On a compilation CD of music produced by Joe Meek, I have a recording by Screaming Lord Sutch; it is quite entertaining. It is a shame he is gone. Maybe somebody like that would do a better job than the corrupt fiends currently in charge of both the UK and the US.

I see in this thread a troubling strain that I have seen in the general population. The American public is increasingly divided, and very bitterly at that. When Clinton was in office, the amount of hatred I observed directed towards him was more than I had ever seen directed at an American president, and a number of other people loved him just about as much. Now, Bush seems to be both loved and hated even more strongly. Being a member of a group (transgendered) that he and his cohorts would likely love to attack, I am firmly in the camp of the Bush-haters. I didn't have strong opinions either way on Clinton, so this is rather new to me. This is the first president I have truly hated and do not respect at all. (My opinion of his predecessors is generally a mild dislike tempered with a grudging respect.)

I believe the "culture wars" are a major cause of this increasingly emotional division. We have two groups in this country which essentially cannot coexist. Where will this lead? In other countries, situations like this often lead to destructive civil wars, and I hope that is not our fate. If it gets to the point that we are close to this, I will attempt to flee the country; I do not want to get caught up in a civil war in which there are no winners. I hope this division soon reaches its peak and we find something in this country to bring us together. Or barring that, if the divisions continue to grow more intolerable, hopefully we can find a way to peacefully divide the country and let each side go its own way. (Maybe the South will rise again!)

Heather H.

Horray for Mexico - they told the US to quit killing Mexican citizens. A small whoopee for the North Koreans they told the US "you quit your weapons program and we'll quit ours." I wonder what the Canadians had to force open contracts on Iraq? The Iragis are telling the US "you made this mess, clean it up." The tide seems to be turning - it's put up or shut up time. Any comment?

What a silly post! Was there some reason for it?

Sorry - didn't know there wasn't freedom of opinion

Freedom of opinion sometimes results in strong disagreements, but it is very important to preserve it.

You touch on some issues which are very sensitive to Americans, but we need to deal with these issues. Whether we like it or not, some of our ways of doing things bother other people around the world. In some cases, we perhaps have good justification, so we should do them anyway and deal with the negative fallout. But when world opinion turns strongly against us, it does us no harm to step back and think about it. There just might be the chance that someone in some country besides the U.S. might be right, and if they are, there is nothing wrong with learning from them.

The core of the problem is an appearance of arrogance. The U.S. certainly does not have the monopoly on this. Most countries, if not all, have a strain of nationalism, which often expresses itself in the arrogant attitude of "my country is better than your country" without any rational argument in favor of this opinion. In the U.S., we have always had a good dose of this, and we often call it "patriotism". Some of this is fine; it is desirable to have pride in ones country, but if allowed to run away, it becomes dangerous. Empires which have been built through warfare and deceit have always relied on this, and it has always gotten them into trouble. A complete list of examples would be nearly endless, so I will list only a few: France under Napoleon, Germany under Hitler, the empire of Alexander the Great, the Soviet Union, European colonialism, etc. I would argue that arrogant nationalism or some similar feeling contributed to both the rise and fall of these empires.

In the U.S., we certainly exhibit this attitude from time to time. As children, we are told again and again that this is the greatest country in the world, and we do not always learn to appreciate the good points of other countries. We often react angrily when someone else in the world opposes some element of our foreign policy. This isn't always the best way. Sometimes it is appropriate, but often it is not. I believe that we generally have friendly intentions towards most countries, but we do not always express that well. Friends can agree to disagree and still be civil about it. France, for example, has its own goals in the world, and we often have disagreements with the French. However, looking back in history, we have come to each other's aid a number of times (France helped us during the revolution, and we helped them during the World Wars). I value France's friendship more than I am upset by our disagreements. We can disagree strongly without getting unreasonably angry with each other. North Korea, on the other hand, is a nasty country even by the definitions of other nasty countries, and is justifiably isolated by most of the world - they have no room to complain.

It is fine to be patriotic and to pursue our own goals in the world, but we must, at the same time, be considerate of others. Perhaps by an accident of history, we happen to be the lone military superpower at the present time. With this power comes a great deal of responsibility. We must use it wisely, or we risk trouble. Others may not be able to challenge us militarily now, but if we make everyone else in the world mad, we will not be able to hold them off forever. Cooperation may not always yield the results we would like, but in the long run, it is the best way.

Heather H.

Thanks Heather

Jillian:

It appears some of us confuse anti-Americanism with anit-bushism and the 2 issues are very different.

I interpreted your post as anti-bushism and to that I whole heartedly agree. This unbalanced fool has all but ruined our reputation in the world and his policies both at home and abroad are the most anti-American I have ever seen.

As I see it, the real anti-American lives in the White House and will do his level best to destroy our individual freedoms in favor of an minority of people who want everyone to live according to their corrupt interprtation of a badly translated book.

