I, and a few other fringe dwellers that contribute to AD, seem to see the voting majority of Americans as a 'gun-toting', 'hamburger sucking', ' Harley riding bunch of 'you wrong and if WE are wrong........you are still wrong.

I know I am wrong when I group all Americans together.
I also know for certain that most American folk are gentle and careing.

So why do us out here get this gut wrenching feeling that we out here dont count.?
Are we are less human than you?.
Or is it we should do as we are told because you know the 'gun-toting' best?.


Regards..........Alan

Thank you for asking. This is something I think about quite a bit. Sometimes it seems that we here in the United States have a tendency to be obsessed with being Number One in the world. Not necessarily world domination, but just the perception that everything about the USA is the best. This ranges from the trivial (sports) to the profound (the literal belief, held by some, that the United States is chosen by God as a holy nation.) You might be surprised how much emotional power is released when a team from the United States wins or loses some sporting event played with a team from another nation. Alexis de Toqueville noted a tendency for Americans to boast about their nation, and I don't think things have changed that much.

My personal opinion is that the USA is one of the best places to live in the world, compared to the many nations on Earth which have more repressive governments. However, I certainly can't claim that I have any evidence that the United States is a better place to live, or has a better form of government, than other minimally repressive governments. Is the USA "better" than the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the nations of Europe, and so on?

I may not be typical, as I am not patriotic at all. I consider myself very lucky to live in a wealthy, relatively free nation, but I do not swear absolute loyalty to it. I own no flags, never sing the national anthem, and ignore patriotic holidays. I have also never touched a gun or ridden a motorcycle.

However, years ago before I gave up meat, I ate hamburgers at fast food places. This sort of economic/cultural domination concerns me, too. It would be sad if the whole world starts to share the same culture as the USA. Not basic human values such as freedom and kindness; but American pop music and movies and soft drinks. Some sharing of American culture is a good thing, to be sure, as long as the United States also shares and celebrates the cultures of other nations.

All I can do is thank you for these words.
Thank you for trying to understand the way we feel out here.

Thank you.

Care to you and yours...........Alan

All countries boast about their sports teams, Victoria. I think there is much more patriotic fervor regarding soccer in Italy. Everyone is involved, unlike American sports, and the whole nation goes into morning when they lose a world soccer tournament.

I, too, am happy to live in this country. I also recognize that there are a lot of nice places to live in this world. All have their ups and downs. Most of the belief that 'we're the only ones that count', I think, comes from those who are completely ignorant about the rest of the world. I also think it's rare, but that might not be the way it looks from the outside.

I... I... I am a hamburger sucker.

From my perspective America, as the world's remaining super-power, is like the head of the international household... with, say, a drinking problem. It's a lot easier to tell the wife and kids their problems but it's not as easy to recognize your own. And being the head of the household you certainly are under no obligation to listen to your nagging wife or misguided children.

The problem could get worse or the problem may remain static. But it is still a problem.

Much of America is incapable of honest self-judgement and criticizing. Many of her citizens don't want to admit that there might be a problem in the way we do things, as though such an admission would bring reality as we know it crashing to the ground. Yes, admitting you have a problem will change things but that's not to say they'll change for the worse. And certainly not every parent is as insightful or honest as every child. Every member of the household should be given his or her voice with the focus being the issue, not ad hominem rebuttals and neglect.

Good question, Alan, and well put.

[By the way -- as a matter of boasting -- just the other day I tried my town's local legend, the "Sweet Daddy" burger... a pound and a quarter of beef. I am, indeed, a hamburger sucker. But admitting the problem is always the first step... ]

This country of mine has a great irony about it.

I know this because I've toured all through it on rice-burner motorcycles, talked with many of my fellow citizens, met many foreign visitors, and experienced a sort of Zen transformation of becoming one with the reality of nature and spirit.

As Alan points out, we are generally a kind, loving, and fair nation. But we do tend toward defending the ways that we are accustomed to, and often go too far in a blind attempt to justify what may not have any justification. We can become bullheaded to a fault.

My personal feeling is that all peoples of the world should, must, and will eventually have representative voices for their concerns in a world council of some sort. Maybe the UN has run its course, but this world has definately become more integrated than ever before. To ignore the voices of Australia or any other nation is a huge mistake for which all of us in this country will pay.

Let us now pay a little homage to the Internet, the Web, and boards such as this that give the voices of other countries a measure of presence. Let's give a few pats on the back to all who participate, no matter what positions we take. We are talking, and that is always a good thing. Silence and turning backs are what hurt relationships.

I love my country. I cry when the National Anthem is played or sung. I do some patriotic tunes myself, and they never fail to raise a tear. When atop Pikes Peak and reading the lyrics to America the Beautiful composed right here so many years ago, a welling of pride and appreciation fills me with a sense of greatness within the world.

But this is an illusion. All nations are great, and all nations deserve the pride and appreciation of their respective citizens, and these citizens should respect the pride of others. This is how we live beyond our barbaric tendencies to become more civilized and peaceful.

The illusion is that we are not still barbaric. The illusion is that somehow, I am, we are, our systems are, our products are superior to others. Oh? And just how is this, asks the spirit voice I've come to know. Be careful not to fall into pride as that will lead to a greater fall from grace (to put it into familiar terms).

