A Canadian view of America

[ABSTRUSE]

Geez, Shereads, you say the things I want to say and yet you sound so darn reasonable while I provoke angry reactions.

I apologize for my statement that the Neocons and the Fundamentalists are trying to 'fuck over the country'. They certainly are doing that from my point of view, but perhaps not their own.

My question is, do they believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't they, or only when it suits them? The Fundamentalists certainly don't believe in seperation of church and state. The neocons have exhibited no interest in freedom of speech other than their own.

I take it back. They are trying to fuck up the country.

Sweetie, so many people have twisted and turned the constitution to suit their own needs just as many have done so with the bible. It's sad but it happens. People forget the real reason why these were written.

 

[shereads]

The article in question sounded more like bashing than constructive criticism though.

So the answer is constructive criticism? Who would listen? Bashing, as an expression of utter frustration, is valid, timely and entirely appropriate under the circumstances. If it's any comfort, you can bet that nobody in power will be bothered in the least. Our boy doesn't read the newspaper, remember?

 

[thebullet]

Abtruse said: Sweetie, so many people have twisted and turned the constitution to suit their own needs

That's true, but this is the first time in my lifetime that an administration has so blatently abused the Constitution. Tricky Dick did some unconstitutional things, but he tried to hide it, knowing what he was doing was illegal. These people think that THEY make the laws, fuck the Constitution!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
You don't need to look that far for tragedy.

But you can and the jury's still out on whether you should.

"Values" doesn't explain Ken Starr, the Project for the New American Century, the Energy Policy Taskforce, the hiring of Ahmad Chalabi or the happy coincidence of Diebold, Inc. and their offer of non-auditable voting machines in Florida and Ohio. "Evil spooky plan" may not explain it accurately, but it's more credible than it should be. That's the tragedy.

But, it explains a goodly amount of what was being talked about. That's all it had to do.

 

[shereads]

Geez, Shereads, you say the things I want to say and yet you sound so darn reasonable while I provoke angry reactions.

I've never provoked an angry reaction, and I'm not about to start now.

Perhaps it was your use of the phrase, "trying to fuck up the country." I would have said, "I hate these fucks for what they've done to this country."

In answer to one of your questions, the Constitution is considered a sacred document by conservatives, one which must not be altered unless all other solutions have been exhausted. That's the argument I almost agreed with when it was used to kill the Equal Rights Amendment. I'm not sure how it applies to the gay marriage ban.

As a basher, I'm tempted to conclude that the defeat of the ERA by the same ideologues who are promoting the gay marriage amendment in violation of their own argument, is a simple matter of bigotry. But I'm hoping for a feel-good explanation that we can all embrace.

 

[rgraham666]

I think this guy went over the top.

There's a great deal to admire in America. Unfortunately it is mostly in the past. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, all contributed greatly to the improvement of America, the world, and the spread of democracy.

I do agree that America is a dying nation though. Its weaknesses are overcoming its strengths.

There has always been a strong streak of isolationism and dislike of democracy in many parts of the States. You couldn't even use the word 'democracy' in the States for about the first 50 years of it's existence. The word was too closely linked to anarchy, especially the fate of the First French Republic. These traits are coming to the fore, again.

I think the biggest problem now is the disconnect between the privileges of living in a free nation and the responsibilities of living in a free nation.

At the voting level, people vote for what they can get. They will not vote for someone who says "you won't get this, but others will." Look out for Number One is the ruling ethos.

At the representational level, it's been forgotten that a representative represents everybody, not just the people who voted for them. The representative may not agree with them, but it's their duty to listen and consider.

Throw in the corruption of the system by the huge sums of money spent by all the special interest groups, the venality of the corporations who regard society as something to feed off of rather than support, and the huge levels of fear and anger currently extant in the U.S. and yes, you're in a lot of trouble.

Don't think Canada's going to get off easy though. Our economies are too closely interlinked. When you go, we're going too.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, I think we'll be a'ight.

 

[rgraham666]

No Joe. You won't.

 

[shereads]

But you can and the jury's still out on whether you should.

We are the jury. Unless you have a few decades and the wherewithal to sue for pertinent documents under the Freedom of Information Act. You might get a definitive verdict that way. Until then, you either study the evidence that exists and draw a conclusion, or you look the other way.

During WWII, the jury was still out on what was happening to all those trainloads of Jews. "Evil plan" always sounds a bit far-fetched.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Yeah, rg. We will.

 

[shereads]

He'll be fine, rg. There are always a few who aren't that vulnerable.

Now, if Saudi Arabia and Japan go, that's another matter. They own more real estate here than we own ourselves. A default here, a collapsed government there, pretty soon you could have a mess than even optimists wouldn't be able to ignore.

The smart money, like Cheney's, is global. Those will be the long-term survivors; the ones who've hedged their bets.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
He'll be fine, rg. There are always a few who aren't that vulnerable.

What does that mean?

 

[shereads]

It means you need to define "we" if the thrust of your argument is "we will be fine."

