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

and now come to think about it the USA world cup was the one where they allowed the basketball king of Argentina to score...Conspiracy!!

Maybe it was payback to the fourth reich skulking in the rainforests for backing off on Britain just at the wrong time..ie when the Battle of Britain was going pearshaped!!

Quote (Steve K):

And don't get me started on "student athletes" - some big "football factories" have graduation rates of ZERO for athletes. One big name college quarterback had one class his last year - ballroom dancing. Ohio State University spends over $100 millon per year on athletics, and recently started allowing cheerleaders to fly on the chartered team jets - it helps cheerleader recruiting. (An old joke, "Now we need a university our football team can be proud of." Maybe they'll buy MIT.)

END QUOTE

Being an American myself, I totally agree with you here on athletics. It seems a lot of the colleges go athletes first, then athletes with smarts second. What bugs me too is a lot of these people get free rides (as in room, board, books, tuition and fees, etc.) and some don't even care about making decent grades. They make high enough to keep their scholarships, but most just coast through college. Whereas, if you have smarts, you're lucky if you get a decent scholarship that's more than $500 for the whole year.

The tuition issue too makes me upset as well because unless you're really poor or really wealthy, it is hard to get a scholarship. Out of those I won, most were earned directly or indirectly because I juggled in talent shows. I received one because I was a mascot, which there I almost lost it because the cheerleaders wanted to replace me because I didn't want to go clubbing, claiming it as I didn't do my job. Just to clarify, I didn't want to go clubbing mostly because the night in question they were using to try to do this, I had altitude sickness compounded by wearing said mascot suit for a game. I still don't know how I managed to not totally pass out that entire night (to this day I don't remember all of it). I only had two scholarships where it was related to my field, and they were both minor.

A third issue is that in states such as Texas, we're teaching our kids to pass a test, not teaching in the proper form. I've seen kids who talk on and on about TAKS, but if I ask them something about history, they'll be confused. I've seen kids who have said the Alamo is where Texas won its independence (it was San Jacinto), among other historical blunders. Other funny ones to me are people saying "Deep in the Heart of Texas" is the state song (It's "Texas Our Texas"), and are surprised to know that Texas can legally divide itself into five separate states. Our state constitution allows this, and is the only state that can do so. American and world history are no better off.

One thing I think that has harmed our country is the fact too that people are trying to give illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens (born or naturalized). What bugs me is that because I'm from a state that is near the US - Mexico border, I hear/read in the media that we're against immigration and that we're being unfair for guarding our boarders. Personally, I'm for immigration - LEGAL immigration, and what they're doing is illegal. The people in question are not trying to become citizens and a lot send the money home to Mexico, which is ruining our economy.

Part of the problem too with immigration is that if you have a child born in the United States, they automatically become a citizen. So, you have pregnant women crossing the borders illegally to give birth on US soil and then claim Medicaid and other benefits. Menus have become more and more bilingual and more often than not I'm starting to repeat my order because there's a person on the registers who does not understand English. If you want to live in the United States, you should learn English, because I'm sure if I went to any country outside the US to live in, I would have to learn their language. If I tried to become a Mexican citizen illegally, I would be shot.

There are so many things we need to fix in just those two things above to help make our country better. Unfortunately, I think at times we're more focused on celebrities who don't care about anyone then themselves (sometimes not even themselves) than we are about fixing our country.

<>

I'm confused here. If memory serves me correctly, President Woodrow Wilson was the one who helped with the Treaty. He was president during World War I, but tried to keep the U.S. out of it until the assassination of the Archduke. If this is after the fact, I apologize. The fact does remain though that the restrictions were detrimental to Germany, and one reason Hitler and the Nazis came into power.

Heh, heh, heh.... Guess you're right about getting history mixed up.... My mistake.

Anyway, I don't know for sure whether Wilson (or whoever) was trying to keep the U.S. out of it or not (my guess would be not), but I don't think it would have been the assassination of the Archduke that changed his mind, since that was what started World War 1.




~*~Menus have become more and more bilingual and more often than not I'm starting to repeat my order because there's a person on the registers who does not understand English. If you want to live in the United States, you should learn English, because I'm sure if I went to any country outside the US to live in, I would have to learn their language.~*~

It's true that English is the National Language, so it makes sense for people to learn it. But by the same token, I'd say it's only fair that you learn Spanish once it's the Second National Language (and it's just a matter of time).

Oh, yeah; what are "TAKS"?

