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

Here's a good entry:
Making sense of Meaning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A213328

Maybe not relevant, maybe it is...


This editorial was broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair on 5 June 1973 as the United States was withdrawing from Vietnam. It later was printed in the U.S. Congressional Record. The text here is the one forwarded by Gretchen Phillips that set off the round of discussion on the Sinclair Discussion List. The original script is also available.
"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
"When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering Americans.

"I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC-10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International Airlines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon?

"You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon — not once, but several times — and safely home again.

"You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

"When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

"Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those. Stand proud, Americans!"








thats all folks

phreak

you're right, not relevant
sorry, but I'm really sick of this, it annoys the c**p out of me. Saying all the good things about a country doesn't make it good, just as describing all the bad things about a country doesn't make it bad. This type of patriotism makes me feel (from any country) (especially my own).

> "Gee, where did YOUR perfect goverment come from?"

The one I've been busy criticising for being too pro-USA, having nuclear weapons, selling arms to just about anyone who'll pay, imposing sanctions against Iraq, having a totally outdated democratic system, and preferring spin over substance?

I dunno - got lucky I guess...

Uber Phreak, this is offensive:

"P.S. I am happy the Kenyens are glad to be the target of a mad man. If they thing they all diserve to die, that is their right, and if they think living under a cloud of terror is a good thing, good for them. Me, I like being free. Free from terror, iron fists contorling me, and able to think outside the box fed to them by their T.V. sets."

Did you actually read my post? Your overgeneralization about "the Kenyans" indicates that you skimmed it, at best. I was very clear on the point that there were SOME Kenyans who claim to support bin Laden, despite the fact that he killed 200 Kenyans, and that OTHER Kenyans think that such a point of view is vulgar, inexcusable and wrong. I haven't taken any surveys, but my impression is that bin Laden's supporters are a small minority of "the Kenyans" whom you choose to tar with one brush.

I understand that overgeneralization and oversimplification are EASIER than actual thought, but worthwhile things are difficult. Let's raise the bar a tad, shall we?

> "P.S. I am happy the Kenyens are glad to be the target of a mad man."

News flash - the whole is not the same as the part. Not all Kenyans are the same. But one thing I don't see is the Kenyans suddenly looking for retribution. (*ahem*, I meant 'justice'...)

> "able to think outside the box fed to them by their T.V. sets"

Seems to me that Al-Jazzheera is a pretty good example of a free television station - what say you? Or does 'them' = Kenyans in this case?

> "That means you would be the ones critisized by other nations for not bowing to the Terrorist, your families dying, your workplaces attacked."

I'm sure these words have a particular resonance to those in Israel, Pakistan, Northern Ireland (both sides), India, Pakistan, and everywhere else where the USA has criticised other nations for retaliating against terrorists in kind. Families dying, workplaces attacked.

> "mad man"

Justify that. Writing off your opponents in war as mad is absolutely standard practice, because then you can refuse to negotiate with them. Don't dehumanise people, and then you'll have a chance of understanding their motives.

there's a missing "' government" in the first sentence of mine there - see if you can spot it...

Theanthrope:

<>

I agree that it's misguided to send cruise missles after a murderer. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that the murderer is hiding in a country that won't extradite him and which is ready to use its military to keep him from facing justice. It's not really a situation that yields itself up to simple definitions. Does that make it justifiable for the US to go to war? I would say no.

I think that every civilian casualty suffered in Afghanistan is just as much an act of murder as every civilian casualty suffered in the 11/9 attacks. Being unapproved by the UN, the strikes currently underway are illegal acts of misguided revenge, as far as I can tell. If they lead to a diminution in world terrorism, then those ends still couldn't justify the means. More likely, they'll lead to an increase in world terrorism, since they exacerbate rather than address the causes.

This forum is getting more and more pathetic, skimming around the edges of a vitally important topic. Can we leave the no-brain flag-waving and generalisations behind now please?

GTbacchus: I was responding to the fact that some Kenyans arn't outraged by the attack there. Not all are happy with it, as was my point. The original statement was concerning the fact that they would not be happy to be attacked. I amended it with if they are happy, that is their right. If they feel they don't diserve freedom, IE they support a man attemping to sow terror across their nation, then they have every right to VOTE he into power. People have a right to be ruled, or to rule in any way they choose, as long as the leader is elected. No minority has the right to cease control of another with out their wish.

The whole point was that, speaking of "the kenyans" they ARE not happy with that. I am sure.

By the way, decideing what it was Laden did, be it a crime or an act of war, are important. That is how we decide to react to him. We also need to decide what it is the Taliban has done, and how to react to them.

