Europeans vs. Americans
Gistak
foreign policy and what Europeans think. Especially with the Bush
administration in power, lots of Europeans seem to think that
Americans are in a different world from them.
I often point out to Europeans that the PEOPLE were almost evenly
split between Bush and Gore. In other words, the current
administration's actions and attitudes shouldn't be taken to reflect
some vast majority of American opinion. The PEOPLE are also pretty
evenly split between the two parties in congress.
In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European foreign
policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
Examples:
The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
Iraq with UN approval and allied support.
Both Europeans and Americans had a majority of people saying that
force should be used to uphold international law (80% and 76%).
Only about 30% of Americans give the "US administration positive
ratings for its handling of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the
situation in Iraq." Europeans had it at about 20%.
P
Sharon Vol
There is a somewhat related article about this in The Economist, Jan
4-10 issue, that you might be interested in. It compares 3 different
studies of this issue, (Pew research Centre survey, the German Marshall
Fund survey, and the University of Michigan World Values Survey). The
Marshall study is the one you are referencing.
the U of M survey separates survey answers into two categories-
1. traditional values vs secular rational values and
2. quality of life attributes. At one end of this spectrum are values
people hold when they are struggling for survival, such as "security is
more important than self expression". self expression values are at the
other side of this spectrum.
poor countries tend to have low self expression scores and high
traditional values scores. European countries as a whole come in as
secular rational and self expressive.
The USA comes in not exactly like Europe, but as a self expressive
country that is also more traditional than any European country except
Ireland (this includes Eastern Europe).
a few interesting quotes from the article:
"Of course, America is hardly monolithic. It is strikingly traditional
on average. But, to generalize wildly, that average is made up of two
Americas: one that is almost as secular as Europe (and tends to vote
Democratic), and one that is more traditionalist than the average (and
tends to vote Republican)."
"In America, even technical matters become moral questions. It is almost
impossible to have a debate about gun registration without it becoming
an argument about the right to self-defense. In Europe, even moral
questions are sometimes treated as technical ones, as happened with
stem-cell research."
"On average, then, the values gap between America and European countries
seems to be widening."
"There may also be a link between America's religiosity and its tendency
to see foreign policy in moral terms. To Americans, evil exists and can
be fought in their lives and in the world. Compared with Europe, this is
a different world-view in both senses: different prevailing attitudes,
different ways of looking at the world."
sharon
gistak
news:3E273D93...@hotmail.com...
I REALLY liked the Economist back when I got it. But it came too often, and
I couldn't read it. Can you tell me the Headline title?
> It compares 3 different
> studies of this issue, (Pew research Centre survey, the German Marshall
> Fund survey, and the University of Michigan World Values Survey). The
> Marshall study is the one you are referencing.
>
Correct.
> the U of M survey separates survey answers into two categories-
> 1. traditional values vs secular rational values and
> 2. quality of life attributes. At one end of this spectrum are values
> people hold when they are struggling for survival, such as "security is
> more important than self expression". self expression values are at the
> other side of this spectrum.
>
> poor countries tend to have low self expression scores and high
> traditional values scores. European countries as a whole come in as
> secular rational and self expressive.
>
> The USA comes in not exactly like Europe, but as a self expressive
> country that is also more traditional than any European country except
> Ireland (this includes Eastern Europe).
>
Doesn't surprise me. My (Australian) wife was very surprised that American
TV doesn't show breasts. She had always thought of the US as a bastion of
immorality, but actually there's a lot of prudishness to be found.
> a few interesting quotes from the article:
>
> "Of course, America is hardly monolithic. It is strikingly traditional
> on average. But, to generalize wildly, that average is made up of two
> Americas: one that is almost as secular as Europe (and tends to vote
> Democratic), and one that is more traditionalist than the average (and
> tends to vote Republican)."
>
<snip>
> "There may also be a link between America's religiosity and its tendency
> to see foreign policy in moral terms. To Americans, evil exists and can
> be fought in their lives and in the world.