Because many of us refuse to admit to our irony, all will pay a price. I am sorry for this, but I can't do much to prevent what is inevitable. It's a feeling very similar to raising a teenager who is heading down a bad path. I think of my country as being in its adolescence--very powerful, very sure of being right, and needing to make its own mistakes. My spirit voice tells me to be firm, but also to be ready to pick up the pieces and move on when mistakes are made. Also to be ready to forgive. That's a requirement of true love.

Someday, the USA will reach adulthood, look back, and discover the wisdom that was communicated but ignored. There will be sorrow, but that sorrow will rapidly transform into a will to become better, just as an individual grows into the greater wisdom of adulthood. Our country will then be more willing to consider, seriously, the concerns of smaller, less powerful countries and their citizens.

My hope is to see that day come.

Alan, I will openly admit that I'm not the classic portrait of the All-American girl, and thus the opinions of my aquaintances and myself aren't necessarily typical, but I can assure you that not all Americans are "gun totin', hamburger suckin', and harley ridin' egos on legs" Certainly there are some, because all cliches' have their basis somewhere, but my guess is that the media, particularly Hollywood, has perpetuated this stereotype.

What I do believe is generally true about many Americans is that they are very opinionated and simultaneously unaware of the other cultures in the world, and this can lead to the "I am right. You are wrong." attitude. They don't understand the subtle nuances of culture, and they don't respect them. I think this can be blamed on many different things, but mainly isolated geography, the education system, and the media. That's a very generalized blanket approach to the situation though. I really do think that it's necessary to look at people individually.

Why don't you ask the folks of East Timor and the Solomon Islands how much that conception of Americans matches their conception of Australians?


Damn straight, except I don't have any guns.... (don't see the need, but when I do, I better be able to get one!)

Yeah, well, after trying camp pie once , I'll stick to hamburgers, thank you very much.

- sorry, I'm ridin' a Triumph.

- Thanks. USA! USA! USA!



I know this is going to be offensive, but when, in the last 50 years on the "Big Questions" that history has answered, have "we" been wrong, and "you" have been right, and we've refused to admit it?

1948? Berlin Airlift?

1950? Korea

1956? Suez Canal, 2nd Arab-Israeli War, Hungary?

1962? Cuban Missile Crisis

Iron Curtain?
Domino Theory?

Its not that we Americans are always right. In fact, I doubt if you'll find any country that is so often right that spends more time and angst over having been wrong (although England comes close). I don't see the Dutch or Spanish talking about reparations for slavery (a bad idea BTW, but at least one that acknowledges the wrong done), yet the Dutch initiated the slave trade in what became the US, and as for the Spanish and slavery.... What of Australia's scamming of East Timor, or your Aboriginal?

No, its not that we're always right. Its just that so often in the last 50 years when the strain of political thought that is ascendant in America right now has found itself in opposition to so many folks out there, history has proven that we've been right, and y'all have been in error. Sadly, most of our errors have been when we've decided to do things "your" way. (Most, not all) The most incredible thing hasn't been that we've made so few errors, but rather that the scale of the errors we've made has been so modest.



Because in some senses, you don't. Now, this isn't meant to be insulting, but the simple reality is that what Australia wants in the grand scheme of things matters as much to America as the mayor of Las Vegas's desires matter to the mayor of New York. You wanna talk casinos, Vegas matters. You wanna talk financial markets? *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off Oscar. (Oscar Goodman, Mayor of Las Vegas, Defense Attorney to the Mob)

The influence of the rest of the world is calculated the same way you calculate the influence of say, Japan or Myanmar (aka Burma). Do we need them? Do they need us? How close to us are they in thinking? Can we rely on them in the future? Are they wise? Can they be trusted? What's the risk? What is their "moral credibility." Japan carries a whole lot more weight than Myanmar, don't they?

Unfortunately from the perspective of "your" influence, events since 9/11 have revealed that a whole lot of our "friends" out there have been fair weather, and many of the remainder are mighty conflicted.

America, more than any of the rest of les Angles, has managed to balance and combine idealism with pragmatism. It is, at this juncture in history, a legacy we share with the other nations descended from England. I think that we got lucky in one sense, with our two party, winner take all system (as annoying as it frequently is), versus the parliementary system of all the others. It is much harder for the "lunatic left" and "radical right" to make inroads here than it is elsewhere, because they can't get root and grow in the shadows the way they can in a parliementary proportional system.

- No. Frankly though, we over here frequently get the impression that others "First Worlders" consider themselves more human than Americans. More sophisticated, more cultured, more moral, etc. Is it any wonder we get testy when people who have so obviously been wrong so many times continue to behave as if they are annointed with the wisdom of the ages?



Is it that we know which gun is the best to tote? uhh, Colt .45 Peacemaker

Or do we know the best way to tote a gun? - slung low, on the hip, fer a qwik draw.

Is it because we are the best at toting guns?

Or perhaps we know it is best to tote guns?

Which is it?

Turn the question around for a moment, if you will, and ask yourself "Why should Americans do as you tell us?"

I think this lumping together of the entire rest of the world as "you" is one of the typical American failings that Alan was concerned about. It's ridiculous to blame an Australian for a dark spot in Dutch history, or a Spaniard for Japan's failings, but that seems to be exactly what you're doing. There's also an aspect of history being written by the winners, and it's a little disingenuous to take credit for being "right" when the alternative was never even tried. If US foreign policy precluded or undermined others' actions in south America or southeast Asia, can the US claim to have been "right" in Cambodia or Chile? Can we claim to be right when we were drawing up lists of enemies for Suharto, or providing arms in Angola?

