s too much work for essentially nothing- I speak of nothing you could not find in abundance if you were so inclined.
We will have to differ here. I still think you are good to talk to. I hope I dont’ come off as condescending or cavalier- I dont’ mean to. I hope you enjoyed the very little levity in some of that last.
BLEAH! ok, a couple- no hard references, but I assume you know about the Ayaum cult, or whatever it’s anme was, the one gassed the subway over there? Unheard of eve 2 years before it happened-unthinkable.
the recent stabbings- mark my words, this type of thing, for reasons stated in the original post of mine we are both talking about here, that type of thing is going to become more and more commonplace, unless they get downright draconian with the personal freedoms.
I do not pass judgement here- I am very sad abou tthat and what I see coming for the Japanese, but it’s coming. And it is a growth process, re my remarks in the post we are referring to.
The general level of change of attitudes in their young people one reads about here and there, from reputable sources- this is and will continue to breed small-scale violence.
I would suspect that the Japanese youth of today is far more independent of tradition, violent-minded and self-centered than the typical youth of yesteryear.
Do you view much Anime? If not, it’s interesting. And was nowhere being produced like it is now even 10 years ago. Some of it is very violent- a noticeable development is the sexual violence. I could even trace, with gaps, that particular aspect. But I won’t… It’s possible I should change my name to citelessjoe…
point taken and I appreciate your kindness and civility.
But I tend to be more parallel than serial when making a poiint- to me, my whole post was about essentially one point, at the most a couple. All the different issues discussed were simply illustrations of the main point or two.
I see your point though.
point pointy point point…
I value your opinion from the couple of exchanges we have had so far, but I think we will still differ, and this difference seems to be a stylistic one.
and I respectfully disagree- if I am entertaining no real ambition to change your mind on this or that, if I am essentially doing this for fun, then I dont’ need to be better organised, although that would be a good thing in general. Still, if it’s just me having fun, even if I am sorta hot about this or that issue or statement, the level of organization I bring to my posts is entirely up to my discretion.
This is fun- I am, at a very casual count, seeing at least 3 different distinct conversationis going on here- it is fun to see them interjected between the pieces of the others.
I’m not going to say that there isn’t a difference between the British constitution and the American: in fact many books have been written on the subject.
But it’s kinda silly to attribute democracy as we know it in the US to the US alone.
The idea of democratic government is usually attributed to the ancient Greeks.
Republicanism was revived after the middle ages, with the Italian Machiavelli playing a significant role.
John Locke, a Brit, is usually credited with popularizing the idea of the individual’s sovereignty (and therefore his–and eventually her–“right” to self-government); but the idea also developed in response to the Protestant Reformation: which means that some credit must be given to Martin Luther, a German, John Calvin, a Swiss and to John Knox (a Scott,) not to mention some totally rad Puritan women such as Ann Hutchinson, a Brit-born American colonist.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Swiss who lived in France and hung out with other key Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire was crucial to the kind of political ideas that led up to the American Revolution.
Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher and economist created an intellectual framework for breaking down protectionism and other older economic forms: i.e., for capitalism.
The framers of our constitution were deeply schooled in the ideas of all of the above; and the constitution itself is a kind of epitome of this “liberal-democratic” tradition.
After 1776 Americans, despite their remote geography, did not cease to pick up important ideas from Europe (and elsewhere). John Stuart Mill (Brit) was and remains one of the most important liberal philsophers. In the 1870s
Otto von Bismarck, another German, started to initiate state programs like “national insurance” (sort of like Social Security) and unemployment insurance, all of which were necessary to curb the tremendous instabilities built into unfettered capitalism. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about the influence of Karl Marx.
Just some food for thought while you crossing the border into Canada
Also–since you seem to like history, you might want to check out Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Awesome read.
)