> "the murderer is hiding in a country that won't extradite him and which is ready to use its military to keep him from facing justice."

As far as I can gather, the Taliban are using its military to fight their civil war with the Northern Alliance, and to try and defend themselves (and their country) from USA bombing raids. It seems disingenious to expect the Taliban to sit by and do nothing while foreigners bomb their country, if that's your complaint.

Your above sentence equally applies to the UK and France, amongst others. Fortunately, American propoganda has yet to decide that Tony Blair is a madman who can't be reasoned with, so we get to talk over these issues...

As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, no mad-man from England has murdered thousands of americans, and has Blair to hide behind. America did't just start bomb dropping the Taliban. They dropped them after the Taliban refused to hand over Laden, not before.

> "People have a right ... to rule in any way they choose, as long as the leader is elected."

You can have any government you like, as long as it's USA style democracy. How unexpectedly generous of you...

There are people on UK and French soil who have murdered Americans, certainly. The respective governments are (rightly) refusing to hand them over until the USA offers a garantee that they won't face capital punishment. Not thousands of deaths, though. More relevantly, not billions of dollars, which is all the politicians REALLY care about.

> "They dropped [bombs] after the Taliban refused to hand over Laden, not before."

And beforehand, when Clinton wanted an exciting foreign war to distract attention from some inconvenient stains on a certain lady's dress.

'As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, no mad-man from England has murdered thousands of americans, and has Blair to hide behind.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there other nationalities other than the US that were murdered ?

oh - I should remind you that Bin Laden is *from* Saudi Arabia (a non-democratic regime installed, financed, and supported by the US in exchange for cheap oil), not Afghanistan. I expect you knew that, but the parallel you drew left it ambiguous, so...

From BBC Radio 4:

> [affectionately]"My father was always there to greet me when I arrived. He was an austere yankee..."

Proof, if it was needed, that at least one person uses the work 'yank' in a positive way, and at least one BBC producer has a dictionary...

I didn't make the claim only USA style Democrasies are ok, I made the claim the people have a right to choose how to be ruled, and to have a say in their government. If the majority of people want to be ruled by a bald-headed chimpanzee named Ebert, that is their right.

The only way to make sure people want to be ruled by Ebert is to poll them. That is what voting is. Tyrants don't have a right to rule, unless the people give them that right, in many cases, the only way to give them that right is to elect him. Any other way to power does not result in the people GIVING someone the right to rule, but in the ruler-wanna-be TAKING that from the people.

Phreak - I wasn't being entirely serious when I said that. Mainly poking a little fun... However...

It could well be argued that what is important is that the people are ruled by the best person for the job, rather than the person they want to rule them. In some cases this will be the same person, but often it will not.

Pakistan is a case in point: the person running it declared himself president by military coup, yet his government has been infinitely more stable and just than the preceding 'democratic' rulers, who have often been corrupt, unresponsive to the population, and less concerned with rights and freedoms. Another case in point would be the reign of Afghanistan's King, who was unelected, but oversaw one of the comparative highpoints of Afghan history.

Even given that you want the 'popular' ruler over the one who will do the job best, modern democracies are poor tools for achieving this. For starters, the popular ruler is massively distorted by the advertising spend of major corporations, and the emphasis on spin and presentation. Then you have to consider the majority that do not vote, and the ever-present danger of split votes. Oh, and Arrow's Possibility Theorem appears to prove that these problems are essentially insoluble in a democracy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A568613).

It's typical of western arrogance to assume that because democracy sort of solves the problem of government over here, all other solutions are automatically inferio, or even *morally* wrong!

But the real issue is that if all you have is democracy, every nation looks like the United Nails of America. In a country with very low rates of literacy, with a significant proportion of religious extremists, with no history of democracy at any level, where the majority of the population live in the countryside, where communication and transport are pitiful, with massive poverty and famine, where the country is divided by religious and ethnic fears and hatred, where surrounding countries are largely undemocratic, where the religion of a large proportion of the populace commands them NOT to vote for governmental organisations, democracy will fail.

Given the division of Afghanistan between various warlords and other groups, and the existance of a few major cities which are highly isolated, I would opt for Feudalism as a vastly superior choice. It's what solved the problems of the Anglo-Saxon tribes in the time of King Arthur, under superficially similar circumstances.

Naturally, there'd need to be some modifications: feudalism relied on Christianity as its starting point, for example, but I think it could work well. It'd certainly be stable enough, provided everyone resisted the urge to intervene all over the place. And because regional variations are acceptable, more progressive regions could move forward, while more traditional areas kept their customs.

Bet you wish you hadn't brought it up...