The consequences of our being wrong only seem modest if no lives but Americans' count. We're right sometimes and we're wrong sometimes, and we've bailed others out at great cost for little return, but we haven't been so uniformly virtuous and others haven't been so uniformly incompetent as you make out. "Counting the hits and ignoring the misses" isn't really very useful.

Ah Alan....you know we have respect for our Aussie friends. I for one do...i have 2 friends who are exchange students from Australia.

The United States is a cultural box full of a mixed variety. We like Big Macs, Eminem, owning guns, wearing Nikes, drinking like there's no tomorrow, having wild hair styles, etc. But that's what makes us SPECIAL! Every country has a little something in their cultural that makes them special! Australia has a floating Opera House in Sydney. That makes you special because the U.S. or anyone else for that matter, doesn't have one

Also, sometimes yeah we want to be "better" than everyone else but sometimes, we just want to do things to have fun & not to prove we are the best at this or that. So what if we lost to Italy in say, soccor? Good game dudes! Good Luck at your next game!

America cares about it's friends & neighbors. If we didn't, we wouldn't be trading our goods with you or fighting a war ALONG side you.



So true

Hey, Plat,

Are you taking me to task here?

I do tote guns and eat hamburgers, though if I make 'em at home they'll be made from soy beans. When I sure I'm right and you're wrong I'll say so. Don't own a Harley though or any other motorcycle. If I did, I'd be a BMW person.

My impression of Aussies is overall pretty favorable, but I haven't noticed them being shy about saying so when they think they're right and someone else is wrong. Am I right on that, Alan?

People in other countries are as human as we are, and just as much God's children, and as such I wish all of them the best. But I don't vote in their countries or try to set policy for them, and I know they'd mightly resent me if I did. It's fair to expect the same courtesy from them, don't you think?

The US, through its economic and military power, has more influence over other nations than they have over it. Why is it, then, that the slightest whisper of advice or complaint from abroad is always met with "you can't tell us what to do"? Nobody's trying to tell us what to do. They don't want to be the boss; they just want to be heard, and too often we in the US seem to begrudge them even that.

When will your crazy forigeners learn We're just better than anyone else! Who I am has little to do with being an American. I didn't attack Iraq, destroy the earth, kill all the buffalo, or create pizza, honest! What is an American anyway? An American could be african, italian, jewish, mongolian, guamish, or french.

Some of us in the good ol' USA feel peripheral, too, especially during the current pro-war propaganda campaign.

Yes, we are guilty of ethnocentrism, even in factions within our own country. I agree with AuthorMusician that it has to do with maturity. Many of us feel insecure. Witness the great brouhaha when a Dixie Chick said "I am ashamed that our President is from Texas" (or something close) while she was in England. Why, that's telling tales out of school--it's like talking about your uncle or aunt who might be a little strange to total strangers!

I too love my country. I get a tear in my eye when I hear the national anthem and I think our flag is really pretty and does stand for freedom.
But I don't believe in stomping in the head of a demonstrator who burns it. People still matter more to me than symbols.

I suggest that many of us do not feel well represented in our government right now. This administration de-emphasizes world awareness being taught in our educational system--heck, we're laying off teachers in the public school system because there are fewer and fewer funds going toward education.

It's hard to know other voices exist if we don't get the opportunity to hear them. If we don't know they exist, we can't perceive a problem.

I am an Anglophile who enjoys hamburgers entirely too much (no motorcycle, just a Chevy Lumina sedan).

I guess if things got really repressive here, we'd pack up and go to Canada or Australia. My mom and dad came from Canada--it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

But I am not ready to give up on the USA just yet.

Please realize that there ARE many of us who know that there is a world out there, and that your lives and your views are important to us. But we could use a better education.

Your friend,
Elspeth

Bikerdad,



Um, the domino theory didn't work out. Saigon fell but not all of the SE Asia area.

We were wrong to support Saddam Hussein in the first place, and I do think we were wrong to get into ME politics from day one, but that goes back more than 50 years.

We are wrong to not support the UN without having a more viable, forward looking vision other than unilaterally taking over whatever parts of the world we want, or feel powerful enough to do with little initial opposition. We are definately wrong in that we don't understand how the aftermath of the war in Iraq can play out, or our leadership isn't giving us the full scoop.

Part of the maturing process is to admit to errors. The next step is to think up better ways of doing things. Then actually try, possibly fail again, pick up the pieces, and try again.

But first we must be mature enough to admit to errors.

Sidebar:

New Trumpet or vintage? I'm on a Kaw KLR650 dual sport, rigged for dirt but still pavement-worthy (somewhat). I could get into a Harley, but only the old ones and only for chopping. A panhead, flathead, or knucklehead would be swell Don't care for the shovels or evos. To me, a Harley isn't really a motorcycle but a piece of art to be shown off around town but not taken as a serious touring machine. I guess the new ones are okay for touring (so please don't jump down my throat, Harley people ).

End sidebar. No comment necessary, sorry in advance for the tangent.

The US is like most countries, it acts in it's own self-interests.

No, just Cambodia (aka The Killing Fields, Laos and Myanmar.... So, on the whole, who was closer to the truth? Those who attempted to stop Communism, or those who welcomed its spread?



