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

Homework - reading ya loud and clear. How old are you? You might've told me but I've forgotten. Me, I'm sweet sixteen.
Jefferson, Jefferson. I've read some excerpts from his stuff, and he seems like a political genius, but I haven't managed to get hold of any of his books. He might spin around not only at RDOs thoughts, but also at the actions of the government he helped create...
Actually, I saw an episode of Jackass a while ago (you do have that in the states, right? ) and someone dressed up as the devil in a major city and got assaulted. Eek.

From Jefferson's On Religious Freedom:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone."

I am still confused as to how the most fundamentalist, powerful, and hypocrytical State in the world can base itself upon such a genius and noted libetarian.

"Homework - reading ya loud and clear. How old are you? You might've told me but I've forgotten. Me, I'm sweet sixteen."

I'm sixteen, too.

"Jefferson, Jefferson. I've read some excerpts from his stuff, and he seems like a political genius, but I haven't managed to get hold of any of his books."

He didn't write much in the way of books--all I'm aware of that was really important was _Notes on the Colony (or maybe state, I don't remember) of Virginia_. Othere than that, he wrote the American Declaration of Independance and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedoms.

"He might spin around not only at RDOs thoughts, but also at the actions of the government he helped create..."

He did when he was alive--by the end of his life he was convinced that the American revolution was pointless and that the new nation was on the path to either destruction (over slavery) or a government as bad as the one he rebelled against.

"Actually, I saw an episode of Jackass a while ago (you do have that in the states, right? ) and someone dressed up as the devil in a major city and got assaulted. Eek."

Thse of us in the states who have cable TV have it, butI don't have cable TV. (Im not sure if there is independednt cble or broadcast TV in the UK nowadays; most of my information on the subject comes from rather old books. If not, the distinction is as follows--there is free comercial funded bradcast TV in the states but you have to pay private companies to watch cableTV, which has just as many commericals but more channels and more programmes.)

As for the assult part, that really doesn't surprise me. I almost started a riot in elementary school by doing a book report on human evolution--half the class tstarted chanting "You can't make a monkey out of me!" and the other half looked aout ready to attack me. Luckely the tweeacher got it under control.

"I am still confused as to how the most fundamentalist, powerful, and hypocrytical State in the world can base itself upon such a genius and noted libetarian."

Its very simple. Although most people in the US don't seem to realize it, we aren't based on Jefferson's ideas. Jefferson never really supported what the US government became in his own time. He felt that the purpose of the Second Continental Congress, which ran the revolution (he called it the Spirit of '76) was really a rebellion against all forms of government. Altough he served as president, one of the most important things he did in office went against his own political views. He believed that he had no right5 to purchase the Louisiana Territory without a referendum, but he did it because he felt an open western fronteer was essential.

Jefferson, along with Samuel Adams and possibly Patrick Henry, was not rebelling against the British Crown so much as he was rebelling against any form of strong government. He was able to acomplish what he did because his friend James Madison managed to convince him to accept the US Federal Constitution when it became clear that the Articles of Confederation wwouldn't work.

He never really liked the idea of a strong government of any sort and didn't trust the Federal govenment much more than he trusted King George III and Parliment.

Jefferson has been used as a symbol by just about everyone in American politics--often on both sides of an issue.

More than anyone else from the American Revolution, he has become a symbol of what everyone in the US thinks it means to be an American, though he probably would disagree with most of the things said in his name.

The US bases itself on Jefferson's name, not his ideals.

Yeah, British TV now works more or less the same way, but only recently with the advent of digital TV over here. For a small TV license you can get the two main BBC channels and two others, and then if you care to pay a company like Sky to install a digital arial or cable so you get a few hundred channels (quite a few of which are American).
About his books - yeah, I found a site which had nearly all his letters printed, which were quite a few, and any one of them would have made a decent book.
Do you agree with my definition of the American State as "fundamentalist, powerful and hypocrytical"?
I read the other day that still in many schools down in the Bible Belt, especially around Texas, they're teaching the theory of creation and that evolution is wrong.

fundamentalist--Yes, in more ways than you probably know. In much of the South (and Ohio and Kansas), evolution is no longer taught in public schools, or does not have to be taught. In many places, creationism of various types is taught instead. The Republican party's platform is basicly to enforce Protestant Christianity on everyone. However, it is fundamentalist in ways other than religion. The politics are fundamentalist. For example, if I was to use the word "black to refer to an American of African descent in school (this is a government-run school, BTW), many people would get very offended and I'd probably be told to apologize. How is the word "black offensive? For that matter, US schools are banning many classic books because African-Americans find it offensive that a book set in the pre-Civil War South uses the word "n****r", even though it is historicly accurate. And this is a book by areguably the greatest American author of the 1800's, but his works can't be taught in public schools!

powerful--It seems that way, though N. Korea is quite powerful if you think about it. They have, or will have,nuclear weapons and have a lot less to lose by using them than the US does.

hypocritical--The politicians certainly are. I can't judge it as "most" since I haven't been to any other countries except Canada for a few hours.