Hmm. I chafe at comments like this, but I guess it's true for a lot of
Americans. On the other hand, I have not heard a single positive comment
about Bush's "axis of evil" speech. Every time it's come up, it's been
derided (usually by me). American leaders do tend to talk in those terms,
but I've always hoped that the populace didn't really fall for it.
> Compared with Europe, this is
> a different world-view in both senses: different prevailing attitudes,
> different ways of looking at the world."
>
Well, Europe can do less in the world than America can. Their opinions might
very well be shaped by their abilities. Not that this affects the language
and imagery they use (calling it "evil" vs. "a threat"). Too much religion
is a serious threat to the US, and I don't mean Islam.
P
Tracy Yucikas
"gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote i
>
> Doesn't surprise me. My (Australian) wife was very surprised that American
> TV doesn't show breasts. She had always thought of the US as a bastion of
> immorality, but actually there's a lot of prudishness to be found.
"NYPD Blue" ... once in a while shows breasts
(just a technicality ... I've never seen Euro-TV or Aussie-TV,
but have heard that they are much more open re nudity)
- - -
tracy
[who has gotten 'unable to connect to server' messages for a week or two
when aiming for MTM]
james
> I keep hearing about the divide between what Americans think about
> foreign policy and what Europeans think. Especially with the Bush
> administration in power, lots of Europeans seem to think that
> Americans are in a different world from them.
>
> I often point out to Europeans that the PEOPLE were almost evenly
> split between Bush and Gore. In other words, the current
> administration's actions and attitudes shouldn't be taken to reflect
> some vast majority of American opinion. The PEOPLE are also pretty
> evenly split between the two parties in congress.
>
> In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European foreign
> policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
> differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
>
> Examples:
>
> The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
I disagree.
GW Bush gets high approval ratings in the US.
In Europe he is regarded as a (dangerous) joke.
James
Tracy Yucikas
"james" <jame...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5870d4.03011...@posting.google.com...
> > evenly split between the two parties in congress.
> >
> > In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European foreign
> > policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
> > differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> GW Bush gets high approval ratings in the US.
I've seen the "ratings" but have run into very few people
who "approve" as indicated by polls. Maybe I don't speak
to the same profile of American citizen, but from my point of view
a totally differrnt picture (unreported) emerges in that noone
seem to support invading Iraq. <guess I'd be critical of
the pollling firms and their interpretation>
never seen the precise wording of the poll-questions
- - -
tracy
Steven L.
>"NYPD Blue" ... once in a while shows breasts
>(just a technicality ... I've never seen Euro-TV or Aussie-TV,
>but have heard that they are much more open re nudity)
>
That is one of the shows I watch. It seems that I have missed a few, don't
remember seeing a breasts on the show, the butt shows, those I saw.
Steven L.
Gistak
"Jerry Hollombe" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Tracy Yucikas" <tyuc...@cts.com> wrote in
> news:b0a5m7$3...@chicago.us.mensa.org:
>
>>
>> "gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote i
>>>
>>> Doesn't surprise me. My (Australian) wife was very surprised that
>>> American TV doesn't show breasts. She had always thought of the US as
>>> a bastion of immorality, but actually there's a lot of prudishness to
>>> be found.
>>
>>
>> "NYPD Blue" ... once in a while shows breasts
>> (just a technicality ... I've never seen Euro-TV or Aussie-TV,
>> but have heard that they are much more open re nudity)
>
> Breasts tend to be flashed during the "sweeps" months (when future
> advertising rates are set according to viewership).
>
Huh. I've never seen them, except on certain science shows (maybe). PBS
might get away with it. Not that I doubt either of you, since I don't watch
NYPD Blue. But I've never seen it.
P
Gistak
e5870d4.03011...@posting.google.com, "james"
<jame...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> gis...@hotmail.com (Gistak) wrote in message
> news:<19c0284.03011...@posting.google.com>...
