h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"So should I think because of that all canadians are anti education, lacking in common sense and basic intelligence. {I do not} Is not your opinions of Americans garnered in much the same way?"

Well, I can't speak for other Canadians, but I don't garner my opinion of Americans in that way. In fact, when I have posted opinions of things American, I have made a clear distinction between Mr. Bush, the Congress, the people, the corporations, the relationship between the federal government and the aboriginal people, the American news media, etc. When I have stated an opinion of the American people I have discussed my experiences of meeting and knowing some of those people. Unless you count my comparison of my brother-in-law to Homer Simpson, my only negative comment about an American has concerned an American queue-jumper in a Paris train station. I assume that since you quoted my post in your post you were directing your comment at me in particular. I realize it is hard to keep track of all of the posts of a certain individual, but I do try to keep track of my own. If I have given you the wrong impression somewhere along the way, I'm sorry. I reiterate, however, that I try to draw an explicit distinction between the various aspects of America just as I try to draw the same distinction between the various aspects of Canada, or, indeed, of any nation or state.



anhaga

>> I try to draw an explicit distinction between the various aspects of America just as I try to draw the same distinction between the various aspects of Canada, or, indeed, of any nation or state. <<

Well said, anhaga!
As a fellow Canadian you may have seen that sad story of the Jewish chap in Montreal, a Zionist who has spent his entire life to date supporting Isreal. But recently he began taking a stand against the policies of President Sharon and the State of Isreal which continues to inflict 'incursions and terror' upon the Palestinians. Now he is getting threatening phone calls and being labelled anti-semitic!

He too very carefully makes the distinction between people and political policies quite well. He is still Jewish, he is still a Zionist, but he does not condone the abusive and murderous means that are being used by Sharon and the Isreali army. As he said (I paraphrase) "It's almost funny to be called anti-semitic when I am a Zionist! But it's awfully scary too. I am not anti-semitic (that would be physically impossible) but it makes me sick that some of my fellow Jews are now threatening my life because I stand up for an end to the terror and violence of our government."

I know exactly how he feels; it is not a pleasant feeling to be called anti-semitic for criticising the arrogance of Isreal's encroachments and settlements on Palestinian territories. Nor can I look favourably on the ferocity of young Isreali soldiers with guns and helicopter gunships who terrorise their almost helpless 'neighbors', bulldozing houses, shooting children, crushing the infrastructure in the name of 'peace'.

I'm not Jewish. Nor am I anti-semitic. But I have long been angered by Isreal's murderous treatment of the Palestinians. It should have all been resolved after the Munich Olympic massacres in 1972 but it wasn't. So I have spoken out a few times in private conversations whenever the Palestinians were dismissed as losers or villains who deserve to be wiped off the planet.

I have never spoken about it publicly and always very specifically against the state policies and their military actions; never against the people of Isreal, their religion, or their cousins throughout the world, an increasingly few of whom I count among my friends. But a very scary minority always seem to see it all as inseparable and somehow I have been branded an anti-semite for nearly 30 years. This has played hell with my career, and I never seem to be able to get anything wholesale anymore.

~jwf~

Anaga,I misworded the response it was not aimed at you. I apologise.

thanks, jwf.

"He too very carefully makes the distinction between people and political policies quite well."


That distinction is all too often lost, particularly when highlighting the attitude of the rest of the world to US foreign policy. Qute frankly, it pisses me off as I believe the news reports in the US do this on purpose: refering to demonstrations as "anti American" instead of "anti American foreign policy" or "anti American administration".

Once the perception is established that the protests are against Americans, Bush and company jump on the bandwagon to play the "us versus them" tune.

ApparÏtÏon: "It's definatelty not world wide."


I'm not so sure.

He starbirth, no problem. I understand how loose lips sink ships; that's why I try to be careful. Actually, I made a mistake in my response to you: I've also made negative comments about another individual American: the President. I'm not intending to retract those specific negative comments, and I don't expect you want me to.
I've said in a previous post somewhere around here that the U. S. news media, particularly CNN have done a disservice to the American people. I stand by that statement and I feel I should add that a number of institutions (for lack of a better term) have done a similar disservice to the American people, including the Hollywood film industry and the television industry. But that gets us into the whole issue of Corporate Citizenship which is a real can of worms.



anhaga

Hi anhaga et al

Did you all see this story today ?

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

This story covers a leaked NSA document which reveals that the NSA has been bugging UN delegate's internal UN and domestic communications. With help from GB.