" No American involvement until it was already clear the Germans had failed to invade Britain."

Which was of course more to do with their efforts against the Soviet Union than against us...

In the early 70's, the MOD conducted a series of war games to which they invited many of the surviving WWII German commanders and Generals. The war games simulated the invasion of Britain by Germany. In every single scenario, the invasion failed. Although the Germans could achieve temporary control of the English Channel to get their army across, they couldn't control it in the face of a determined Royal Navy for more than 24 hrs. The RN would have cut the supply lines, slaughtered the reinforcements and the Germans landed in Britain would have become entangled in a series of defensive lines in depth until they ran out of food, ammunition and troops.

A German invasion of Britain would have meant no invasion of the Soviet Union, a negotiated peace in Europe and the US being limited to a Pacific War.

Thats quite interesting....

<<" No American involvement until it was already clear the Germans had failed to invade Britain."
Which was of course more to do with their efforts against the Soviet Union than against us...>>

Not really. As we've already discussed, Germany had already given up on trying to invade Britain by the time she turned her attention on Russia.

Operation Barbarossa didn't begin until June 1941, when Germany had decided it wasn't going to be able to launch an invasion of Britain.

TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Assessment_of_Knowledge_and_Skills

There is controversy about "teaching to the test", i.e. spending virtually all class time preparing for answering test type questions. The Texas Legislature seems to be fiddling endlessly with the requirements, since every parent knows their kid is above average.

<>

Sorry, I forgot that the acronym isn't well-known, even in the United States. If anything, the only lingo that would be known nationwide as a problem in Texas is Robin Hood, which is a nickname for a school funding program. This case, wealthy schools give the state money to distribute to poorer schools. Problem is, there are quite a few school districts that are considered wealthy when they are not, but they have to pay the money anyway, sometimes in the millions.

TAKS, otherwise knowns as "Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills" is what you have to take and pass to graduate from high school in the Lone Star State. When I was in school, they were different, but because they were deemed easy, they were turned to TAKS, which I've heard is very difficult. So, now they're spending most of their time studying for this test instead of actually learning.

<>

Wilson (president from 1913-1921) was trying to stay neutral and out of it, same with FDR in World War II. But you're right about the Archduke not being the reason. It was the sinking of the Lusitania that eventually led to the deciding of joining the war. My mistake, and thank you for setting me straight there.

<>

I do know Spanish, as it was the only second language class offered when I was in school. That said, we shouldn't be catering to another country to make them comfortable. I have seen too many people who refuse to learn English because they know we're catering to their wishes. If I went to Mexico or just about every other foreign country, I don't think, save any business that is international (McDonald's, etc.), that I'd see bilingual menus readily.

I think too that if you are from another country and are trying to get a job here, you should learn English as well. Even if it ends up a bit Pidgin English, it helps out (you can improve on your language as you practice). It's gotten so bad here, I've nearly had to speak in Spanish to order something save hamburger (hamburgesa), and that's what shouldn't happen.

The reason I get so upset in regards to bilingual menus and such is that I had four international students as roommates in college. They spent on semester on campus as part of their lessons - so they could have someone with them a good portion of the day after ESLI (English as a Second Language - International) to learn English with. Two of my roommates were from South Korea, two from Taiwan.

All four of them, plus a few other friends and relatives my roommates had attending school, were always asking me questions on how to say/spell words I said. If I couldn't explain it, I'd either draw it out or use their English-Korean/Mandarin electronic translators. In turn, I also found out that when someone who was a Korean in "M*A*S*H" would respond to Radar, for example, they were really responding to the question and not just saying various Korean words. I thought that was pretty cool.

Point is, even if I didn't understand them at times, and vice versa, they were willing to learn English and stop at nothing to learn it. On the same token, I learned a few phrases in Korean and Mandarin, but they didn't expect me to speak their language. In the end, all of us learned a lot about our cultures and a little bit about each language.

However, I have seen quite a few native Mexicans who reside here expect everyone to speak their language and get upset when they do not when a. a lot of people cannot and b. some speak in Spanish because they think that most Americans don't know Spanish and want to be smart-alecs. I've actually responded to a comment made about me before, which totally threw the offenders (it was derisive) off guard because they didn't think I knew the language.

This is why I feel we need some reform in general. If you are an immigrant, you should be a legal one and earn your right to be a citizen - as in none of this granting citizenship Bush is trying to get. Also, there should be some reform on how you can become a citizen even by birth. And, you should have a working knowledge of English, even if it's a bit butchered like the one soldier in "'Allo, 'Allo." There are some words that are cognants, and there are quite a few people I've known everywhere who are willing to work with people if they have trouble saying exactly what they want. It benefits all that way.