>> I keep hearing about the divide between what Americans think about
>> foreign policy and what Europeans think. Especially with the Bush
>> administration in power, lots of Europeans seem to think that
>> Americans are in a different world from them.
>>
>> I often point out to Europeans that the PEOPLE were almost evenly
>> split between Bush and Gore. In other words, the current
>> administration's actions and attitudes shouldn't be taken to reflect
>> some vast majority of American opinion. The PEOPLE are also pretty
>> evenly split between the two parties in congress.
>>
>> In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European foreign
>> policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
>> differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>> The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> GW Bush gets high approval ratings in the US.
>
> In Europe he is regarded as a (dangerous) joke.
>
> James
>
By all means, disagree as much as you want.
The fact is that in September, the poll showed what I wrote above. Check out
the methodology of the poll if you think it's wrong. The gap has probably
widened somewhat since September, but I doubt that it has widened enough to
change the basic findings.
And I never said that Americans and Europeans are similar on every issue.
For instance, Europeans are much more likely to say that there should be NO
superpowers in the world than Americans are.
P
Tracy Yucikas
"Jerry Hollombe" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9306C6D5AD...@207.252.248.9...
> >>
> >> Doesn't surprise me. My (Australian) wife was very surprised that
> >> American TV doesn't show breasts. She had always thought of the US as
> >> a bastion of immorality, but actually there's a lot of prudishness to
> >> be found.
> >
> >
> > "NYPD Blue" ... once in a while shows breasts
> > (just a technicality ... I've never seen Euro-TV or Aussie-TV,
> > but have heard that they are much more open re nudity)
>
> advertising rates are set according to viewership).
revenue/ motivation/ tantalization primal fascination of audience
>
> > tracy
> > [who has gotten 'unable to connect to server' messages for a week or
> > two when aiming for MTM]
>
> Me too. I find rebooting and not running my e-mail client clears the
> problem, for no obvious reason.
>
hmmm, guess I should have tried that tack ... although right now
I'm doing nothing different from "normal routine" and finding that
connection appears to work fine ... go figger
> --
> Jerry Hollombe, Webmaster
> http://thegarret.info/
> http://glaam.us.mensa.org/
>
rian
on beaches. It is just freedom, no lust. old wrinkled ugly ladies like I
also go to nude beaches. And on TV: an american stand up comedian told
us the difference: late at night you see commercials for sex lines. Un
the US you see the numbers, in Holland you see an example of the girls.
He said: I tape it and do not need to call the numbers.
When I go to the spa, with umpteen sauna's, swimmingpools, hot pools
etc, swimsuits are forbidden for hygiene purposes, Only in the
restaurants a robe is mandatory.
http://www.elysium.nl/
http://www.elysium.nl/index.cfm?site_id=136&l_id=1&tree_id=5155
for the map, press the top one
--
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant.
The population is growing.
Rian
"Steven L." <sierrat...@aol.comnojunk> schreef in bericht
news:20030118021244...@mb-fq.aol.com...
Tracy Yucikas
> >"NYPD Blue" ... once in a while shows breasts
>
> That is one of the shows I watch. It seems that I have missed a few, don't
> remember seeing a breasts on the show, the butt shows, those I saw.
>
two days ago ...
usually the love-interest of the detective-team is a side-view
sometimes in a raid full-frontal views happen ...
(similar to "Immortal Beloved" movie)
<s> I'm not suggesting PAvlovian reinforcement schedules
increase viewership </s>
tracy
Gistak
<ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote:
> sure, every lake and beach has a nude area, besides, topless is the norm
> on beaches. It is just freedom, no lust.
I remember being fifteen and in Paris. There was a huge billboard in the
Metro of a pair of naked breasts and some words that I didn't understand.
Didn't even try to understand the words!
P
Sharon Vol
gistak wrote:
>
> > There is a somewhat related article about this in The Economist, Jan
> > 4-10 issue, that you might be interested in.
