Best Case/ Worst Case scenarios for the next four years

Politics International Politics
41

I agree. Foreigners definitely have legitimate cause to comment on, praise or criticize US policies, because the Earth no longer seems as vast as it once was long ago, with giant empty wilderness that one could harvest or pollute without limitations and no connection between the economies or military policies of one country and those of another on the far side of the globe. Today the world is a much smaller place and it is obvious all of earth’s citizens are interconnected in their ecosystems, economies, etc.

Of course foreigners have a legitimate right to criticize drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, just as Americans would be justified in criticizing government sponsored elephant hunts in Kenya or government gravel dredging operations on the beaches of Thailand.

42

So on that note MT:

What would you like to criticize about other countries? Please feel free to start in. When you get to 100, start over and keep going. It will be a welcome change of pace from your usual America is the root of all evil threads. hahah Aren’t you worried that posting such stuff will lead to hatred of Americans? or don’t we count as an Oppressed Group?

43

[quote=“fred smith”]So on that note MT:

What would you like to criticize about other countries? Please feel free to start in. When you get to 100, start over and keep going. It will be a welcome change of pace from your usual America is the root of all evil threads. hahah Aren’t you worried that posting such stuff will lead to hatred of Americans? or don’t we count as an Oppressed Group?[/quote]

Fred, you’re paranoid. I have lots of criticisms about other countries.

Myanmar has an illegitimate oppressive military govt that should hand over the presidency to Aung San Su Kye, who was elected by a huge majority of the people.

The Russian govt has been too harsh for decades in dealing with the Chechen situation.

Vietnam has a corrupt, inefficient and oppressive government and I’ll be happy as that gradually changes for the better.

Cambodia has countless serious problems ranging from massive corruption in the government, child prostitution and drug problems, lots of violent crimes which the govt is for the most part totally unable to respond to properly and perhaps most serious of all the surviving Khmer Rhouge perpetrators must be brought to justice.

Save the rainforests, stop child labor and child prosititution in various countries, etc.

I won’t give you 100, but you’re completely wrong to think I’m solely critical of US policies or to believe that I dislike the US. I love the US and I know there are many great things about our country, including our Constitutoin and our system of government (not including our President, but unlike Lien Chan I won’t be a big baby about that – I accept that he won the election. That’s how it works in a democracy.). Your belief that if one critizes US policy one must hate the country makes no sense. I have criticized various Bush administration policies because I love the country and I am sad to see it harmed by such an idiot. Comprende?

Incidentally, it’s also significant that the US is by far the most powerful nation on earth in terms of its military, economy, culture and the effect that they have on other countries. In case you haven’t heard of globalization, it’s this concept about increasing interconnectedness of all peoples on earth and, guess what, the US has a greater impact on all other countries on earth than they do on the US. Which is a reason why outsiders have legitimate cause to be interested in what’s going on in the US, because eventually it will affect them.

44

Couldn’t agree with you more on two of your three points, sbmoor262004. It is, indeed, obvious (to me at least) that there is nothing inherently superior about any ethnicity. Also agree with you that ethnocentrism is everywhere.

Regarding all cultures being exactly equally decent, just, noble, admirable (however one defines “superior”) … well this strikes me as less than obvious.

Hypothetical Cultures A and B
Imagine two cultures that are identical in every way except that Culture A embraces slavery while Culture B does not. Presumably you would not be prepared to say that Culture B is superior to Culture A?

What if Culture A embraced canibalism? What if it genitally mutilated every girl in the culture when she turned 13? What if it dictated that women’s place should always be subordinate to that of men? What if it believed that people of other races were less than human?

None of these cultural traits are fictional examples. All have, or do, exist in various cultures around the world. So, if you really believe that no culture is superior to any other I am very curious to understand why.

Logical Necessity
Is it your position that cultures are necessarily all equally desirable and valid (thus no matter how much suffering Culture A inflicted on innocents it could never be considered inferior to Culture B)? If so, why? Is it that you think that there is no such thing “good” and “bad” or “just” and “unjust” or “kind” and “cruel” – and thus the amount of each of these things in any given culture is irrelevant?

Empirical Coincidence
Or is your argument an empirical one: that even though it is theoretically possible for one culture to be superior to another, in the real world we every culture just happens to have exactly the same number of praiseworthy and blameworthy traits as every other culture, and that therefore the “superiority” of every culture in the world just happens to be identical.

(Note: if this is the case, then presumably the moment one culture changed – eliminating slavery for example – that culture would break the 2458-way (or however many cultures have existed or currently exist) ‘draw’ that currently exists and become superior to every other.)

How do you see it?