>In the early 70's, the MOD conducted a series of war games to which they invited many of the surviving WWII German commanders and Generals. The war games simulated the invasion of Britain by Germany. In every single scenario, the invasion failed. Although the Germans could achieve temporary control of the English Channel to get their army across, they couldn't control it in the face of a determined Royal Navy for more than 24 hrs. The RN would have cut the supply lines, slaughtered the reinforcements and the Germans landed in Britain would have become entangled in a series of defensive lines in depth until they ran out of food, ammunition and troops.

That makes an assumption which is that given the real possiblity of a German fleet making its way across the channel we'd have continued fighting. To be honest, given what I know about pre-war British politics, if there was a serious chance of a Nazi invasion of Britain Churchill's coalition government would have been dismissed and Lord Halifax would have become Prime Minister and immediately brokered a peace deal with Hitler that guaranteed no Nazi invasion of Britain as long as we stood down and concluded some sort of "non agression pact". Hitler had no territorial interests in Britain and never wanted a war with us in the first place. And like it or not, Churchill's bullish attitude was not popular in 1939 with a populace who didn't want a repeat of the horrors of the 1914-18 war and would gladly sacrifice freedom on mainland Europe to avoid it. There's a speech Churchill gave when explaining his rational for war that hinted his own sympathies with this attitude. I'm doing this from memory but it went something like this:

"There are those who say who cares about the continent of Europe? Leave her to her savagery, her violence and her tyranny. What does that matter to us? *And there would be something in this argument* were we able to cut these islands adrift and shore ourselves off the American coast. But this is not possible" (my emphasis)

Churchill never pretended we were fighting the war for much other than preserving Britain's Great Power status. He opposed Halifax's peace plans mainly because it would mean Britain existing "with the permission" of Germany. Given a choice between a sovereign Britain stripped of its powers but free from Nazi troops in the streets and the very real threat of Nazi troops landing in Britain leading to a long, bloody war on British soil and the very real possibility of German rule here I think Churchill would have wobbled and the British public generally would have seen that as an easy choice.

Hmm, that's a difficult one for us to consider on balance given the passage of time. I've spoken to people who have told me the "Dunkirk spirit" and "stiff upper lip" was a figment of the media, that they witnessed troops firing into terrified crowds at Liverpool Docks desperately trying to flee the country. Panic & hysteria was the order of the day.

But there were detailed plans to resist invasion which were well advanced. The failure of the Maginot Line taught lessons which appeared to have been well learnt.

Militarily, Britain would in all likelihood have thrown back an invasion at a horrendous cost to the Germans. Trying to assess the political picture with 70 years of hindsight is extremely problematic imo.

<>

The UK now require anyone wishing to become a British citizen to first pass a basic test of English.

It's quite a recent introduction, aimed at encouraging integration. Mrs WG had to take it before she became British.

>But there were detailed plans to resist invasion which were well advanced. The failure of the Maginot Line taught lessons which appeared to have been well learnt.

>Militarily, Britain would in all likelihood have thrown back an invasion at a horrendous cost to the Germans. Trying to assess the political picture with 70 years of hindsight is extremely problematic imo.

*If* we'd been willing to fight then that was a *possibility* but, looking at all the evidence, like likelihood would be that we didn't. Remember, for Operation Sealion to have gone ahead the Germans would have had to have won the Battle of Britain which would have established German air-superiority. The following would thus be the case: the Battle of Britain, the actual outcome of which undoubtably turned-back British defeatism, would simply have strengthened the arguments of Halifax and the other appeasers: that we simply couldn't win. You'd thus have a country that was in a war it didn't really want gradually realising that the enemy can fly over them unopposed. Hitler would doubtless have arranged for planes to drop leaflets telling them that the RAF was defeated, that Churchill and his Labour coalition allies were fighting their own war and that Britain would suffer, that Germany had no territorial interests in Britain (which was true) and that Germany wanted peace but if the British government persisted in fighting then Germany could and would invade. The population would look at what happened to France (as would most of Parliament) and I wouldn't put so much as a tenner on us continuing to fight.

Morale really is all-important. If Britain's morale had failed they would simply have refused to fight, even if they could win. That's the problem with War Games.