>
> I REALLY liked the Economist back when I got it. But it came too often, and
> I couldn't read it. Can you tell me the Headline title?
>
Title: Living With a Superpower (special report American Values)
I looked for the online version, but it's not available to non
subscribers, and I'm not a subscriber.
My boyfriend buys me an Economist when he goes to the magazine store,
because he's "never had a girlfriend who wanted to read a magazine like
that before". There's no way I could keep up with the flow if I got one
in the mail every week.
> > "There may also be a link between America's religiosity and its tendency
> > to see foreign policy in moral terms. To Americans, evil exists and can
> > be fought in their lives and in the world.
>
> Hmm. I chafe at comments like this, but I guess it's true for a lot of
> Americans. On the other hand, I have not heard a single positive comment
> about Bush's "axis of evil" speech. Every time it's come up, it's been
> derided (usually by me). American leaders do tend to talk in those terms,
> but I've always hoped that the populace didn't really fall for it.
I hope that too, but I've heard conversations that make me think some
people really do fall for it.
s
Tracy Yucikas
optional
since it's kinda difficult to get to ... the feeling of freedom is a "good
thing"
tracy
"rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:b0bk31$7...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Joseph
very far. Nielson has been invalid for decades. most of them get
subborned eventually, even consumer reports has been.
Joseph
gistak
>
>
> gistak wrote:
> >
> > > There is a somewhat related article about this in The Economist, Jan
> > > 4-10 issue, that you might be interested in.
> >
> > I REALLY liked the Economist back when I got it. But it came too often,
and
> > I couldn't read it. Can you tell me the Headline title?
> >
>
> Title: Living With a Superpower (special report American Values)
> I looked for the online version, but it's not available to non
> subscribers, and I'm not a subscriber.
>
I'll have a look.
Thanks,
P
Cl.Massé
> > foreign policy and what Europeans think. Especially with the Bush
> > administration in power, lots of Europeans seem to think that
> > Americans are in a different world from them.
> >
> > I often point out to Europeans that the PEOPLE were almost evenly
> > split between Bush and Gore. In other words, the current
> > administration's actions and attitudes shouldn't be taken to reflect
> > some vast majority of American opinion. The PEOPLE are also pretty
> > evenly split between the two parties in congress.
> >
> > In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European
> > foreign policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
> > differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
> > Iraq with UN approval and allied support.
> >
> > Both Europeans and Americans had a majority of people saying that
> > force should be used to uphold international law (80% and 76%).
> >
> > Only about 30% of Americans give the "US administration positive
> > ratings for its handling of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the
> > situation in Iraq." Europeans had it at about 20%.
> >
> > http://www.worldviews.org/
One more of this pool stuff. But in the US, most people are powerless,
and their representatives doesn't follow them, but the
military-economical lobby, or whatever it is called, or even known.
And in addition, most US citizens support their own system, which shows
that this pool stuff, whatever scientific flavour it could have, is
rather questionable.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20 LPF
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Gistak
<clm...@online.fr> wrote:
>>> I keep hearing about the divide between what Americans think about
>>> foreign policy and what Europeans think. Especially with the Bush
>>> administration in power, lots of Europeans seem to think that
>>> Americans are in a different world from them.
>>>
>>> I often point out to Europeans that the PEOPLE were almost evenly
>>> split between Bush and Gore. In other words, the current
>>> administration's actions and attitudes shouldn't be taken to reflect
>>> some vast majority of American opinion. The PEOPLE are also pretty
>>> evenly split between the two parties in congress.
>>>
>>> In September, "the most comprehensive poll of US and European
>>> foreign policy attitudes ever taken" showed "more similarities than
>>> differences" in how Americans and Europeans think about the world.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>>
>>> The majority of Americans (65%) feel that the US should only invade
>>> Iraq with UN approval and allied support.