And, pray tell, was anybody objecting to our modest support of Hussein wayyyy back when? Was there a great outcry from the Left, or from other nations, aside from Iran? No. Which means any objections being made today about our support in the past are worthless in establishing that "you" were right and "we" were wrong. And, btw, when I say "modest support", I do mean modest. Brazil sold more arms to Iraq over the last 30 years than the US did, fer cryin' out loud.

As for being wrong to get into ME politics from day one, that's a nice theory, but completely unworkable. Oil drew us into the ME in the 1920s as a bit player. WW2 changed our stature relative to all the other players, and what, exactly, should the US have done with Israel? Mayhap you've forgotten, but we had already ignored the homicidal rantings of one tyrant, and look what happened. Barring "outside" interference, there are only two results possible in the ME from the current conundrum. Either the Arabs overwhelm and annihilate Israel, or the Israelis utterly destroy all the Arab states surrounding them. Given the results of the last four conflicts between the parties, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia and Libya all owe their continued existence to the United States.

Anybody who wants to claim the "moral highground" and say that the US shouldn't be in the Middle East better be prepared to accept the millions of deaths that will result if we turn our back on the region.



We are wrong to support the UN, period. It is a morally bankrupt institution peopled by and controlled by those who are, unlike OUR government, answerable to no one. If the folly of Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission doesn't make that clear, then nothing will. And, unlike an assortment of other morally bankrupt institutions that may be trotted forth as examples, the UN doesn't even have the debatably redeeming feature of serving American purposes.



Sorry, omniscience isn't a realistic requirement for human leadership, so indicting folks for not beng all-knowing is kinda cheesy. I'm pretty sure that everybody in America who has stopped to think about how the aftermath can play out is aware of the many scenarios. Given that the doomiest/gloomiest scenarios are being advanced by the same people who predicted millions of civilian casualties, declared Iraq a "VietNam like quagmire" after the first week, etc, mayhap you'll understand our skepticism of their more recent pronouncements...



Which is why the Left is, as a whole, mired in infantilism. One fine poster child at the moment is Jeaneane Garafalo (sp?). Thomas Sowell has written a very good book that looks at the issue of Left-immaturity, The Vision of the Annointed. Give it a read.

sidebar: 2000 Sprint RS. 955cc inline triple. I'd thought about getting their bigtrailie, the Tiger, but couldn't swing the green. I'm not that big on Harleys either, I consider them to be overpriced and underperforming. Function is my #1 criteria. I'm hoping to get a Suzuki DRZ-400 in the future as my DP bike. The KLRs are reputed to be the long-distance dirt oriented DP bikes. Of course, the new KTM 950 Adventurer could easily supplant them, except for the price.

Grace and peace, BD

False dilemma. Withdrawal does not have to be instantaneous or haphazard.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks about you? I honestly couldn't care less what France, Brittan, Australia or any other country thinks of me or my country. I have a gov't who's job it is to take care of me. Your country takes care of you.

I think America bashing has become a lot like Microsoft bashing. Anything goes wrong with your computer, it's MS's fault. Sticky keys? Ms's fault. Blue screen? MS's fault. Memory chip goes bad, WIndow must have eaten it. Your favorite website down? Must be running MS Web server. :/

I might agree with your point Alan, if I thought Americans were loved the world over. Fact is, we're not. I hear more horror stories about Americans and the way they were treated overseas, than anything else. Simply because their Americans, an instant stigma is attached. Some friends of mine went backpacking in Europe a few years ago. They were hasseled so much, they bought Canadian flags to place on their packs, so people would lay off them. (it worked btw)

So, maybe I should be complaining about the way Americans are treated overseas. I guess we don't count. I guess the rest of the world is stuck up. Why do I get the distinct impression Americans are a lower form of life?

Every person, in every country could have the exact same complaint you do.

I find your complaints drawn by your own, personal disdain and contempt for America and her gov't. (not her people)

--cheers

I didn't say that it would be either instantaneous or haphazard. I'm simply saying that without the interference of outsiders, a bloodbath will ensue. If the US utterly turns its back on the region, and only the US does so, then Arabs will think they have a green light to "push the jooooos into the zee" under the "protection" of their European sympathizers. How many Arab cities will disappear in a mushroom cloud in the process is uncertain, but I don't doubt that the Arabs will find the French are truly fickle after all. If, instead, the US enforces a "cage" around the ME where only the locals are allowed to play (i.e., no French or Russian or Chinese or .... interference), then the Israelis will sit tight for a short while, before they respond with devastating effect to another round of terrorist attacks. The only Arab nations that will survive are those that are smart enough and fast enough to string up the terrorists in their midst.... If their current behavior is any indication, you won't be able to count Syria in that list...

Peace in the Middle East will only come when either the Israelis are driven into the sea, or the anti-Semitic Arabs are utterly destroyed or discredited, just as the Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese Imperialists were. Watching the Israelis driven into the sea isn't an acceptable resolution. The collateral damage from the destruction of the anti-Semitic Arabs is barely more palatable (although events like Tehran, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Khobar Towers, Bali, and especially 9/11 certainly boost the visceral appeal of killing them all). Which leaves us with discrediting them, a process that is likely to take decades....

Kinda hard to do if we bail, don't you think? And that, good sir, was the clear meaning of the original claim by AuthorMusician, "we shouldn't be there." Not there means, not there. Perhaps AM meant "we shouldn't be as involved as we are", but I can only reply to what he has written, not read his mind.

BTW, you never did answer my previous question.

- cue Wagner, the Ministry of Information is about to inform us....

- exactly who's being immature? The folks who are running down their uncle and/or aunt?