Fundamentalist - I read an article the other day about when a male whit student, fed up by seeing everywhere "Black Student's League"s and "Female Student's League"s and "Asian Student's Leagues", tried to form a "White Male Student's League" and got expelled.
By the way, if you have time, hop over to the "Feudalism..." thread in my recent convos. Blatherskite the Mugwump has just said something along the lines of "How can the inhabitants of a monarchical government (referring to me) criticise a REAL republic?" , and I was just too flabbergasted (great word!) to reply very well.
Every country is powerful in that sense, which is a great way to stop wars, but America is powerful too in the financial sense. It owns over 80% of all the world's stuff.
Hypocritical - if the politicians run the country and force their views on it, then the country becomes hypocritical.

"Fundamentalist - I read an article the other day about when a male whit student, fed up by seeing everywhere "Black Student's League"s and "Female Student's League"s and "Asian Student's Leagues", tried to form a "White Male Student's League" and got expelled."

Doesn't surprise me. However, my school, just to be fair, says that "students of all races and ethnicities" can attend the black and asian student clubs.

Also, one of the big black-rights groups is called the National Association for the Advancement of Colered Persons. If I used the phrase "colored persons" in public, I'd be assulted, sued, and or backlisted as a racist from ever holding any job (the last is a bit of an exageration). Of course, its different if you're a minority.

"By the way, if you have time, hop over to the "Feudalism..." thread in my recent convos. Blatherskite the Mugwump has just said something along the lines of "How can the inhabitants of a monarchical government (referring to me) criticise a REAL republic?" , and I was just too flabbergasted (great word!) to reply very well."

I wonder if he's confusing democracy with republics? After all, the word republic just means that offices aren't inherited. In the origional form, Plato's, the government was made up of philosophers who decided what was good for everyon else--I wonder if he's like that.

The US is a republic, but that doesn't mean that it is free or democratic. After all, Afganistan was a republic under the Taliban.

"It owns over 80% of all the world's stuff."

Good point, I hadn't considered it.

"Hypocritical - if the politicians run the country and force their views on it, then the country becomes hypocritical."

In what democracy do politicians not run the country and force their views on it? I have started to think that that is an inevitable consequence of politics.

It sounds to me like it's done more in the US than anywhere else. In the UK politics is a running ironic joke - just like everything else. Most my politics lessons consist of jokes about Blair and IDS (the leader of the opposition (well until today)). Incidentally, how much do you hear of UK politics over there?

"Incidentally, how much do you hear of UK politics over there?"

Very little, and most of what I know does not come from the US media.

I've heard that Blair isn't that popular with much of the population because he supports Bush so much.

I've heard that Blair wants the UK to start using the Euro, but most of the British population dislikes the idea. (Personally I think it is a bad idea because I'm not quite convinced the EU is stable in the long run, nor do I think it would necesarily be wise for the UK to get in a position where, if and when the EU makes a new constitution that makes it a soveirgn state, the UK has no choice but to surrender sovereignty. But that's just my opinion as an interested observer.)

I have started to read the Daily Telegraph online because I've decided that most US news sources think that nothing exists except the US and Iraq. The TV news here is usually junk, though some of the newspapers are pretty good.

I don't like the idea that if one country has economic depression, we're ALL going down.
Post more later.

That's an economic consequence that hadn't occured to me.

On a seperate note, I am detting depressed about the USS govrnment and politics. I question how one can really be loyal to a government that one thinks is ruled by lunatics selected by a constituency of morons.

There's no "thinks" in that sentence, heh - in Politics, the US is nearly always held up as an example of a country that has appallingly low voter turnouts and appallingly stupid voters anyway. It is also made a joke of of having the most obviously corrupt politicians in the world (these days Presidential candidacy campaigns are financed almost solely by large businesses). It is also regularly made a mockery of on national TV, especially dietary programs for its high obesity figures. Political debates giggle over its policy of having nearly everyone in the country armed; political *system* debates dislike the hatred for Welfare over there. I could go on and on, but suffice to say that at least from this side of the pond, it's not a desirable place to be.

"Politics, the US is nearly always held up as an example of a country that has appallingly low voter turnouts and appallingly stupid voters anyway."

In the US, low voter turnout isn't necesarrily bad. If the general population voted in large numbers, we'd have movie stars and pop musicians elected to high office because they werte famous--of course that's happened twice in California (and Regan got to the presidency, but then, ketchup is a vegatable).

"It is also made a joke of of having the most obviously corrupt politicians in the world (these days Presidential candidacy campaigns are financed almost solely by large businesses)."

That's certainly true for the Republicans, though the Democrats get a lot of funding from big unions. If you change big buisness to special interest groups, it is definitely true.

"It is also regularly made a mockery of on national TV, especially dietary programs for its high obesity figures."

The fatness may be a problem, but then, if people want to eat McDonalds food every other day, what do they expect? It isn't as much of a problem as it would be in Europe from a taxpayer's point of view, since the government doesn't cover as much in the way of healthcare expenses as I've heard it does over there. I've just about given up on caring about that issue--if people don't ant to eat healthily, how are we going to stop them?

