[OT] [PW] [Long] America Bashing

"Yowie" wrote in message
...

Eh, what I know about the USA, I was taught by your TV shows. We start
with
Sesame Street (darn fine show, but its "Zed" not "Zee" here) and go
throught
he children's shows, teenage shows and the adult sitcoms, and we've pretty
much studied most of your highschool curriculum by default. Compare that
to
what I know about Bhutan, for example, and I'm just as clueless as anyone
else. I think perhaps our news outlets have more global content (although
I
may be biased, I have access to all Australian media outlets - print and
TV(and tend to go for the less tabloid variety) - but not all American
media
outlets), but my global knowledge really only extends towards other rich
English speaking countries, and countries that have significant ties to
Australia. I'm totally ignorant about almost all of Africa, the less
developed nations of Europe and Asia, and about Central and Southern
America. And thats just laziness on my part, the information is there if I
wanted to find out, but really ca'nt be botehred spending time on it.

The USA is on my TV, on my computer, in the newspapers and magazines. I
couldn't escape it without becoming a complete hermit. Its no wonder I
(and
other non-Americans) seem to know so much about it, we cut our teeth on
it
as well. And perhaps thats part of the problem too.

I agree. On my first trip to Australia, I wanted to watch some TV in the
evenings. I was interested to see what Australian TV was like, but all I
could find were reruns of American sitcoms. Unfortunately, they do not give
a picture of what America is really like. In the same way, there are many
Americans who judge England by Monty Python or some of the British mystery
shows we see on public TV.

And, of course, there are movies. Even the ones that supposedly portray
history are usually wildly inaccurate and often biased.

I am not widely traveled, but I have been to England and Australia twice
each, and to several countries in Europe once. I thought I was well
prepared, but even in that small amount of travel, I found many things that
surprised me. And I do a lot of reading, as well as seeing movies and some
TV. Probably the thing that surprised me most was the number of things that
we take for granted as necessities that are either luxuries, nonexistent, or
even undesirable, in other parts of the world.

That is one reason I like it when we can rationally discuss our way of life
and our points of view on line. I think that, other than traveling to
another country and meeting the people there (as opposed to going on an
organized tour), this is the best way to learn about other countries. If we
pay attention, it also teaches us that not everybody in a given country is
the same.

Joy

"Yowie" wrote in message
...
"Yoj" wrote in message
. ..
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is
to
stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans.
Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting
it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of
speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or
otherwise,
by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans
not
to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical
remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks
or
actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike
of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways.
Either
you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds
other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the
results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than
other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater
reaction?

--
David Stevenson

So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor
suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they
want,
but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still
resent
it
when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about
only
*some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people
who
are
criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do
not
commit whatever offense is currently being criticized.

I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding
others up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other
people
up the more the average American must expect a reaction.

--
David Stevenson

Okay, first I don't know what you mean by "winding others up". Maybe
you
could explain that term. Second, your next statement is the same as if
I
said, "The more some English bash America, the more the average
Englishman
should expect an angry reaction." Do you think it is right that I, and
other Americans should blame you for what some other English person
says?
I
don't. I also don't think the reverse is true.

"wind up" means roughly "to bait", whether intentionally or otherwise. To
annoy; to tease; to press another's "hot buttons"; to provoke.

HTH

Yowie

Gotcha! Trolls do it deliberately; some do it accidentally, and probably
some do it deliberately on certain occasions or with certain people.

Joy

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote:

I said "tend to". That's my experience. If you wish to take
generalisations to the particular, that's your choice, but there is no
reason to.

You're turning it upside down. A generalization is taking the
particular to
the general. It is assuming, stating, or implying that all members of
the
group spoken of do the same thing, or are the same, as those particular
examples.

Um, either you or I or the writer or all three are a little confused here.
A generalization is exactly what you say it is, and taking a
generalisation to the particular is what he says it is, but they are two
different things. He's not turning anything upside down, he's using a
different expression about generalisations.

I can make a perfectly valid generalisation - say, people who live with
cats tend to have cat hair on their clothing. If my friend says this is
completely wrong and she has cats and never has a cat hair on her clothes,
she's taking my generalisation, and applying it to her particular case,
when in fact, I formed my generalisation based on all the *other*
people I know who live with cats. My friend is choosing to think her
cat-hair situation was the basis of my generalisation, but she is
mistaken.

Actually, this isn't a good example, because I don't know and have
never heard of anyone who lives with cats who doesn't have at least a few
cat hairs on their clothing, although some people are pretty good at
minimizing the amount. But it's just a hypothetical example. I like
language and how it is understood and misunderstood.

