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

Well, after cooling down for a few days and reconsidering my own thoughts on this thread, I'd just like to say a couple of things.

Ok... I'll admit it, I flamed. I bit the trolling bait and flamed.
I'm not saying I take back what I said, but to be honest with all of you and with myself, I will admit that I well overstated some of my beliefs in my "long and reactionary" post.

I do love being an American, that I won't take back and I don't think that is wrong. I hope that all of you out there take pride in your nations as well.

I do like the system set up by our constitution and believe that it does tend to do good things in the long run. Granted when either the far right or the far left command more control of our governing bodies I believe things begin to go off the rails a bit and I think this is one of these times.

And I do believe that the cultural influence we have in the world is not always a bad thing. But I think this is probably where I most grossly overstated what I felt. I am NOT blind to the fact that a lot of the cultural influence this country is responsible for around the world IS bad. I do NOT want a McWorld or a Starbuck'sphere to live in.
But I do like showing the world the creations of free thinking people.
(And NO I'm not referring to the majority of the dreck that this country produces. I was trying, but failed, to refer to the literature, the films, the art and freedom of expression that is of 'good quality' and can flourish best where it is not forbidden.)

I do still want the US to be a beacon of freedom, Liberty and what is best about humanity. I did NOT say I thought it WAS the best of humanity. I said I wanted it to be. And by that I specifically meant I wanted it to be a good example of what humans can do when they set down their differences and create a society run for and by themselves. I was thinking of the ideals that this country's founding fathers had in mind, not necessarily what it is. To be honest with you, I don't see a lot of freedom or liberty in this country right now either. But I don't see that these are being TAKEN from this country's citizens as much as they are GIVING them away.


This thread was started because someone felt that there was a lot of "yank bashing" on this site, that there was a lot of anti-american prejudice. My earlier over-reaction may not have helped. For that I'm sorry. I do NOT agree with everything done by my country or by my compatriots. Matter of fact, those that know me know me to complain about a LOT of things going on in this country right now! One of the main things I think is wrong in this country right now is that not enough people ARE complaining!

But I do NOT feel I should be ashamed of being a citizen of this country.

I hope this helps to clarify my sentiments.

(But I won't be suprised if it doesn't. I think I sometimes have trouble expressing all that I am thinking.)

CZ

TB, hi.
I'll tell you something funny - that is to say odd... I've known men take blatant advantage of affirmative action laws, to get jobs for which women were better qualified, and jump up and down screaming about discrimination, if it looked like they might not get the jobs (one as a typist, for goodness' sake, when he was qualified as a maths teacher, but couldn't be bothered getting a teaching job, he told me.)More men scream about what they call "P.C discrimination" a la the Michael Douglas film (what is it, Falling Down, or something similar).
Meanwhile women still earn a fraction of what men do (69% I believe).
Your story about the "poor little boy", reminded me of men I have known, of the 'Falling Down' sort, who rush to screech about being discriminated against, if, just for once, they are (as in the case you mention) or if they get caught committing violence or some such similar action, such as harassment or sabotage of a colleague's work. I do agree with you about brown-nosing, though I have worked mostly in education and for the Public Service, where it doesn't apply so much.
I work in pre-schools, and I assure it's much more common to see a boy pushing, hitting,pinching, abusing, and a retaliating girl punished for snapping when pushed beyond endurance. A case in point was the kindergarten where I worked last year, where 2/3 teachers (one of them the head teacher) agreed that they preferred boys, because girls were boring little clothes-horses, but you could have outdoor sporting fun with boys!
The other teacher and I spent a lot of time vainly trying to get these two to *see* the boys acting up!They seemed literally blind to bad boy behaviour, and almost equally blind to pleas for equal attention. (I'm talking three and four year olds, where both sexes want teacher validation.)

I don't like discrimination of any kind, and if i knew a man who did that I'd probably 'have words' with him. I've noticed two types of school, which I've worked in, one type, where there is a blatant difference in the treatment of boys and girls and one where both are treated the same. I've noticed more of the first than the second and they seem to coincide with them being 'bad'/'good' schools.

I have to say that the majority of schools here are scrupulously fair in their treatment of girls/boys, as are most pre-schools, which is why I was gobsmacked, to hear the two teachers talk about their preference for the boys. The ratios were about equal boy:girl, but the girls had to fight to get any attention, and as most were quiet and reserved, they usually didn't get much at all (I wasn't a teacher, but an ancillary worker.)
I also have to say that aside from this one thing, the teachers were *excellent*, and it's a brilliant kindergarten!