- hmmmm, there's 270+ million people, and the gov'ts not doing what I want, I'm not being well represented. What, exactly, were you saying about maturity?


This administration doesn't set classroom cirricula, and if it attempted to I'd be all over it. You got a problem with the schools in your area, take it up with your local school board. It ain't the President's job to do your lesson plans

Maybe if your state and local government weren't *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** money away they'd have enough for teachers. Maybe if the school didn't spend 25% or more of their personnel budgets on people who never even come into contact with students, there'd be more money for teachers.

My God woman!! Do you realize how inane your complaint is? The ONLY way it would have any validity is if you equate "hearing other voices" with "agreeing with and complying with their positions." I am sick and tired, as are many, many others, of all the idiots who claim they're being silenced. Tim Robbins declares to the National Presss Club, The National Press Club that he's "being censored", a declaration that is reported by all the major networks, the major newspapers, wire services, 'Net media, etc. I'd like a little of that "censorship."

Here, boiled down to its essence, is the gut response to all those who feel like the reams of newsprint sacrificed to expound their views, the zillions of electrons expended in transmitting them to every television and radio in the nation, the thousands of frames fo film exposed for the demonstrations, die-ins, teach-ins, human shields, etc, those who whine that they haven't been heard:

You've been heard. You've had your say. The practical result of your actions is that you have sided with a tyrant who imprisons children, murders athletes simply for losing, funds suicide bombers, shelters and trains terrorists, gases his own people, etc, etc. You're wrong. Deal with it. Recognize that until you have anything NEW or CONSTRUCTIVE to add, until you restore your credibility, you'll be ignored, just as the Jew-baiting, anti-Semitic, Nazi conspiracists are ignored.

Have you ever considered the irony that, unlike the residents of Saddam's Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, that you have the option?

I'm assuming that you know what a Paladin is.....

Would a Paladin have allowed a monstrous evil like Saddam Hussein's regime to stand if it were in his power to bring it down?

Let's tone in down in here NOW. No reason for shouting. Be civil or I close this

Canada has never never sent it's ambassador to the U.S. behind the cameras to ridicule American internal policy. In fact, I don't think that I can recall any situation where a western country would use its foreign diplomats in an attempt to sway FOREIGN citizenry of a democratic country in regards to purely internal policy. The U.S. has done this in Canada repeatedly over the past year.

Just a small aside here.
I find it more than interesting, significant in fact, that it appears to be difficult to spell your major coalition partners name, the one who lost as many soldiers as you?.



Yes indeed, this is a fact.
For why?.
Not because of the person but because, as you so rightly put it, the fear of the country.
Few of us out here hated the Russian people during the 'balance of Power' period, just the country.
I believe you have touched on a point here that perhaps should be in a different thread.
Do Americans want to be liked, or boss.......??.



You just did complain, and rightfully so.
As individuals we should each be accepted on our individual merit. Unfortunatly this has never been the case.
Throughout history individuals have been tarred with their Nations brush to those outside, and so it is now with Americans abroad.



No mate, not stuck up, and if it makes you feel better we are just scared poo-less of American Military Power.
It makes for enemies because history is littered with the carcases of powerfull nations who just 'knew' they were right.
You may not believe this but I dont want Americans, to join the pile.

As for a lower form of life........well I suggest you read the above again.




I agree, but for two significant points..........
I neither have distain nor do I hold in contempt America.
However the recent administrations may well be another problem.



Absolutely!!!.
And they do...........Including you.


Regards.........Alan

Well Biker Dad, I must say I did not expect such a response. I do read all that is written, and in a smaller type size. So why the shouting?

I never said I liked or supported Saddam Hussein--check every posting I have ever done (you know you can). And I really doubt that anything I do here will have an influence on him, be he dead or alive.

As a matter of fact, we do have an excellent school system that my daughter attends. It is a nationally recognized public school. We just suffered through another Domino's Pizza Dough Raising night--I'm tired of pizza, but if it helps raise money for the school...It's too bad that the high property tax we pay and the millages we vote in somehow do not manage to pay for the equipment, building, teachers, ancillary services, etc. Check and see if I have ever mentioned that it is specifically Bush's fault that the school systems are in a financial bind. I didn't. I'm sorry--I did read it over, I said "administration". Our current circumstances are not helping us or our children develop an understanding of the bigger world.

(Yes, I do know what a Paladin is. The alignment of a paladin is lawful good, which means s/he obeys the laws, whether the law is fair or unfair, and whether it reflects the needs of those to whom it applies. A paladin cares about truth, tells it (in my case, to the best of my knowledge), keeps his/her word, helps those who are in need. It is what, in a sense, I aspire to. But you'll notice I didn't sign myself 'Saint Elspeth.')

But I thought this forum was for us to freely express our opinions. I don't think I have ever brutalized you or anyone else in this forum or any other.

So obviously I struck a nerve.

What is infantile is obviously what is observed in small children. They are loving but somehow their communication after Mama and Daddy is first "gimme," and "mine." Let those to whom this line of communication belongs step up and claim it. My only guilt insofar as infantile communication goes is saying "No!" to what doesn't look right, smell right or feel right. (And maybe I do want my Mommy in the midst of all that's going on, but she's long dead.)

Alan wrote about feeling marginalized, ignored as a person outside of the US. Whether you feel that is legitimate or not, that is how he feels. And that is what this post is about.