"Political debates giggle over its policy of having nearly everyone in the country armed;"

Of course, US politicians like to talk about how crazy it is that you won't let people have guns to shoot criminals (or anyone else they bloody well want to) with.

"political *system* debates dislike the hatred for Welfare over there."

And we here lots about how having the government pay for everything ruins the economy and makes it impossible to get a lot of perscription drugs.

The debate on including perscription drugs in Medicare (government health insurence for senior citizens) has gotten weird--basicly one side says people are dieing because Medicare won't pay for prescrition drugs and the other side says that people are dieing in Canada because the governemtn only price-controls some medicines, so the rest are really overpriced. I don't know whos right, I've just gotten tired of how the pharmacutical industry seems to work.

I can imagine that. Of course, in the US, some politicians try to use Europe (and Canada) as an example of how we ought to do some things while others use them as an example of how socialism (defined as anything that isn't laize-fare capitalism) and liberal laws don't work.

And all politicians here hate France. That has gotten overboard--I suppose you heard about the "freedom fries" stupidity.

Freedom fries? Nope. Why'dya hate France? Christ, the Statue of Liberty was a present from them. They killed Thom Paine for you. You were revolution buddies.
If the criminals aren't armed, you don't need to be either. I'm suprised no one points that out. It's all nice and civilised... except the knifes. But if you arm the populace on the basis that the criminals are armed, and then arm the police on the pretext that the populace are armed, and then spend over half of every tax dollar on weapons on the reasoning that now EVERYBODY'S armed... well, it's a slippery and obvious slope.
Actually, that was good. Might quote it somewhere .
I'm not sure I see how having prescription drugs handed out by the Govt makes them *harder* to get...
I've never liked the idea of making an industry out of a charity, either. Basically, they get paid if we get ill. Doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see through that one.

"Freedom fries? Nope. Why'dya hate France? Christ, the Statue of Liberty was a present from them. They killed Thom Paine for you. You were revolution buddies."

Congress renamed French fries (what you call chips) freedom fries.

As for why so many people in the US hate France, they wouldn't agree to Bush's UN resolutions. Obviously, anyone who doesn't agree with Bush must be a fanatic terrorist. Anyway, how many Americans actually konw anything about history? About 5% are likely to be aware of any of the things you mentioned.

"If the criminals aren't armed, you don't need to be either. I'm suprised no one points that out. It's all nice and civilised... except the knifes. But if you arm the populace on the basis that the criminals are armed, and then arm the police on the pretext that the populace are armed, and then spend over half of every tax dollar on weapons on the reasoning that now EVERYBODY'S armed... well, it's a slippery and obvious slope."

Of course, the politicians claim that you can't keep the criminals from being armed. Since noone in the US is aware that anything exists east of New York City, it doesn't matter if it works in Europe--noone here really knows that Europe exists.

"I'm not sure I see how having prescription drugs handed out by the Govt makes them *harder* to get...
I've never liked the idea of making an industry out of a charity, either. Basically, they get paid if we get ill. Doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see through that one."

The claim is that the pharmacutical companies raise prices for whatever drugs aren't handed out, so oyu can't get the new ones that the government isnt handing out yet.

That's a pathetic reason for ditching one of your only traditional allies.
The amount of under-education is frightening for such an agressive country. The fact that some people recognise it, more so.
Pharmaceuticals - the idea of the US complaining about a natural result of capitalism is laughable.
By the way, I notice that only one of your hive mind on Hootoo is overtly female. Any reason? Or is it just latent cultural bias?

"That's a pathetic reason for ditching one of your only traditional allies."

Traditional ally? We fought an undeclared naval war with them in the 1790's. We would have probably gone to war with them over Lousiana if Napoleon hadn't sold it to support his European wars.

The only traditional position the US has ever had to foreign affairs was isolationism. Until the 1940's, we picked allies by convienince--our ally was the enemy of whoever we hated the most.

Since WW II our alliances have been idiologicly motiated--if you aren't a communist you're our ally. If you are a communnist, you're our enemy.

Traditionally, he US has prefered to ignore the rest of the world whenever possible--when you have a southern boarder with a minor power and a northern border with a sparsely populated dominion of a nation that has no real reason to want to fight you (except when you're fighting with yourself about slavery) and to the east and west you have oceans, isolationism is inviting. Its so much easier than worrying about the rest of the world.

Of course, there was Churchill's idea that the US and the UK are natural allies, but most people in the US probably don't know who he was.

Anyway, US politics is full of things done for pathetic reasons.

"Pharmaceuticals - the idea of the US complaining about a natural result of capitalism is laughable."

Yes, but a lot of what the US government does is laughable.

Actually, it is coincidence.

Most of the names came from Asimov characters, and almost all of his characters were male (he blamed it on lack of contact with girls when he started writing). They just adapted genders to match the name. As for the rest, IS was origionally meant to deal with bullies at school--a female personality in a male body would only have made things worse (I'd be called a poof, not that I wasn't anyway). As for the primists, its probably because they're outgrowths of ideas that R. Daneel had in the first place. They copied him. I'm not sure whether Evolutionary Theist is male of female. From now on, she's female unless she complains.