I'm more curious about the identity of that jury you're hoping to hear from.

Edited to add: No, I'm not. November 2 answered more questions than I wanted to ask.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
It means you need to define "we" if the thrust of your argument is "we will be fine."

I'm more curious about the identity of that jury you're hoping to hear from.

Oh. The "we" is the United States. So, to rephrase for those who need it, in response to the notion that there is some kind of death bell tolling for the lifespan of the USA, I say "[The United States] will be fine".

Edited to add: Yup. 49% chose well.

 

[shereads]

Oh. The "we" is the United States. To, to rephrase for those who need it, in response to the notion that there is some kind of death bell tolling for the lifespan of the USA, I say "[The United States] will be fine".

If it can be saved with a smile and a flag lapel pin, we certainly will be fine.

The exception is the people who aren't fine now. But we don't have enough evidence that they exist to give them very much thought.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
If it can be saved with a smile and a flag lapel pin, we certainly will be fine.

The exception is the people who aren't fine now. But we don't have enough evidence that they exist to give them very much thought.

Or a free voting system, solid free press, and the like. To the people who aren't fine, how is it we don't have enough "Evidence that they exist"? We know they exist.

I'm not understand you clearly.

 

[shereads]

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[TheEarl]

Sigh. Even though I am one of those severely disenchanted with the direction the United States has taken (politically and socially) in recent years, I find myself continuously irked at how trendy it has become to bash the nation. I think that this is in no small part, deservedly so, to the current administration. But I fail to believe that the United States is the only "civilized" country that has amassed a collection of skeletons in its closet, nor do I believe that the United State's accomplishments should be so readily dismissed. Do I believe we are a nation in serious turmoil and decline? Yes. Do I believe that we're ready for the last shovel-full of dirt to be heaped on our collective grave? No. Maybe I'm in denial or am a hopeless optimist, but I've decided to put my faith in term limits as well as the hope that we will eventually reign in the control businesses have over our government. Everyone likes to say how our forefathers would have condemned the current state of being of this country. What made our forefathers great was the realization of their own imperfection, and I don't think they would expect us to be any more capable of perfection ourselves.

Rant over. Back to frivolity.

Alpaca - Even though I am of the opinion that the USA is in danger of disappearing up it's own arse, it has been in danger of this for a while and has managed to keep its shit together. The problems aren't insurmountable.

Every country has problems - it's just the high media profile of GWB that means every nation in the world knows and feels qualified to comment on yours. It looks increasingly likely that Teflon Tony will get another term over here, but because no-one 'misunderstands' him in public, international judgement isn't passed 'at the whim of a hat.'

Keep your chin up. This too will pass.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Bloody hell this thread moves quickly. I was halfway down the first page when I started typing that last one!

A few weeks without American politics; one sniff and you're in like a score of coyotes on the feast of debate!

The Earl

 

[shereads]

Let's try it this way: an increasing number of American citizens are no longer fine, if "fine" is defined as (1) not just working, but working for sufficient pay to support a family of four above the poverty level and (2) having access to medical care, other than for emergencies, and being able to afford prescription drugs when necessary and (3) not young, black and male, in which case the chances of staying out of prison are less fine than your odds or mine. You get my drift. "Fine" is not a universal state of being in any country, but in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, "fine" has been in decline for several years.

In the U.S. under GWB, the gap in income and quality-of-life between families at the top and bottom of the economic ladder has widened to such a degree that only Russia and Mexico, among all industrialized nations, have such a division between rich and poor. Wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top. In the 1980's, corporate CEOs were paid, on average, about 80% more than their employees; by 2004, corporate CEOs were paid, on average, about 1200% more than their employees. Of the long-term unemployed who have found work in the past couple of years, a substantial number are working longer hours for less money and reduced benefits. They're not fine, but they're better off than the ones who can't find work and whose unemployment benefits can't be extended because it would make a dent in someone's tax cut. If this is a trickle-down economy at work, it smells like bad plumbing.

"Fine" is a relative term, and your definition is likely to disagree with mine. By my standards, fairness is vanishing. Some of us are willing to pay higher taxes, if necessary, to make this country a fairer and more compassionate place for the least fortunate. Some of us aren't, even if we're already so wealthy that an extra few hundred thousand dollars a year makes no difference in the quality of our lives. If this is compassionate conservatism, I hope we don't get to see ruthless conservatism.

It's been said that you can judge the health of a nation by the way its poorest citizens are treated. Our poorest are less fine by the day.

We may not need Canada or any other friends outside our borders. Losing any of our remaining friends isn't going to help things, and since we're already less than fiine it can be argued that we won't be fine at all when that happens.

 

[shereads]

A conversation with you, Joe, is like being eaten by mice. It just stings a little, but it's time-consumig. There's not much in the way of communication, except among the mice, who universally agree that they're just fine.