45

If we can criticize Taiwan, what is wrong with foreigners criticizing the US?

46

sbmoor262004,

One more question just occured to me:

If all cultures are equally admirable, what does this say about the attempts of members within that culture to improve it?

A gifted composer is born into a given culture. This composer proceeds to write scores of the most beautiful and meaningful music that anyone has ever heard. Has this composer not improved the culture? Has she not made it more rich?

An activist opponent of genital mutilation succeeds in ending that horrific practice within his culture. Has this person really wasted his time? Has this person not made the culture better?

In other words, if all cultures are exactly equal, and can never be better or worse than any other, then any attempt for Culture A to improve itself will be futile, since no matter what it does it can never become “superior” to Culture A at t-1. Under this conception, any change in a culture can only succeed in making it “different”, but never better. Artists, writers, proponents of positive societal change … they all live meaningless lives.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that your idea (that no culture can be superior to any other) is not only difficult to accept – but it is also a very depressing conclusion to come to.

47

Yes, Hobbes, that’s true. Since superior is an opinion, however, it is relative and not factual. I have a student who thinks mainland China’s government is more suitable for Taiwan. I’m not a big fan of moral relativism (well, as long as THEY think spitting in your eye is nice, then…), and I think that pre-Bush U.S. was better than during Bush because it was more tolerant and willing to act reflectively rather than impulsively. However, that’s my opinion. To some degree I think a culture can be judged by its own standards. In Taiwan, hacking up phlegm and spitting it on the street is not seen as nasty, so I tend not to judge phlegm spitters as harshly as I would in the U.S. However, the more cosmopolitan a country the better able we are to perceive universal values. In Slovenia, a man who disciplines his child by beating him may not be seen as a bad father whereas most rational Westerners likely feel that he is. The more cosmopolitan a country becomes, the more it seeks to change. Here, for example, blacks are still harassed and laughed at but probably less than before. Efforts to reform cultures really MUST be accepted and implemented from within to be effective, and often comes from people’s sense that there are model cultures to emulate. Anyway, I’ll stop my rant.

48

Well said sbmoor. Apologies if I misinterpreted your earlier statement – it appears that we don’t really disagree at all. I’m also 100% with you on the benefits of being flexible enough to adopt some variation on a “when-in-Rome” approach to judgment when the circumstances call for it.

Cheers,
H

49

[quote=“Maposquid”]I notice in the “morgue” thread in which you write about John Peel, you imply that you are British.

[color=red]Why[/color] do you care what the U.S. national debt is, or whether the U.S. drills in Alaska? Or about rights for “minorities” in the U.S.? You obviously don’t care about the rights of Arabs to live without repression, and odds are you don’t know a thing about ANWR beyond “there’s oil in that thar tundra!”

Are you looking into becoming a U.S. citizen, perhaps?[/quote]

Maposquid was not attempting to stop you from posting your opinion. he clearly was asking you [color=red]Why[/color] you care about U.S. domestic matters.

50

you can criticize the us. and americans can point out how ignorant your generalizations are.

51

you can criticize the us. and Americans can point out how ignorant your generalizations are.[/quote]

and she in turn can point out how ignorant your response is.

Are you suggesting that foreigner’s are too ignorant to comment on domestic matters in Taiwan (as CS humorously puts it “You foreigners just don’t understand Taiwan culture.”)? Do you believe that quote? If not, then why would you believe mesheel is too ignorant to understand US policies? Or were you just trying to be an asshole?

52

you can criticize the us. and Americans can point out how ignorant your generalizations are.[/quote]

and she in turn can point out how ignorant your response is.

Are you suggesting that foreigner’s are too ignorant to comment on domestic matters in Taiwan (as CS humorously puts it “You foreigners just don’t understand Taiwan culture.”)? Do you believe that quote? If not, then why would you believe mesheel is too ignorant to understand US policies? Or were you just trying to be an asshole?[/quote]

uh, did you even read the post of her’s i’m refering to from a few days ago or did you decide to jump in here without knowing what i’m talking about?

53

As a holder of dollars and dollar assets, I’m sincerely worried about the US dollar losing its cachet. If Asian central banks lose their appetite for it there’s no telling what the sum of negative consequences will be but I don’t think it will be pretty. For what it’s worth, I don’t think Kerry was the solution to the problem.

If someone would just give Bush a quick bitch slappin’ and remind him he’s a Republican then more power to him if he can put the brakes on the dollar’s and the US economy’s slide and right the economic ship of state again.

As far as criticizing Israel goes, as a US taxpayer I’ve earned the right. As long as we keep giving Israel 3+ billion dollars per year for essentially nothing but their dirty laundry (Saddam Hussein) in return then I’ll keep right on criticizing our relationship with them.