In addition this person in the White House apears as a spoiled child with poor impulse control and has no tolerance for dessent of any kind. The foundation of this country was forged with the idea that dessent was our right as citizens and is protected by the very constitution bush and his inner circle are attempting to trample on. That's anti-American!

The more I see our so-called president and his totalitarian like policies thwarted the better I feel because America was meant to stand for more than just trying to force it's will on the world at any cost and without regard for the rights of others including those of Americans.

Don't let the ultra-right wingers on this site intimidate you. As an American you still have the right to your opinion which is one I agree with.

Hugs---Betty

Yes, Jillian did say "US" in her post but every point she referred to was a direct result of bush policy or position so it wasn't difficult to understand what she was referring to. Bush isn't nor ever will be "the U.S." even if he likes to pretend he is.

His insane spending will put us into debt for generations and bulk of it isn't social programs some of which are worthwhile (and no, private charities would not make up the difference).

Henry Kissinger made a statement during a sixties speech, (he wasn't aware he was being recorded), to the effect that to be re-elected you had to distract the population with fear so that they would overlook anything else you were doing which was contrary to their interests. Well the bushies are following this strategy to the letter. Just witness all of these bogus orange alerts and constant references to 9-11 (an event bush has staunchly resisted having investigated). If you don't believe all these alerts are bogus then consider the time the US had an Air France flight canceled only to find the potential terrorist was an 11 year old boy. This is just one example. Basically bush is spending billions of our dollars to keep us on edge and distracted so we'll forget the train wreck he making of this country.

One of the things I find most entertaining (if you want to call it that) is that "curious George" now wants an investigation into the weapons of mass destruction intelligence. Now, honestly, don't you think he should have had the "facts" before invading a country in which over 10 thousand non combatants (yes that includes women and children too) were killed and we are losing more and more of our soldiers every week?

You say the the bushies are preferable (by far) to the democrats. There isn't a chance on Earth of that being true. I'm willing to bet that I could pick the first stranger walking down the street and they'd do a better job of being president than the smirking chimp we have in there now (by far).

Hugs

Betty

Speaking of political circuses, does anybody know what happened to Screaming Lord Sutch and his "Monster Raving Loony Party".
He used to run against Margaret Thatcher in Parliamentary Elections, when asked what he would do if he got elected his reply was "nothing", at last an honest politician.

Thanks for the info, Sorry to hear that, one of the things I miss about England is the eccentrics, they always made life more interesting.
Rachel, this dead cat of yours doesn`t stand a chance of getting elected unless she can raise millions of dollars and promise to cut taxes.
As to re - electing George Bush, I can only think of two words RUMSFELD and ASHCROFT.

Hi,

In common with Denise I'm sitting here on the other side of the pond under the auspices of an ostensibly different system. Therefore I obviously cannot comment on the day to day realities of American politics but earlier posts in this thread edged around the issues of America's standing in the world and thats perhaps something where comment from abroad might be valid.

I'll preface my comments by making it abundantly clear that I'm neither pro nor anti American any more than i'm pro or anti British. I suspect that any observations i'm about to make could equally be applied to most of the countries in the developed western world. I'll also make it clear that for 6 years I worked in the Houses Of Parliament (I have worked in the Private Offices of 2 Cabinet Ministers) so I am speaking as someone more than familiar with the machinations and schemes of modern government. Also be aware that me sitting here relating these facts does not mean that I agree with them just that I understand them. Thats an important distinction.

So here goes......

Heather talked about arrogance and I suspect that that is really the root of the distaste and hostility gathering and growing around the world targeting itself on the USA.

Rightly or wrongly: be it truth, media spin, false perception or whatever, people around the world look to America and see a country totally assured of its self-righteousness, in love with a self given role as the worlds monarch. To many people America displays no ability to accept a difference of opinion: you seem to promulgate a single vision of how the people of the world should live and the form of society they should live under. And this is dictated to cultures that have existed for thousands of years - coming from a country barely 300 years old this is hard to take

So thats the starting position for many people: then we can talk about globalisation, protectionist economic measures, pre-emptive strikes,an inconsistent self serving foreign policy, assumed moral superiority and global poisoning - does Kyoto mean anything to anyone in America? (You might detect the fact that this is one issue where I am distinctly Anti-American). It adds up to a position deeply offensive and unpalatable to many many people. Allied to the fact that America sits at the top of the tree in terms of wealth, comfort and opportunity so jealousy comes into play but also a feeling that a society so privileged should be more aware of the responsibilities that go with that privilege.

Please Please Please sit and think about what I've said before you slag me off. I am not saying these views are correct or incorrect, I am not trying to offend. I'm just reporting what I hear and see around me.

Take care
Purple
x

PS: can someone give me a definition of what socialism means in the USA? I'm afraid I don't see anything resembling Socialism in American politics

Well, I'll just disagree with your anti-USA enthusiasm and leave it at that.

