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

Della, I never said you were

Space Cadette and Della...

I'm an American, and I've gotten a little hot under the collar at some of the things said on this thread. Some of them may have been more true than I realized at the time - the underlying dynamics behind our politics with Israel, for instance. After some conversation with Deidzoeb and others, I can see that our foreign policies need to be reevaluated.

I still get pissed at the blanket accusation of immorality and ignorance. I popped off at T'mershi several posts back for that very reason. (Some comment about how Americans deserved whatever they got; negatively, and it's really what this thread has been about all along.

My guesses:

• Because the lifeblood of America is in its big businesses, they're allowed to set up shop in other countries without the economic and environmental restrictions they have here in the U.S. But because 'Nike' is seen as an American brand, their sweatshops become an embarrassment to the U.S. We need world-wide standards for pollution control, wage regulation, and labor conditions. We can't ask Nike to follow America's laws if they're set up in China, for the same reasons that Japan can't ask Sony to obey Japanese law in America. (Which reminds me; our non-elected Prez, G. Dubya Bush, shot that Kyoto environmental conference down - probably because of his Enron connections, wanna bet?)

• According to our Constitution, the American people are to blame if the president screws up. After all, we elected him, right? Of course, it doesn't work that way at all - just look at the last election. (by popular vote, Al Gore won. Not that he would have been any better - I'd rather have had Ralph Nader, if I had my druthers.) It's a demonstration of how dangerously outdated the two-party system is, and one of the reason the founding fathers of America came over here in the first place was to get away from all that. The original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been altered through amendments and judicial decisions. I don't think it's corrupt, but there's way too much bureaucracy and fluff in the corners for it to be an efficient system of government.

• Our foreign policies and our intelligence agencies need to be reevaluated. Right now foreign policy is handled by appointed officials, and it's based upon economic interest. The reason Israel was initially supported in the whole Palestine debacle is because of our Jewish population. As a multi-cultural country, we can't afford to show Israel preference over Iraq, or any other Muslim nation.

• The reason people think that Americans are corrupt, lazy, slothful, ignorant? I haven't figured this out yet. I've seen a lot of general examples, but it really boils down to cultural differences rather than actual attitudes. I'd like to hear the opinions of non-Americans - I promise not to blow up at you!

Oops - deleted a line accidentally - the second paragraph should be:

I still get pissed at the blanket accusation of immorality and ignorance. I popped off at T'mershi several posts back for that very reason. (Some comment about how Americans deserved whatever they got; the usual.) I'd like to know why the Americans are perceived negatively, and it's really what this thread has been about all along.

"Which reminds me; our non-elected Prez, G. Dubya Bush, shot that Kyoto environmental conference down - probably because of his Enron connections, wanna bet?"

(Sorry for not being a non-American who responds, but I couldn't resist.)

The above comment is moot -- I can't better against what I agree with! Still would love to know what those "advisory talks" were between members of the energy producing/brokering companies (including Enron) and VP Cheney were about.

Have you ever noticed that when it looks like someone (this time, Bush) is about to get what they want as far as drilling for more oil is concerned, that the funding for reasearch and development of alternate sources for energy dries up immediately or right before?
Funny, that.

SC

"I can't better against what I agree with!"

Oops, make that "bet against", will ya? (Read twice, post once!)

SC

Lentilla(?), I realize I am just jumping in here kinda univited and all, but I found your comments very interesting--perception carying the weight it does. No, Nike in China isn't the same Nike in the US--but the company's labor practices are still going to reflect on this country. I 'spose--at least, I imagine, the world's problems w/ America stems from a perceived arrogance. I mean, look around--how many militaries from other countries have stations your backyard? Our foriegn policy doesn't have as as much to do with "defending freedom" around the globe as it does with protecting the economic interests of big business. You have to remenber that when the right calls for "less government" what they are really saying is less regulation on big business. I've said it before, you can sum US foreign policy in four words: "Western Advance/Eastern Retreat". This government cannot continually stick its noise into the Middle East under the guise of purporting democracy and human rights or whatever they want to call it--when the interests are almost assuredly purely financial--whether that be protecting the Bush family's stock in oil companies or continued slavery under the wage system.

Re: US Foreign Policy...

http://www.satirewire.com/briefs/belgium.shtml

*Belgium man Belgium*
Rod

King: Ah, yes. All the people that used to believe that Manifest Destiny was a valid foreign policy are long dead, but their ghosts still haunt Congress. Big biz owns politics right now.

I guess it comes down to the question of whether we'd be fighting terrorism right now if we hadn't supported Israel in the '50s. What were we supposed to tell the Jewish-Americans back then? What are we supposed to tell the Muslim-Americans today? I don't know. Sigh... I don't turn the TV on any more. Too depressing.

Or I will have to rend thee in the gobblewarts with my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!

You know what I really miss? The Dirk Gently detective series. I immensely enjoyed both of those, and I'll never get to read another one.

*apologizes for the outrageous topic drift from the already drifting topic*


Researcher 178202
can you check your email?

I too share your sense of frustration. On one (very real) hand, I can dismiss global politics and go back to my self-serving/self-indulgent life(style). But sometimes I find myself forced to at least ponder this (very real) problem. It goes so far past just "not in my backyard" rhetoric. What am I trying to say here? There is a consistency that we as human beings are capable of--that we should demand that our government as our represenatives be held accountable for. I'm not sure what we could have told the Jewish-Americans back in the fifties--but I do know this: Freedom should never be measured in dollars and cents--and that is what it has come to. Spilling innocent blood to avenge the spilling of innocent blood is, I believe to be, (just a little) counterproductive. This country spends upwards of $400 billion/yr. on "defense". Our jails are clogged w/ non-violent drug offenders--and George W. benefits directly (financially) from every prisoner incarcerated. I can't believe I see things others don't; I can't believe I am privee to classified information. I am forced to conclude that very few care...

Yawn - who cares

In what way does the president benefit from every person in jail or prison in the United States? Blanket statements like that are very rarely true.

I don't really care all that much whether or not drugs are illegal in this country. I enforce the laws as they're written with discretion. What I see is a culture that use and distrinute drugs that are deeply involved in violence and crimes aginast property. Most of the time, the courts try to put people on probation first regardless of their offense. A lot of the time they wind up in prison for violating probation by commiting additional crimes.

How does Bush benefit directly financially? Before being allowed to take office, Bush was required to absolve all interests in the Kefee Corp. The Kefee Corp. has the single largest food serving contract for the Federal Prison system. Bush had quite a large stock holding in the company. In order to tke the Presidency he had to sell those interests. He did. He signed over his holdings to his mother. So, you see, TBTPM, it is by ne means a stretch to imply that with Kefee still in family hands, Bush Jr. does in fact receive some of those benefits. I mean, if Kefee is selling food to the prison system, it makes sense that the more prisoners, the bigger the contract, and the bigger the contract--the bigger the profit. Unless, of course, you think Barbara is the hoarding type...

I think there are better and more direct examples of how Bush benefits financially from his presidency than this one.

Well yeah, can you say ENRON?
But do take the man'sd point-it's pretty disgraceful.

I doubt Bush gets much "input" from Enron these days?

Sorry, that "?" shouldn't have been there.

I doubt he gets anything but a massive headache from Enron these days, to be honest.