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

I think we should use more of our own oil resources, but we have a bunch of local leftists who make a bunch of noise whenever we try to get at it.

Our economic system seems to be sustainable. We're doing pretty well.

When have we forced anyone to give us oil? We have fought to defend countries that provide us with oil.

>So if say a company employs a private army to shoot workers who are not working in the prescribed manner, who are refusing to work or are protesting about working conditions?<

Where is this coming from? The rights of individuals are paramount in the United States.

"I think we should use more of our own oil resources, but we have a bunch of local leftists who make a bunch of noise whenever we try to get at it."

Well, I don't see any of the oil companies and their puppets in the White House trying to get oil without destroying the environment. If they invested half of their time and money in developing renewable, clean energy sources (wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc.), those sources would be both cheap and plentiful. And the planet might have a future after all. (And, no: nuclear energy is not a safe option.)

In terms of damage to the planet, I believe that the automobile is the single most disastrous invention ever. (And - thanks to unbridled capitalistic brainwashing - the concept of the automobile as 'indispensable' has permeated most of the industialized world...) Not only have murderous wars been fought over access to oil, but the atmosphere has been raped as well and millions of square miles of the planet have been paved over. And all in the space of 100ish years. No wonder the cetaceans won't talk to us. Would you?

(No, I don't own a car. Not since 1979.)



Back to the idea that 'wages aren't necessarily equal to the work performed': I read in the paper the other day - so it must be true - that the dog catcher ('Animal Control Officer') in San Mateo County, California (between San Francisco and San José) makes $250,000 a year... "twice as much" as the same position in San Francisco. Someone whose main purpose in life is trapping and killing the victims of human neglect is rewarded with a quarter of a million dollars a year? Whoa! Is this a great country or what?



I also read in the paper (man, the torture never stops) that one of the latest theories about the pushiness and nosiness of Americans - one of the least-liked traits about us - might be a result of the great distances between folks as they took over this country. The idea is that people were so hungry for contact with other humans (fine print: racially-similar other humans) that they barraged any they encountered for gossip and news and any other thing they could think of to keep the conversation going. And Americans have come to accept this intrusive information-gathering as 'normal'. It is further speculated that this learned 'need' for personal information has given rise to the uniquely-American 'reality' TV programs like "Survivor" and its ilk. (I've never seen any of these shows, so I can't vouch for the theory.) The constant eroding of 'the right to privacy' is blandly accepted as a result of this, too.

I still intend to present 'the arts' as a vital, necessary 'essential' of life (world-wide, not just hereabouts) that is criminally neglected in the US, but I need to sharpen my teeth first. Back later.

-7rob7, who doesn't intend to leave the country until everything's fixed...

This thread *is* taking rather a hateful trend.

Come on, people. That's not what we're trying to do, here - we're trying to eliminate racial stereotypes. You know, the ones that say that the French are dirty, the English stuck up, the Germans cold and heartless, the Russians big and crude, the Irish drunks, and the Americans loud and arrogant. I don't believe any of these statements, because I know that they're prejudices, based upon little information.

Oil? You are, no doubt, referring to the Gulf War, in which an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was prevented by the United States. Goodness knows, Kuwait really didn't want to sell their oil and make lots of money - they wanted to keep it all in the ground, where it could catch fire. And surely the invasion of Kuwait was inspired by all the other natural resources that they have going for them, like sand, and not that huge wealth of oil.

I'm not going to say that the United States wasn't motivated by a need to protect their oil supply. It's unfortunate that the US depends so heavily on petroleum products, but I'm unable to fix that, beyond lobbying heavily for use of alcohol in engines vs. gasoline. But I'm willing to give them some slack, considering that they were protecting the right of another country to sell oil to whoever they wanted. I'd rather have the rightful government of Kuwait selling oil rather than Saddam!

I will say that some companies that are ostensibly based in the US, like Chiquita Banana, are guilty of some really nasty behavior. When companies reach international proportions, they go beyond the bounds of propriety and take advantage of other countries' lax environmental controls and labor laws. If I were to point the finger, it would be at these third-world countries who are too willing to let their people suffer for a few dollars extra in their pockets.

Whups... somehow 77 managed to post before I did... this is what I get for going on-line and reading about the Gulf War before finishing my post.

Pretty much agree with all of that; I can't do without my car, however. If Fort Worth had better public transportation, I could do without a car, but I work the night shift, and buses don't run after midnight.

I like the theory of nosiness being part of American culture. It makes sense to me, too. The years of the black plague changed the nature of human interaction in Europe, so that people were uneasy about socializing with each other, especially when they didn't know the causes of the disease. Even two hundred years later, people still behave as if they're afraid of catching something; it's hard to break hundreds of years of social conditioning.