--
Cheryl

I see what you mean. Since you like language, etc., I'm sure you would
enjoy Richard Lederer's books. He is a linguist and a former high school
(American) English teacher. He calls himself a verbivore because he devours
words. "Crazy English" discusses many of the confusing things about our
language. For instance, why do we park in a driveway and drive on a
parkway? Or why do we say the moon is out when we can see it, but we say
the light is out when we can't see it? "Anguished English" and its two
sequels discuss the misuse of the language. The first book contains a
history of the world, compiled from student test papers. It includes such
priceless statements as, "Columbus circumcised the world with a 90-foot
clipper" and "Solomon had 300 wives and 900 porcupines".

Joy

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Yoj wrote
"David Stevenson" wrote in message
...

If you want people not to criticise Americans one method is to
stop
some of the unfortunate critical remarks made by Americans.
Terrorism,
for example, is a global problem. Sure the US is now fighting it
whole-heartedly, but so are many other nations.

One of the things Americans are justly proud of is our freedom of
speech.
That means that we have no right to stop remarks, critical or
otherwise,
by
other Americans. One could just as well say if you want Americans
not
to
criticize the British, you should stop them from making critical
remarks.

I don't believe in condemning a whole nationality for the remarks or
actions
of some of its members.

Maybe not, but remember what started this discussion: a dislike of
people criticising Americans. You cannot have it both ways. Either
you
support Americans having the right to talk in a way that winds other
people up, or you do not. If you support it you must expect the
results
to follow.

Americans tend to promote themselves and their country more than
other
nations. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a greater reaction?

--
David Stevenson

So you don't allow a middle ground - neither supporting such talk nor
suppressing it? I have no power to keep people from saying what they
want,
but that doesn't mean I like or support what they say. I still resent
it
when anyone says "Americans" when they are actually talking about only
*some* Americans. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people who
are
criticizing to realize and admit that there are many Americans who do
not
commit whatever offense is currently being criticized.

I don't support such talk: but I don't support Americans winding
others
up. I just think that the more some Americans wind other people up the
more the average American must expect a reaction.

--
David Stevenson


David, you don't seem to get the point now. A few weeks ago I was
*extremely* wound up by the harsh right wing and fundamendalist religious
posts that my (ex) friend was sending to me from America as a Bush
supporter. Well, I have to say, that as a Brit, I wasn't particularly
interested at first, but when she posted some - what I thought of - as
extreme posts, we have fallen out, probably for good. She calls me a
stupid
liberal when she objected to the fact that she thought she herself was
paying for a C-section for a Muslim woman and I slammed her.

On the other hand, you have my friend Bob, from Michigan. He knows this
other person from a ng we are all on, and I mailed him to ask whether this
was a common American view. He was horrified and said his view co-incided
with mine and not hers.
So, you see, Americans are not all the same ;-))
It's just like any other nation. Mainly good and some bad.
I value my American friends on this group and what I particularly like is
that I feel that most of you are my friends so I can ask about American
things that I don't understand, including political things and get a nice
answer. Hopefully without any of you thinking I am a basher ;-)

Tweed

You have the kind of open attitude that fosters learning and understanding
between people of different cultures and countries. If everyone had that
attitude, there would be fewer arguments and probably fewer wars.

Joy

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

Where would you choose to live in Europe if you could, and why? Just
curious.

Tweed

I know this wasn't directed to me, but here is my wish list of places to
live (not all in Europe - I'm not being an ignorant yank! ;) This is
assuming I had the money for the high cost of living in some of these
places.

London or Rome (although in each case I would have to learn the language!!
;)
Nova Scotia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Thailand
Hawaii

Hugs,

CatNipped

This sounds like a fun game to play. If you didn't live where you do, where
would you like to live?

For me, it would be Australia, especially Alice Springs.

Joy

"Mathew Kagis" wrote in message
news:ZL8Ad.33338$dv1.25241@edtnps89...



"Yoj" wrote in message
...
"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly:

"Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t
sandwhich?"

Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not think
the
person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they
way
well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the
two
choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was only
just
slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was.

Yowie

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted
against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two
evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*!

Joy

Joy: What about Nader?
--
Mathew
Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat
En Vino Veritas

I'm not sure I like everything he stands for either. I'd have researched it
more if I thought he had a chance. As it was, and especially waiting as
long as he did to enter the race this time, I felt he was deliberately being
a spoiler.

Joy

"Yowie" wrote in message
...
"Mathew Kagis" wrote in message
news:ZL8Ad.33338$dv1.25241@edtnps89...



"Yoj" wrote in message
...
"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly:

"Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t
sandwhich?"

Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not
think
the
person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they
way
well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the
two
choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was
only
just
slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was.

Yowie

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted
against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two
evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*!

Joy

Joy: What about Nader?

The joys of a preferential system is that you can vote for your most
preferred party, knowing that your vote still counts in the two party
preferred system. In a preferential system, a vote for a minor party is
not
a "wasted vote" - in fact it can send a strong message to both of the
major
parties that many people aren't particular happy with either of them. I
gather, however, that the US election system does not employ the
preferential voting system.