Bye.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Let's try it this way: an increasing number of American citizens are no longer fine, if "fine" is defined as (1) not just working, but working for sufficient pay to support a family of four above the poverty level and (2) having access to medical care, other than for emergencies, and being able to afford prescription drugs when necessary and (3) not young, black and male, in which case the chances of staying out of prison are less fine than your odds or mine. You get my drift. "Fine" is not a universal state of being in any country, but in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, "fine" has been in decline for several years.

In the U.S. under GWB, the gap in income and quality-of-life between families at the top and bottom of the economic ladder has widened to such a degree that only Russia and Mexico, among all industrialized nations, have such a division between rich and poor. Wealth is increasingly concentrated at the top. In the 1980's, corporate CEOs were paid, on average, about 80% more than their employees; by 2004, corporate CEOs were paid, on average, about 1200% more than their employees. Of the long-term unemployed who have found work in the past couple of years, a substantial number are working longer hours for less money and reduced benefits. They're not fine, but they're better off than the ones who can't find work and whose unemployment benefits can't be extended because it would make a dent in someone's tax cut. If this is a trickle-down economy at work, it smells like bad plumbing.

"Fine" is a relative term, and your definition is likely to disagree with mine. By my standards, fairness is vanishing. Some of us are willing to pay higher taxes, if necessary, to make this country a fairer and more compassionate place for the least fortunate. Some of us aren't, even if we're already so wealthy that an extra few hundred thousand dollars a year makes no difference in the quality of our lives. If this is compassionate conservatism, I hope we don't get to see ruthless conservatism.

It's been said that you can judge the health of a nation by the way its poorest citizens are treated. Our poorest are less fine by the day.

We may not need Canada or any other friends outside our borders. Losing any of our remaining friends isn't going to help things, and since we're already less than fiine it can be argued that we won't be fine at all when that happens.

O.k., but Bush is temporary--in this country all politicians are temporary, when you get down to it. And I think it less likely that the USA is "spiralling down to oblivion from whence it cannot return" than, as Earl puts it, we've been through bad. This ain't our first turn around the dance floor, we too shall survive this.

Not all individuals may be alright, but as a nation I believe we will be.

Originally posted by shereads
A conversation with you, Joe, is like being eaten by mice. It just stings a little, but it's time-consumig. There's not much in the way of communication, except among the mice, who universally agree that they're just fine.

Bye.

Talking with you is a bit like talking to someone who doesn't want to respect anything you say or the reasons why you may say it in favor of listening only to things that agree with the very narrow world view of "all that aren't us are evil and dangerous maniacs".

I try and communicate. Try and give reasons why I think the way I do and the like... but because my conclusion isn't yours, you don'f feel that anything but sarcasm is worth your time.

That's what it seems like anyway.

 

[shereads]

I try and give reasons why I think the way I do and the like... but because my conclusion isn't yours, you don'f feel that anything but sarcasm is worth your time.

"I think we'll be fine as a nation" isn't exactly a reasoned argument, and saying that it's probably true because we haven't been destroyed so far is a child's argument. An attempt would be worthy, but you reduce conversations to "I disagree" and "So far, so good" or "The jury is still out," or "Presidents are temporary," as if no lasting damage can be done by one with substantial power.

Again, I'd love to hear about this jury whose verdict you await before you feel genuinely concerned for the future of your country. I don't expect an answer. I expect passive acceptance labeled as optimism, which is increasingly the path of the well-fed in America. Bashing is more constructive.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
"I think we'll be fine as a nation" isn't exactly a reasoned argument, and saying that it's probably true because we haven't been destroyed so far is a child's argument. An attempt would be worthy, but you reduce conversations to "I disagree" and "So far, so good" or "The jury is still out," or "Presidents are temporary," as if no lasting damage can be done by one with substantial power.

So... and this is the curious part... if we can't say "we've been through worse and are still around" because its a child's argument, then is absolutely all precident irrelavent? And if it /is/ all irrelevant, then I guess you're right--I can't have any reasons for believing we'll survive anything from immigration issues to economic outsourcing to Toronto invading us.

The substance of what was said was that we're doing a lot of policy and a lot of pissing people off and that the American way is one-foot-in-the-grave. But... I can't honestly say that I see those things collapsing our entire government and social structure. They aren't strong enough. But, again, if I can't reference past things because it would be childish to do so, then I guess I can't argue the point at all. But then again, can the point that we /will/ fall be argued intelligently without reference to history?

Again, I'd love to hear about this jury whose verdict you await before you feel genuinely concerned for the future of your country. I don't expect an answer. I expect passive acceptance labeled as optimism, which is increasingly the path of the well-fed in America. Bashing is more constructive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "jury". You've mostly lost me there. If you're referring to the "don't have to go that far", "but we can" thing... then I'm still not sure what you're meaning. If it helps, you can replace "jury" with "the word". Either expression brings about the point. Beyond all that, I am worried for the future of what we are going to do as a country, but I am unconvinced (and not due to ignorance) that we are facing an irrepairable situation. Many, many, many democrats agree with me.

I don't see bashing as anything but destructive. I see being constructive as being constructive, though.