Here in America, there's never been anything that devastating so that people have no qualms about smiling at strangers on the street. I could do with a little less information about my neighbor, however. I get tired of turning on the tv set and hearing about J-Lo's most recent outfit, or who's getting married/divorced this week.

Your points are well taken Lentilla. It is not that Americans as individual people are really any different from other people (my American relatives are perfectly charming and intelligent people) it is more the American Multi National attitudes and these attitides are reflected in the face that the American government presents to the world. For example, last week an American official ( I think his name was Rumsfeld) stated that the American government expected Australians to fight and die alongside Americans. This was in reference to the escalating aggression towards China. Surely in a democratic arena one invites one's allies to participate in a jointly agreed course of action. We have some rather strict environmental laws, if OZ demanded that the US leave Alaska as a pristine wilderness, I'm fairly sure what the reaction would be.

Some of the points of this discussion are more about the poiltics of large companies which in reality are no longer solely American but truly multinational, and unacceptably rapacious.

For instance, India has a particular type of rice which has been one of their staple foods for thousands of years, but Monsanto has attempted to patent this rice and sell one-crop hybrids back to India. The world seed bank issue is one subject of some very acrimonious discussion. The pharmaceutical manufacturers refuse to release patents for generic medicines to third world countries. You and I take these medicines for granted, but diseases such as TB, measles etc are rampant because the price is totally beyond the capacity of these people not just to pay for them, but to ever earn enough to do so.

A good stoush however, is not ncessarily hate motivated. Passionately held opposing views will always result in a certain amount of robust discussion.

Let's hope it always remains so.

"The idea is that people were so hungry for contact with other humans (fine print: racially-similar other humans) that they barraged any they encountered for gossip and news and any other thing they could think of to keep the conversation going. And Americans have come to accept this intrusive information-gathering as 'normal'"

-->I like this idea, because it is really quite true. I mean, picture yourself in a country that is just utterly and completly foriegn. You may even have some inkling of how the culture behaves but the people around you don't know that. Eventually you can reach a point where ANY familiar face, shape, nationality, etc is a point to latch on to and just simply converse. So yeah, I think that is normal.

--> As far as the reality shows are concerned...my honest theory is that they are just unprecidented. Your curiosity is stirred, and one begins to wonder what they would do if they were in the other person's spot. I mean, could you eat six stink bugs....ever even thought about it. I sure haven't but the question remains, could I DO that? It is the next step from sitcoms. We could identify with the settings (usually, aside from those geared at comedy), and the plots. Now however it is the reality show that has captured our minds, because even if it is a fake reality, it is still concievable. And the competition element is enthralling because most of us by nature are competitive. Enough on that rant though....

-->And now it is time for a new point from Perium..........

All the discussion about politics and policies and politicians, has had me thinking the last few days. I don't know what the rest of you do, but I generally try narrow down my thoughts before I start spouting them off and (oh no never this) be somewhat responsible for the words that I am speaking. SO I had to regroup and think about this. And my thought is, after watching these guys talk that they (politicians) are nothing like me. In fact, I don't know anyone around me who even remotely acts like they do. I don't even agree half the time with what these people are standing for. I WON'T say that I NEVER agree, but by and large there are things I just can't say I agree with. But you know when it is all said and done, because I live here, was born here, I can disagree.

Now, this is not backing up. I still love this country, and still think its the best in the world, but I will say that there are some pretty f***ed up things about it. I guess the obvious question would be exactly what I don't like about our policies, and I neither have the time or patience for that today, tune in next week for.....

In any case, it's beer thirty, have a good weekend all.

Wow! I had no idea that there were such hostile feelings about "we" Americans by "you" Brits! I'm truly astonished.

Being an Anglofile and having visited your wonderful island 3 times I never encountered nor felt ANY of this hostility. And, as I plan to return, I hope I never do.

As an avid travler, personally I always try to apply the "When in Rome..." philosophy. In England, I eat the steak and kidney pie, I do not go to McDonalds when I'm there. I do not complain about the small portions and I am not fat. (I will admit there are many more fat Americans than Britons but, then again, there are more Americans than Britons in total.)

I hope that the ill-feelings are truly generalizations and not personal because, I like you. Next time I head "across the pond" I'll buy y'all a "pint"

Wow! I had no idea that there were such hostile feelings about "we" Americans by "you" Brits! I'm truly astonished.

Being an Anglofile and having visited your wonderful island 3 times I never encountered nor felt ANY of this hostility. And, as I plan to return, I hope I never do.