If the US (and UK !) use dirty tricks to bribe and bully weaker nations into supporting a 2nd UN resolution, does that not undermine the legitimacy of the vote ?

why do these news papers actually make up this crap?

like you can just ring up the NSA and ask for one of there spies!

What makes you think the document (printed in full) is "made up ?

PLUS - Who "made it up" and why ?

I'd be very interested to have your considered opinion......

do you know how easy it is to send email as if its addressed from someone else?

this could have been made up by anyone, im sure there are a lot up people out to undermine the usa (do you really want a list).

"But that gets us into the whole issue of Corporate Citizenship which is a real can of worms."

Yes, and isn't that the real can of worms that this whole war issue is about? Consider it please.

The first gulf war followed the worst looting of the savings and loan industry in American history under the Reagan administration of which the elder Bush was a part. When he attempted to use the gulf war to his benefit during his reelection campaign he was felled by the simple slogan, "It's the economy, stupid!"

This proposed gulf war follows one of the worst if not the worst looting of the American stock market in American history under the Clinton administration.

The younger Bush is attempting to do exactly what his father did to deflect the blame because whether they contribute to the Democrats or the Republicans, the corporations or at least their officers aren't being good citizens. So it doesn't matter who's in the Whitehouse if he represents them rather than the American people at large.

The president is supposed to be elected by all the people, not just the people in a particular state, so he needs to have the whole nation's interest at heart. But Bush wasn't even elected by a credible plurality so we can sort of guess who he represents and it ain't the American people at large. The younger Bush clearly doesn't represent those people and neither did his father or Reagan for that matter.

Clinton was so busy hitting on women and lying in court about it while helping his political cronies in business that he couldn't have had the people's interest at heart even if he'd wanted to, but he gave that impression at least, "I feel your pain," whether it was true or not. And a few crumbs from the royal table dropped down here and there as they often do, falling through the cracks.

But Bush makes no such representations. Bush's people are drawn from the business sector, and he's proud of it. They are the corporate officers that created the problems and some like Cheney or Bush himself were involved in highly questionable practices during the Clinton era and earlier. They are now running the country as if it were one of their corporations. That's really frightening because there's a whole lot more to loot from the United States than from some overcapitalized corporation and much greater potential for not only economic hardship but death and destruction as we've already seen.

Even so we're talking about wealth, at least on paper, equivalent to the economic capacity of many third world nations. And those nations have watched that wealth seemingly created then stolen right before their eyes. Is it any wonder they don't trust Americans? Because in many cases that wealth is theirs, looted from their countries so American businesses can make obscene profits by keeping labor and other resource costs pitifully low.

This is the American freedom the American soldiers are talking about defending right now whether they realize it or not, the freedom to loot at will and that's why discussing good corporate citizenship is probably more important right now than many other related topics, such as the presumed pretexts for the war.

That's because UN resolutions have really very little to do with this proposed war and what really is relevant to it we don't discuss for some reason.

Well kc, you've really convinced me now.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Analiese:

I agree it's the can of worms that this whole thing is about. I was just backing off because I'm tired of banging my head against that same old wall (I'm "still fed up", remember?). I just want you to know that again I agree with you.

So, then the next question, kc, is why didn't the American government deny it if it's really fraudulent?

Well, thanks anyways, Anhaga, for giving me the lead.

I've said what I can about it now and if anybody wants to listen or pursue it further, it's there on the table, so to speak. I suspect some of the regular Bush supporters will shove it in the wastebasket as they usually do but some may at least start to question what's going on a little more maybe.

I really want to believe that the majority of the American people are really too decent to let this go on much longer.

"this could have been made up by anyone, im sure there are a lot up people out to undermine the usa (do you really want a list)."

and there are a whole lot of people (with a lot of money and really big computers and guns and lackeys) out to promote war with Iraq or whatever. So what if some guy made up a story about wire taps at the UN and published it in a newspaper and had supporting documentation and in a few days the various delegations made public their own evidence and the Bush administration had to do a whole lot of damage control. Oh, sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. It's an interesting story, lets see where it is in a few days before we start flying off with "it's crap" or "it's true" or "you're crap" or "no, you are!"

(personally, I think the story's probably pretty much true, but I'm going to wait and see what happens. I'm more interested in the little curve ball the Turkish parliament threw.)

Homework:

The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Democracy Under the Rule of Big Business by Murray Dobbin

and

No Logo by Naomi Klein