Quote form an online news source:

"An American woman has filed a lawsuit demanding billions of dollars in compensation for "serious injury" suffered when Janet Jackson exposed her breast on television. Bank worker Terri Carlin is demanding compensation for herself and millions of other viewers who were watching last Sunday's Super Bowl. In her lawsuit, Ms Carlin, from Tennessee, said broadcasters breached an "implied contract" that viewers would not be exposed to explicit images during the prime time event. She is suing Jackson, Timberlake, broadcasters MTV and CBS and their parent company, Viacom. "As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, (Ms Carlin) and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury," the lawsuit states. The injuries suffered by Ms Carlin are not specified."

Well, much like the Incredible Hulk, I imagine, it puts a great deal of strain morph from b**** to b***** with a vengeance.

Best lines I've heard on the latest Jackson family fiasco:

"America celebrated groundhog day this week as Janet Jackson's nipple saw its own shadow, meaning we'll have six more weeks of overreaction."

"She just wanted to show that her brother isn't the only member of the family who can behave in a sexually inappropriate way with a beardless boy"

"What a great sister. Nobody is talking about Michael this week."

Wahahaha...>laugh>

Saddest thing I've heard about this...

Because the puritanical in this country seem to be running things, and this, unfortunately makes prime election year fodder, this incident has been brought up before congress and the result, I'm sure, will be more censorship and more restricted speech.

Oh, we have no problem with violence, but let our kids see ONE bare breast and the dam bursts!

*Janet Jackson's nipple saw its own shadow*



Sigh....

i wonder how many americans have to be hospitalized when mothers have nurse-in protests

I wonder if it was because of the *sun and spike* piercing she had on it....obviously some bizarre anti-religious symbol...

Seriously, that's a great point Nyss, what are the laws in the US about public nursing now? I know here in Canada we came around in the seventies.

For the most part there are few laws in the states prohibiting public toplessness, especially while breastfeeding. What laws there are typically are only local statutes. There have been several recently enacted but these typically are more concerned with disturbing the peace (specifically Mardi Gras towns have put misdemeanors on the books so that they can ticket people who are creating raucus mob scenes... I call this the "girls gone wild" statutes).

What Janet Jackson violated specifically are FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulations pertaining solely to Broadcast Television during 'family viewing' hours. A broadcaster is subject to $27,500 fines per incident by showing nipples or creases .

Several legislators (many running for re-election) want to stiffen (no pun intended) the fines and to extend regulation to "cable" tv as well.

Thank you, that's very interesting.

Here we have the CRTC which has decided that broadcasters should be self regulating. What keeps them in line is that their licences can be revoked or modified if the CRTC believes they are acting in a manner contrary to the public good. I've been in broadcasting for a quarter century and it's only ever been threatened, never actually done.

What shocked me, was coming across some right wing guy ranted about Janet's nipple, rejoicing because he was instrumental in stopping E.R., showing an 80 year old woman's breast in a story about the poor old dear having cancer. Like, can't he tell the difference between tacky showing off, and a medical soap?

I believe it is all a great hipocracy the janet jackson case.

For example things like the carnival in brasil, breast shown in television news, miss contests and other casual "scandals" are shown in television in the so called family show time. But why don´t the mothers give complains about tv chanels like MTV, it is a vast tv network and some videoclips look like playboy shows.

One more great thing, in all over the world, in cable or national networks, the scene appeared in all the news time.

But i believe it was not a good thing to happen. The popularization of such scenes is now a subject of discussion. Is there a need of prohibition and control of such scenes? Was it a scene of comedy, and so was it something to don´t take serious?

About the proportion it is taking in the U.S. :

Kandarian

Last year I was very ticked off because our unusually hippie-liberal Idaho town changed a long-standing rule that allowed women to go about topless. It wouldn't happen often, but occassionally, you would see a lass walking about sans shirt. What happened was a few entrepreneurial girls decided to have a topless car wash. Needless to say it was phenomenally popular, so much so that the anti-booby factions in town raised hell, and soon after nobody had the topless privelege (well..nobody *female* anyway ).

This was Idaho?