Another example is the Battle (War) of Stalingrad. If the Soviets hadn't beaten back the Germans there then they would have fallen apart too.

>whether we like it or not WG we HAVE a special reltionship with the US....we are sisters under the skin.

Not quite. First the United States is a republic with a constitution built around radical 18th-century liberalism. It was created by a revolution and its political character reflects this. Britain is a de jure monarchy whose liberal democratic system has largely been brought-about through slow progressive change. If you know anything about American and British politics you'll know that these differences have a large effect on the political psyches of both nations and how they tend to deal with things.

Secondly, the United States has a strongly religious character and this is due to many religious minorities feeling Britain during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and settling there to form large communities. Branches of Christianity which are small beer in the UK are large and influential in the USA. This has a knock-on effect on the national character.

After the USA broke-free of British control in the late 18th century the Americans expanded Westwards (largely by force) and became a frontier people often settling in harsh desert environments. During the same period the British established worldwide naval superiority and built a colonial empire and a seafaring character. The histories of Britain and the USA in the 19th century couldn't have been more different and the people they created were the same. The knock-on effects of this persist to this day.

During the 19th century and continuing to this day (albeit to a lesser extent) the USA encouraged migrants not just from Europe but from the World to join in the melting-pot of the new republic. This created a mish-mash of cultures and races not seen since the Roman Empire. Again, this was not something that happened in Britain until the "Empire Windrush" immigration which began in the mid 20th-century.

America suffered a civil war in the mid 19th century which caused massive political divisions in the republic. The knock-on effects of this exist in some way to this day.

The "special relationship" is a bit of a construct. Americans generally disliked the British in the same way they currently dislike the French until some time after WWII. George Orwell wrote an article for a newspaper around 1945 discussing the anti-British attitude of American GIs and explaining the general anti-British sentiments in the USA which created it. The US-UK alliance is built around necessity and convinience for both nations, it has no real basis beyond that. Given the correct circumstances we would abandon them and I expect they'd do the same to us. The Americans used to call us "perfidious albion" as a testament to our untrustworthy character (they had a point, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread when France, our ally for decades, was defeated in WWII one of our first actions was to attack and destroy French ships with French sailors on board) and I'm afraid they're probably right but then I think you could apply it to any nation on earth.

Nationality doesn't matter. Apply it to Humanity.

And just to clarify, because I'm nitpicky that way, the Civil War was sparked largely, if not entirely, by the political divisions that were already present at the time. It was only after that that people would refer to themselves as "Americans", rather than "Pennsylvanians" or "Marylanders", etc. Add the abolition of slavery and the "knock-on effects" of it exist in every way to this day.

<>

I need to do some research here, but I believe the same holds true in America. That might be why there's such a push right now for the reform. We need reform yes, but granting illegal immigrants citizenship is not the answer. It didn't work the last time we tried it.

To also become a citizen you have to also pass a test that contains American history, such as the branches of Congress, judicial system, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, etc.

Unfortunately, there are many Americans who don't know those basic questions. "Jaywalking," a segment on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," has Leno go out in the general public and ask simple questions such as the ones above. I have heard some very unusual answers such as the United States was established in 1836, which is correct for a republic - the Republic of Texas (1836-1845). My favorite is people who cannot recognize who presidents such as Washington, Lincoln and even Reagan or the current Bush from their pictures. It's funny sure, but it's a shame because they're very basic history questions taught in elementary school. We need to focus more on teaching history and current events going on in our world instead of every step celebrities make. Leno's segment is more than just humor - it's food for thought.

USA IS REALLY A PIECE OF...'SH'' .....AND IT ONLY SURVIVES ON OTHER NATIONS AND CULTURES WHICH HAS BEEN DEVELOPING LIKE FOR CENTURIES..AND AGES..DRINKING UP THEIR WEALTH AND OIL...ADN CLAIMING TO BE THE RICHEST COUNTRY WHICH CANNOT REALLY TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS....LET ME NOT GIVE U STATISTICS OF THE DRUNK, POOR, PROSTITUTES AND THE HOMELESS PPLE OF AMERICA COS' ITS DISGUSTING..AND THATS ALL AMERICA DOES...IT HAS NOTHING OF ITS OWN EXCEPT FOR PPLE WHO CAME TO THE AMERICAN COASTLINE AND DISCOVERED IT...ETC....SO...WHERE DOES AMERICA FIGURE..AND HOW DID ALL THE MONEY COME IN...FIGURE IT OUT....

EYE2EYE