There is freedom of opinion here Jillian and we are all free to disagree with your views if we so wish.

Hugs,

Katie

Well, Betty, Jillian did say "US" three times, but never mentioned Bush by name. All I did was disagree with her anti-USA enthusiasm ("hooray" and "whoopee"). How is that intimidation? After all, she did ask for comments. As Katie mentioned, Jillian (and everyone else) is free to state her opinion, but others (including myself) are free to disagree with her. Freedom is supposed to work both ways.

By the way, I voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian Party), not George Bush. Bush is too much of a socialist for my tastes, and I have several bones to pick with him, myself. He spends money like a Democrat. He refuses to balance the budget, because he's afraid to eliminate social programs (because he thinks he'll lose votes), and therefore, the deficit spending continues, adding roughly half a trillion dollars to the national debt this fiscal year. This past Summer, he pushed through a prescription drug program that is probably the largest social expenditure in decades. He just proposed to spend $18 million more for the NEA, and he wants to spend $12 billion to go to Mars. Bush wants to grant amnesty (even if he doesn't like that word) to illegal aliens - people who broke our laws coming to this country. What good are our laws if we don't uphold them? Does Bush really think he'll get the immigrant vote this November, in return for looking the other way? To top it all off, he wants to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages, which shows a blatant disregard for the concept of equal rights for all citizens.

If I had only the two major parties from which to choose (thank goodness I have other choices), I'd still choose Bush and the Republicans over the Democrats. At this point, the only good thing I can say about the Republican Party is that it represents the lesser (by far) of two evils. Neither major party has any intention of standing up for the rights of citizens or reducing the size and scope of government. They just shift things around to benefit two different sets of special interest groups, so they can maintain power. Unfortunately, most voters are unwilling to consider other alternatives, which is why we always get more of the same.


Some of you might enjoy this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Rachel & Betty, I have a similar opinion of the Clintons.

I'll respond in detail later.

Welcome to the conversation, Purple. Get ready to read some things with which you'll disagree.



I'm against the Kyoto agreement, and I wish the USA had just ignored the whole thing from the start. It's a lot of show (based on junk science), and very little substance, as far as I'm concerned. Here are some good articles on the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty:

http://www.newsmax.com/ar[...]5.shtml

http://www.globalclimate.[...]Age.htm

http://www.ct-yankee.com/[...]to.html





As for socialism, there are varying degrees of it in different countries, but I think everyone knows the textbook definition. In the USA, we currently have a hybrid economy that's part capitalism and part socialism. As one would expect, it's a disaster, and the federal government is over US$7 trillion in the red, as a result.

Marxists consider socialism the phase between capitalism and communism (moving toward communism), and I can see why. As for what socialism means to me, as it exists in the USA, it's the forced redistribution of wealth. It's dependency on government. It's the various attempts of big government to try to control the economy and the players within it. It's the government taking MY money (often before I even receive it) and handing it out to others as the government sees fit, not as I see fit. It's about centralized control of the society, through control of the people's wealth. It's about the people serving the government instead of the other way around. It's about the government telling me how I must plan for my future (Social Security) and health care (Medicare & Medicaid). It's about lowering the standards to the lowest common denominator, so that everyone can appear to have achieved, regardless of talent, effort, or results. It's about the government attempting to tell me which vehicles I can drive (the latest SUV uproar) and to further control my health care (the proposed National Health Security Plan of the mid-1990s). It's about keeping the impoverished in a state of hopeless dependency on government assistance. It's about government policies removing the concept of charity from our daily lives. It's about our taxes being so high that we effectively work one quarter to one third of the year for the government. In the USA, we have an unfair graduated income tax system that punishes success. The federal income tax system is not based on fairness, as some would have us believe; it's based on class envy.

I reserve the right to answer the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" for myself. No one else, especially not the government, should have the right to answer that question for me. In a socialist system, I do not have the choice. Charities and the arts are important, but they should be supported by private citizens. The free market should control the economy, not government. That doesn't mean regulation isn't necessary, but there's a difference between government regulation and government involvement/control. Capitalism allows the people to control their own wealth and run their own lives. Socialism attempts to control the society by controlling (limiting and redistributing) the wealth of individuals, placing itself at the center of society, and making individuals dependent on handouts of various government services. That's where politicians get their power over our daily lives - power they should not have. I have no desire to worship government or to depend on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.



For those not in the USA:

Social Security = A government social welfare program that provides economic assistance to persons faced with unemployment, disability, or agedness, financed by assessment of employers and employees.
http://www.ssa.gov/

Medicare = The federal health insurance program for people 65 years of age or older, certain younger people with disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure with dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).
http://www.medicare.gov/

Medicaid = A joint federal and state program that helps with medical costs for some people with low incomes and limited resources. Medicaid programs vary from state to state, but most health care costs are covered if you qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/

National Health Security Plan (as proposed)
http://www.ibiblio.org/nh[...]-C.html