It's not often that anyone quotes me in a forum; I would have been flattered under different circumstances. Thank you for not "ignoring me." I am so sorry you feel that way. Take a deep breath.

Elspeth

P.S. I still love our country. Leaving it would be an extreme "what if..." only. And you'd better believe I am involved in the democratic process.

Hmmm... can't do much worse than comparing America to a drunken father figure, can I?

Setting aside the recent arguments and returning to the topic of discussion, as well as a previously mentioned analogy, I'd like to now compare the United States to sports teams and fans. 'Cause we (many Americans) love our sports teams.

I'm a Tennessee Titans (NFL) fan, personally. I also happen to like the Dallas Mavericks and the Sacramento Kings. I'm rather happy when any of these three teams do well and I have my fair share of Tennessee Titans apparel. But when Tennessee sucked two seasons ago, I was capable of admitting it. I could analyze the team, criticize the defensive abilities and wait for the next season.

Alas... some people can't. You probably know these people. They are the ones whose team might be 1-12 late in the season and they'll still scream about what their team will do to yours and various other empty threats and promises. Or as the case might be in relation to America, they are the fans of the Super Bowl favorite who lose the game in overtime. These are the kind of people I think Alan and those agreeing with him are referring to, only with the fanaticism replaced by rampant nationalism.

Some people feel they can't employ critical thinking or scrutiny and remain a loyal fan. They become unquestioning drones, the blind led by the one eyed king. Dissenters become Bengal fans, liberals... anti-American. It really is quite ridiculous and completely unnecessary. Just as I believe these people can change, I believe misguided, negligent nationalists can also change.

Anybody who's been to a Bengals game can learn a lot about being both a fan and a realist. And anybody looking at the larger international picture -- including the thoughts and opinions of other nations -- can learn a lot about being both an American and, more importantly, a member of the human race.

"Think your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** doesn't stink?"
Being a member of this country or that country no more qualifies your opinion than it invalidates anothers.

Bikerdad, I do hope you realize your "gut response" is purely that - from the gut, not the head. The worst bit of all would be to take that gut feeling and use it to guide your actual argument. The world-view it proposes is insipid, and does not stand up to the light of reason.

Were someone to post this as an actual, reasoned opinion, I must say my own gut response would be, "wow, someone's wasting a lot of space in their head - they seem to be only using their brain stem to form their opinions."

I think that your "gut response" is a perfect example of why people around the world come to fear and dislike America - there is a feeling that Americans tend to "shoot from the hip," "speak before they think," "shoot before asking questions."

Protesting the war in Iraq was NOT the same as supporting Hussein. It simply wasn't. War is Hell. Sounds trite but it is true. Wanting to find another way besides sending in the bombs doesn't equate in any way to supporting Saddam Hussein.



A true warrior acts in harmony with the Tao and thus avoids the need for battle.

Bikerdad says:

I found the this quote again today in my local newspaper:
It is now Day 66 of "The Dixie Chicks Crisis" What if the lead singer for Alabama had said of Bill Clinton, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Alabama.” Would we still be reading about this?

Fifty years ago, we all understood that as an American citizen, we could freely criticize the President of the United States, a right which we understood was shared by citizens of the Soviet Union. They too could freely criticize the President of the United States.

Under terms of the "Patriot Act" and the proposed "Patriot Act II." I am afraid as never before in my life to speak out about the President. Even as a native born American, I have been told, I could lose my citizenship under the terms of these laws.

I began to wonder, when did this "radical notion" of Freedom of Speech develop, and when did we begin to lose it? I went to my books of quotations, and found:
The "Compassionate Conservatives" in the White House seem to feel that it is a liberal idea to speak one's mind in time of war, but it obviously dates back a long time.

Is this something that George W. Bush learned at home? I don't think so. In The Bush Dyslexicon, by Mark Crispin Miller, the Senior Bush is quoted as follows:
If George W. Bush were to take Natalie Maines words to an attorney, admit that she had issued a public apology, and ask for assistance in suing for damages, even the greediest lawyer wouldn't waste his time or a court's, by filing the paperwork. This "crisis" needs to end with "President" George W. Bush apologizing for his response, not by the continued process of refusing to air the Dixie Chicks music, and laying off DJ's for violating company policy by playing their records.

Are we being silenced? Yes, we are.

Is George W. Bush representing 100% of the voters? No, that was Saddam Hussein. George W. Bush is merely acting like he had 100% of the vote in the last election.

Is the George W. Bush representing the majority of Americans? He won the majority of the Supreme Court. It will have to be settled in the Polls next year, whether or not he is representing the majority of Americans.

Did George W. Bush look like a leader, when he stepped out of an airplane, in a military uniform with a codpiece, on an aircraft carrier? The media keeps pointing at him and telling us: "He certainly looks like a leader. How are the Democrats going to fight that image next year?" Perhaps, the Democrats should simply respond that the image of The Commander in Chief of the United States armed Forces, is usually one of a President who steps down from Air Force One in a suit and tie, a uniform that is routinely saluted by Generals.

Just so you know, I'm ashamed the President of the United States is George W. Bush.

This thread is veering off topic. We have many threads already that are devoted to dissent. Let's try not to derail Alan's thread. The original topic is:

I'm a horrible speller. Always have been, and probably always will be. Not being able to spell something, doesn't automatically mean "I'm above knowing, they don't matter, I'm too good and they don't count, they are beneath me" If I misspelled "kindness" would that mean I'm not a kind person? Seriously, that argument is stretched pretty thin.