As an avid travler, personally I always try to apply the "When in Rome..." philosophy. In England, I eat the steak and kidney pie, I do not go to McDonalds when I'm there. I do not complain about the small portions and I am not fat. (I will admit there are many more fat Americans than Britons but, then again, there are more Americans than Britons in total.)

I hope that the ill-feelings are truly generalizations and not personal because, I like you. Next time I head "across the pond" I'll buy y'all a "pint".

Hi Todd! I'm an ACE and a Brit and I know plenty of nice Americans and generally don't hold with this sort of thing. My preference is but if you do ever come here again and we run into each other, I'll hold you to that !

H2G2 plays host to researchers from across the globe, maybe you can meet some fellows from your corner of the world
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A616718.

Clive.

I am delightedly amused that this is the longest thread I have seen on H2g2 (Though I am sure there are much longer ones) Perhaps the arrogance that USAians project stems from the fact everybody is talking about them.

Not the longest, nope, nu-uh *shakes head* http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63252?thread=100492 :-D

Re: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63252?thread=100492 - My, that's large! Or is it just glad to see me? I think a very good point has been raised in the last few posts: it's not so much Americans on a one-to-one basis as it is the perception that the (capitalist) multi--nationals are essentially 'American' in their behavior that seems to cause the anger of the rest of the world. Look at the aggresiveness of the aforementioned McDonald's. The 'Western' diet - aided and abetted by Micky-D's - has so infiltrated Japan that their heart attack and stoke incidents approach that of the US. And if the World Trade Organization has its way, the same thing will happen all over the planet. It *is* one world, and we are all in this together. But we have got to think about the ramifications of our actions and those actions that we allow others to commit on our behalf. I would think once the artificial, i.e. 'man-made', borders that define 'countries' (not 'cultures' - the more of them we've got, the better) are gone, things will be a lot, lot better. Buses might even run after midnight in Fort Worth, Lentilla, or after 9 in Chapel Hill. (I walk a lot at night when I work late.) Anyway, I would like to add that I enjoy political discussions, and haven't felt that there's really a lot of 'hate' going on in this thread. This is where I've started coming for some R&R from other threads I take part in. It's fun. I mean, if Conservatives didn't want to be bashed, they wouldn't be Conservatives, would they? In the abstract, of course. That's enough for now. I've resorted to smileys... -7rob7

Will Of God - If you *really* want a long thread, try the British English sequel one.

Perium, I know from reading Ms., magazine (which puts me beyond the pale already, probably) that American law doesn't allow people to do what you say you observe among welfare recipients! (Laws limiting lifetime welfare receipt to 5 years, laws compelling women to get jobs when their babies are 12 weeks old, regardless of whether childcare is available - it goes on)NZ law doesn't allow this abuse of welfare either, but many (mostly but not only,male) NZers all think they observe these behaviours from those on welfare. Which only shows the folly of judging other peoples' lives from the outside! I"ve heard of men (ex-husbands, spurned boyfriends and just plain sticky-beaks) ringing up Social Welfare to denounce a woman for being on welfare and having a boyfriend, to working while getting a benefit, only to have it turn out when the victim of the allegation is investigated that she isn't on welfare and never was, or that she or her child has a hidden disability, or .. well, the point is that the sticky-beak neighbour was judging without having the least idea of the facts!

It was a general involved in the war against Vietnam or Cambodia who said that, or a pol., Agnew or Nixon, I think, I was about 16 at the time, and hearing that sort of thing from the safety of NZ and freaking out, man!

These people are complete, loud morons, are they not, Della?

Della, the comment "bomb them back to the stone-age", was made by none other than the then US Secretary of State Henery Kissinger. It was in reference to Cambodia (then a neutral country)for "allowing" the North Vietmanese to use the "Ho Chi Min trail" to ship arms into South Vietnam. I think he may have been at the Paris peace talks at the time. Anyway it was very shortly there after that the "Arc Light" bombing campaign began. B52's carpet bombing a neutral country? Then, as now, Us foreign policy seemed to be MIGHT=RIGHT
Rocket

Jimmy, I really don't think you should say that. Most American's I have met are very nice people, saying such things would be insulting to most Americans. I save my Anti-American feelings for those who TRULLY deserve it, the polititians and Multi-Nationals. Hurling abuse at individual Americans is no way to hold a reasonable discussion. So please refrain from individual abuse.
Rocket

Perium,

I like your new point, couldn't agree more. Some good dicussions coming up maybe?

Off to crack a Jack Daniels and Coke myself. (Support the bi-partisan booze party).