When the taxpayer-financed foreign welfare and the carte blanche access to all levels of our government ends then I’ll be more than happy to shut up about Israel but until then anyone who doesn’t like it – or my nifty little George Washington quote – can kiss my but-ox.

54

For one thing, because we actually live here and know something about what is going on.

For another thing, I don’t think that I personally have done much criticising of Taiwan. There are some things that are clearly not good here, like spitting betel nut juice all over the sidewalks or peeing in public or letting stray dogs and cats crap everywhere – these are public health issues which are unambiguously negative – but I haven’t been bitching about their political choices or that they don’t allow guns here.

I expect the same regard from those who have never lived in the U.S., who don’t understand American culture, and who have no knowledge of the U.S. beyond what they’ve read in today’s issue of The Guardian.

55

The Founding Fathers clearly understood what guns were. In their day, citizens were allowed to own any weapon that the government could own, including cannon. This situation generally persisted without any problems until 1934 – the only laws to that point were prohibitions against blacks and Italians owning guns.

For gay marriages, since the issue didn’t exist, they would probably see it as a 10th Amendment issue which should be left to the various states and individuals. Unfortunately, homosexuals seem to think that they should be allowed to force this down everyone else’s throats through judicial fiat instead of by passing laws through the legislative process to allow it.

Same thing goes for abortion. I seem to recall that it was legal back then, and it’s legal today.

What is the difference between taxing “online sales” of goods and taxing the sale of goods? None that I can see. It’s a nonissue.

I think the Founding Fathers would have been aghast at how much crap civilized people are expected to put up with from neanderthal-like protesters who burn flags, trash storefronts, and riot.

If the homosexual lobby hadn’t made an issue of a supposed “right” which has never existed before in history, then there would be no backlash against “gay marriage”.

56

I don’t believe that understanding a country, it’s politics, culture and people does require having lived there. This is not to say that I understand what US politics, though.

So which post do you refer to Flipper? The one about America being the land of the free? You don’t actually believe that, do you?

57

below is the opinion of 2 of my friends living in Canada who love to watch wars:

Best Case:

Bush attacks and invades IRAN, take over the middle east completely
Further clamps down on muslim rights

Worst Case:
Doesn’t do anything
Retreats from IRAQ
Negotiates a successful peace treaty in Isreal

58

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
For gay marriages, since the issue didn’t exist, they would probably see it as a 10th Amendment issue which should be left to the various states and individuals. Unfortunately, homosexuals seem to think that they should be allowed to force this down everyone else’s throats through judicial fiat instead of by passing laws through the legislative process to allow it.[/quote]

I think the gays and lesbians just want equal rights to marry the person they love. This is not a “special” right. Nor do I think that demanding their rights equals forcing it down anyone’s throats.

The Right did not spring into existence with the birth of the Gay Rights movement.

Evangelical Christianity has a fairly long history in America and it is mostly due to them that the Right exists for they comprise it.

59

You’re all mising the point. Its not so much that non-American’s have no business criticizing America. Americans should also never criticize America. To do so is not only insubordinate, its un-patriotic. Sit down, shut up, and be a good German, ummm, American.

Me, I’m a Californian, and I’m glad we have a Governor who can read the Bush Administration’s social policies in the original German urtext.

If you would like to respond, please do not address my point, instead create ad-hominem arguments against me, possibly based on my previous writings.

-BigJim

60

The Founding Fathers clearly understood what guns were. In their day, citizens were allowed to own any weapon that the government could own, including cannon. This situation generally persisted without any problems until 1934 – the only laws to that point were prohibitions against blacks and Italians owning guns.[/quote]

I didn’t ask about guns. I asked about assault rifles, something that is far different from the guns that existed in their day and raises new issues. Armed urban gangs did not exist then either. Nor were assault rifles used in bank robberies and attacks on police officers back then, new phenomena about which it is hard to predict how the drafters might have felt.

You got that exactly backwards. It’s religious wackos and repubs that want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriages. The drafters of the Constitution probably never would have imagined the concept of gay marriages.

Wrong. It is a very big issue. It’s my understanding that there has been debate all over the world in recent years on the issue of whether and how to tax e-commerce and there is no universal answer.

But those were all just representative examples anyway. The point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of technologies, institutions and practices that exist today that did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it is often impossible to decide a case by looking at the Constitution and asking what did the framers of hte Constitution think about this. Who knows how they would have felt about whether Kazaa is infringing on the rights of copyright holders, and so forth? In many such cases, it is impossible to say how they would have felt because they could not possibly have imagined such situations.