(All seriousness aside: A good friend of mine came back to work for my company. He's Irish, so I've heard a lot of anti-brit jokes lately )



Ummm, no actually. I wasn't complaining. I was attempting to illustrate my point. You will never hear me complain about any other country acting in their best interest. As much as I disagree with everything France did/didn't do before the war, I believe her leaders were acting in the best interest of the people. And I respect that.



"we"? Honestly, you are the only one who is afraid of that. In all the forums I've debated in, you seem to be the only one concerned about that. If you were.....say....a muslim in Syria right now, then I think you would have good reason to be concerned. But being attacked by America would only happen after the Boogie man eats you, or your struck by lightning.

respectfully

--cheers

Then the lead singer of Alabama would be thinking that he was from Arkansas.

50 years ago we were in the height of McCarthy's hysteria. Entertainers were not just being ridiculed publicly for speaking their mind, they were being blacklisted and losing access to work permanently in many cases.

Bikerdad,



However, and this is why I think the world fears us more than it respects us, is that no viable alternative has been pushed forward.

The UN is an American brain child. What has happened to us? Do we no longer believe that world peace is not only attainable, but necessary to avoid the carnage of WW I and WW II? Are we so arrogant as to think that this time around, by shear force, we will stop a WW III from developing?

Listen: Put yourself in the place of another citizen of a smaller country. Your country can barely defend itself from its neighbors if they decide to attack, but they won't because--why? Because they fear annihlation from the USA? Or because they know a world organization will come in to intervene?

After the first Gulf war, I think the world respected the US for working through the UN. You may remember that time differently, and that's fine. We all have subjective views of the world. But now, can you deny that the world, in general, and even many of our citizens fear the US?

Are relationships based on fear the way to peace?

I think not. I think such relationships lead to more war. In personal relationships, they lead to messy divorces.

Sneaky sidebar:
ATMs are great dirt bikes, but you can't load them for exended travel like you can with the KLR. I can carry about 80 lbs. on that scooter, enough for weeks out there, months! However, the KLR also needs a bit of adjusting (knobbies) and reinforcment on its 2-part frame to handle wild whoopies in the woods.
End sneaky sidebar.

Peace, high signs in the wind

Then you haven't been paying attention, since all countries do it. Mexican diplomats are routinely lobbying Americans to pressure for change in American immigration policy, European diplomats work both behind the scenes and out in the public on issues ranging from the War on Terror to the death penalty to steel tariffs, etc.

As for "purely internal policy", what exactly are you referring to? My understanding, which is likely incomplete, is that the Canadian government was publicly objecting to AMERICAN foreign policy. That doesn't sound like a purely internal matter, does it?

Grace and peace, BD

Mexicans lobby yes, through political channels, in areas that are of direct interest to the Mexican government. Can you explain to me how an embassy communicating the desires of it's executive authority to a foreign government has ANY parallel to an embassy criticizing a foreign governments PURELY INTERNAL actions in the public domain? Go ahead. Tarriffs? International concern. Immigration? Again, an international concern. The Death Penalty? Since the U.S. signed the International Declaration of Human Rights, it is an international concern.

I'm not sure where you're going with the Canadian government publicly criticizing the American government in the CANADIAN press either. That's not what I'm talking about. Are you attempting to draw a strawman or do you not understand the difference between a government speaking to it's own citizens and that same government using it's position on foreign soil to communicate with another country's citizenry. I should think the difference is fairly obvious.

The example that I had specifically is the Paul Celluci, who has publicly spoken out on Canadian budget issues, Canadian legal issues, trade disputes, and most notably on the decriminalization of marijuana in recent months. I have never seen a foreign diplomat function the way U.S. embassies and consuls do on a regular basis.

My apologies for going over the top, and for attributing certain attitudes and perspectives to you that I haven't seen you demonstrate. I wasn't shouting (notice the lack of CAPS), merely speaking very loud and forcefully.

When dealing with the claims of quashed dissent, I feel like Homer Simpson on a road trip....

Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
Bart and Lisa, "are we there yet?" Homer, "No"
...

As suggested, I'll leave the rest of the matter of dissent to another thread.


You haven't in the past, to my knowledge. Nor do I consider your post to be "brutalizing" in any way. If I gave that impression, I apologize and categorically retract such a notion.

Yes, one rubbed raw by others, see The Simpsons.



Is it about feelings, or about the head? I'm confused...

Rationally, as a person outside of the US, what Alan feels and thinks should be of far less importance to our elected representatives than what you and I feel and think. The Governor of New York is not elected in order to cater to the whims of Kansans, true? If he does, then he is betraying his office. Similarily, the President of the United States' #1 job, for which we elect him, is to secure and protect the United States, not facilitate TotalElfFina oil contracts or bow to the mullahs or accomodate every demonstrator in the First, Second and Third Worlds.

Did this administration, and most Americans, "hear" the objectors and demonstrators? Yes.

The administration, and most Americans, simply have come to different conclusions.

- hey, you raised the subject, not I. Since you raised the "extreme 'what if'", does that make you an extremist?

Grace and peace, BD

er, right, kinda like Baghdad Bob. Or the myriad of yobos on the Left who claimed that Afghanistan had no connection with 9/11 (none, except serving as the base of operations for Osama...), predicted that Afghanistan would be a quaqmire and result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilian casualties, inflame the Arab "street" into mass action, trigger a massive wave of terrorist attacks, etc. They were wrong, but undeterred, they proceeded with essentially the same litany leading up to Iraq.

or rampant anti-Americanism.