Yowie

You're right. The way it works here is that, except in rare Congressional
races, a vote for any party other than the two major ones is thrown away, or
tilts the balance toward one of the major ones. In our last two elections,
for example, if Nader hadn't run, or if nobody had voted for him, the vote
probably would have gone the other way, since people who like Nader are
likely to dislike Bush and his policies.

Joy

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article ZL8Ad.33338$dv1.25241@edtnps89, "Mathew Kagis"
wrote:

"Yoj" wrote in message
...
"Yowie" wrote in message
...
I think South Park summed up politics (of any country) perfectly:

"Why should I vote if the choice is between a douche and a sh*t
sandwhich?"

Those people who did not vote in the same way as you did may not
think
the
person they voted for is great or wonderful or perfect, in fact they
way
well think he or she is a blithering idiot too, just that out of the
two
choices (and its always just two choices), that their choice was
only
just
slightly less abhorrent to them than yours was.

Yowie

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Yowie. Most of us who voted
against W felt the same way. I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two
evils! It would be so nice to have somebody to vote *for*!

Joy

Joy: What about Nader?


If you don't mind a comment from someone other than Joy, I indeed
considered some of the minor party candidates, given "None of the above"
was not an option for the major parties. Recognizing it would be a
symbolic vote, the plausible minor candidates were Nader (really
independent of parties; affiliation with a fractured minor party) and
Bandnarik (Libertarian).

Over many years of watching Nader, I have found his mindset something of
the Grand Inquisitor. He seems to operate on an assumption that
government, private enterprise, and almost any individual with a cause
is up to some evil, and must be investigated and punished. He appears to
see government in this inquisitorial role, and, in particular,
guaranteeing everthing offered -- in medicine, in consumer products --
is COMPLETELY safe.

I oscillate between finding this not a vision at all, or a vision of
even bigger and more intrusive government. I've rarely heard Nader speak
in terms of positive things that even private citizens can do. Bluntly,
I find him, and some of his close advisors like Sidney Wolfe in
healthcare, to be bitter and publicity-seeking.

Badnarik seemed, at first, to have a vision for such things as civil
liberties. On reading his detailed positions, however, he seemed to find
government involvement at the root of every problem. At times, it
seemed that his answer to everything was the free market, but he didn't
seem interested in such things as antimonopoly monitoring, and such
things as requiring true independence of corporate auditing.

I am not a believer that government should do everything, but I do
believe some things can really be handled properly by government. Among
these areas are matters affecting the public health, such as epidemic
surveillance and control, independent drug evaluation, etc. He wants
these matters privatized.

You have pretty well explained my reasons for not favoring the Libertarian
point of view.

Joy

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
Yoj wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in
message ...


jmcquown wrote:



What bugged me the most was these same people had no problem with
our insurance covering gastric bypass surgery for a number of
people who really didn't need it.

I can't IMAGINE having any "elective" surgery at all - let
alone anything so invasive and yes, life-threatening! I put
off simple (nowadays) cataract surgery as long as I could,
and that is "elective" only in the sense that you CAN opt
for blindness instead, but who would do so voluntarily?


Cataract surgery is worth it! For one thing, it can be done on an
outpatient basis, so you don't have to be in the hospital. For
another, the results are outstanding!

Joy (I had mine two years ago)

Yeah, me too - but it wasn't until I realized it was either
that, or give up driving (a sheer necessity in Southern
California).

My late Aunt Jean was legally blind (and almost completely blind) for 40
years. She'd had eye surgeries several times. She did NOT want the
cataract surgery. But (this was in 1997) the doctor said, without making
any kind of promise, trust me, I can help you. She called me up - Jill, I
can SEE! What?? Yep, he removed her cataracts and I gather through lasic
surgery also corrected her vision. Can you imagine not having seen
yourself
in a mirror for 40 years?! She was thrilled and I was thrilled for her!

Jill

How wonderful! We hear so many horror stories about doctors making mistakes
and illnesses contracted in hospitals, it's lovely to hear a success story
of the advances of modern medicine.

Of course "modern" is a relative term. My life was saved by modern medicine
in 1945. I had a severe mastoid infection and would have died if penicillin
hadn't just been released for civilian use. It literally saved my life.

Joy

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , "Yoj"
wrote:

What about celebrities who
have been married 7 or 8 times? *They* are the ones who cheapen
marriage.

I must observe of my former mother-in-law, who was married 7 times that
we know about, may or may not have cheapened marriage. She did,
however, manage to make it an impressive spectator sport -- perhaps a
new venue for gambling -- the time she got to the altar, fully gowned,
responded "I don't" to the key question, raised her train, and walked
back out.

LOL! She certainly had a flair for the dramatic.

Actually, I don't think anything can cheapen a marriage except the attitudes
and behavior of the two parties involved. What others do or don't do has
nothing to do with my marriage.

Joy