Why is it I get the distinct impression that in your paradigm, only those who dissent are capable of critical thinking? That anybody who is loyal is, by default, an unquestioning drone, etc? If I weren't charitable, I'd be left with the inescapable conclusion that I've been obliquely insulted.

Gee, perhaps someone CAN be a loyal fan while employing critical thinking. It should be noted that "critical thinking" does not equal "criticizing". The two are merely related, not one and the same.

Of course it does, well, at least where the qualification is concerned. (Invalidating is a binary proposition, qualifying is a incremental proposition). There the matter of knowledge, exemplified by this example: everything else being equal, an Australian is better qualified to speak to the subject of roo overpopulation than a Norwegian, eh? There is the matter of consequences: Whoevers is going to bear the consequences of the chosen course of action, their "opinion" carries more weight than those who will be unaffected. Finally, there is the matter of authority. As I noted in my post to Paladin, Australians, Frenchmen, Zambians, Russians, Chinese, Greeks, Englishmen, etc, do not have the same AUTHORITY to speak to the American government as Americans. Nor do we have the same authority to speak to THEIR governments.

See, not everybody's opinion IS equal, is it?

If opinions are unequal it is only because of the information and reasoning on which they are based, not the identity of those expressing it. To say otherwise is to validate argumentum ad hominem. The world's foremost expert on kangaroos could in fact be a Norwegian; everything else is never equal, and trying to rationalize prejudice with the contrary assumption really isn't very helpful.

Perhaps you can ask the Honourable Michael F. Kergin, who has written 5 letters to the NY Times and WSJ. http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/index-en.asp

His letters are attempts to influence the American public, and thereby influence the American gov't. Isn't the American public's relationship with its government a "purely internal matter?"



The IDHR does not prohibit the death penalty. It prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment", a definition that none of the signatories took to include the death penalty. If so, why did Canada sign it in 1948 and continue executing people up until 1962, and keep the death penalty until 1998?

If the IDHR is going to be your loadstone, perhaps you should review Articles 18 & 19, then go after both Canada and assorted European countries that are restricting religious expression.

http://www.ccadp.org/deathpenalty-canada.htm



http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/index-en.asp

Apparently, Ambassador Kergin is incapable of making the distinction as well...



If those budget issues relate to Canadian Forces, then the linked analysis, by a Canadian, speaks to why Celluci isn't out of bounds to discuss the issue.

http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/archives/n.../views_main.htm


Such as?



Didn't you just say that trade disputes are fair game?



Our open border makes the decriminalization problematic. The why, to what extent, etc, are subjects for another thread. Would you be bothered if the US were to decriminalize heroin, opium, meth, crack, LSD, and cocaine? Would there be no effects whatsover on Canada?

bad, bad US. bad! How dare you look out for your own interests! bad!

The American public should be exposed to ideas outside of the United States. The opinions outside the country are good checks on our biases and positions shaped by self-interest.

Influencing the American public in an open forum is not the same thing as influencing the government. If he wanted to influence the government a campaign contribution would be much more effective.

The American public can survive this type of influence and it should welcome ideas from all sources in order to make the best conclusions possible.

Is it your contention that we are to assume that everybody possesses the same information? Not only is that clearly false, but it is also a simple fact that we do not have the time or resources to vette the quality of everybody's information. So, without evidence to the contrary, we take shortcuts, or we don't make decisions....



Yes, the world's foremost expert on kangaroos COULD be a Norwegian. If he were, he'd be speaking from his expert authority. Remove his expert knowledge, and your random Aussie would be better informed than your random Norwegian regarding the kangaroos, just as the Norwegian is going to be better informed regarding reindeer. They would both have the opportunity to prove otherwise, but there is such a thing as "cultural knowledge", we can reliably assume a certain relative level of knowledge based on identity. On average, a Mexican is going to know more about mole than a Mongolian

Test it: walk into any drinking establishment in Europe and poll how many patrons know Tony Stewart and what marquees are represented in NASCAR. Now turn around and stroll into an American sportsbar and query the patrons about Formula One racing, or the Champions Cup... You might get lucky and stumble across a SCCA meeting in progress, but its more likely you'll catch the softball league knocking a few brews back.

(We won't even discuss the transcultural oddities of cricket, rugby, the infield fly rule, curling, camel racing, etc, etc...)

Its not an ad hominem argument, any more than scrutinizing young, male Saudi travellers in airports more than scrutinizing elderly black women is "racial profiling." Past experience says the odds are the Saudi is more likely to be a threat than the matron, so they get more attention.

We are exposed to ideas from outside the US. Some of them are pretty good, others are pure crap. European ideas on the subject of leisure and design have a lot to recommend them. Islamic ideas on the subject of religious freedom are pure crap. Are they simply to be treated as equally valid because they "come from outside"? Or should they be evaluated based upon what their effect in the past has been, how have related ideas played out, how credible are those advocating it, etc...



UJoe seems to object to it, at least when its an American attempting to influence the Canadian public.

and illegal. Fortunately, the Canadians by and large have much more class than that.

Just to clarify, I don't object to what Kergin did, I was simply raising it to demonstrate that not only are American Ambassadors not the only diplomats who engage in the scandalous activity , but that the righteous and moral Canadian Ambassador has done the same.