>>>
>>> Both Europeans and Americans had a majority of people saying that
>>> force should be used to uphold international law (80% and 76%).
>>>
>>> Only about 30% of Americans give the "US administration positive
>>> ratings for its handling of the Arab-Israeli peace process and the
>>> situation in Iraq." Europeans had it at about 20%.
>>>
>>> http://www.worldviews.org/
>
> One more of this pool stuff.
Polls are interesting to me. They may not be completely accurate, but they
do show when a significant amount of people feel something.
> But in the US, most people are powerless,
> and their representatives doesn't follow them, but the
> military-economical lobby, or whatever it is called, or even known.
Nah, not really. I mean, the politicians depend on the voters for their
jobs. The voters aren't powerless. What makes some people FEEL powerless is
that lots of other Americans disagree with them about what's important.
Lots of possible voters are lazy or greedy, or simply apathetic, so those
who care may feel powerless to change anything. But they're not any more
powerless than voters in other democracies.
> And in addition, most US citizens support their own system, which shows
> that this pool stuff, whatever scientific flavour it could have, is
> rather questionable.
>
But why do you say this? How do you get this information? From polls?
I agree that most Americans support their system. The thing is, it's WITHIN
the American system to feel that the administration isn't doing a good job,
or that the US shouldn't act unilaterally in Iraq.
You make a mistake to think and say differently.
P
JP
"Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA5216B2.293B%gis...@hotmail.com...
>>>>
> Polls are interesting to me. They may not be completely accurate, but they
> do show when a significant amount of people feel something.
>
> > But in the US, most people are powerless,
> > and their representatives doesn't follow them, but the
> > military-economical lobby, or whatever it is called, or even known.
>
> Nah, not really. I mean, the politicians depend on the voters for their
> jobs. The voters aren't powerless. What makes some people FEEL powerless
is
> that lots of other Americans disagree with them about what's important.
We are powerless. The average voter has no attention span and no memory.
Elections are popularity contests. We get to choose between a few selected
candidates who are indebted to moneyed interests. This country is too big
with too much entrenched wealth and special agendas for a voting electorate
to
make any difference.
>
> Lots of possible voters are lazy or greedy, or simply apathetic, so those
> who care may feel powerless to change anything. But they're not any more
> powerless than voters in other democracies.
I disagree. As voters in a "superpower" we are much more powerless. The
few
thousand persons who run this country are so far removed from the rest of us
that
they are virtually invisible. The information released by the media is
controlled.
Our politicians are owned by those who make them wealthy with campaign
contributions. Why do you think campaign reform is never addressed by the
professional politicians? They get to keep it all when they quit.
>
> > And in addition, most US citizens support their own system, which shows
> > that this pool stuff, whatever scientific flavour it could have, is
> > rather questionable.
> >
>
> But why do you say this? How do you get this information? From polls?
>
> I agree that most Americans support their system. The thing is, it's
WITHIN
> the American system to feel that the administration isn't doing a good
job,
> or that the US shouldn't act unilaterally in Iraq.
We support America because we are Americans and most of us are fair minded
and decent. To us America is our family, our neighbors and our
neighborhoods.
To the rest of the world we are the consequences of US business practices,
and of military and "national security" agendas. Nobody wants this Iraq
thing to
go the way it is going. There is an agenda behind it that has not been
revealed,
it will be years before the truth starts to leak out. And the seeds for
future
anti-American sentiment will have again been sown.
Anyone who has ever been called on the phone for an "opinion" by a company
who provides polling information is familiar with how the questions are
structured
to push the respondant into a desired response. These companies do not
sample public opinion, they manufacture the opinion that their client
needs.
Then it is disseminated in the mass media as "news" as part of an overall
manipulation
of public consciousness.
>
> You make a mistake to think and say differently.
In my opinion you are being naive.
>
> P
>
JP
gistak
"JP" <vze2wx8p....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gn4X9.3286$dU....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BA5216B2.293B%gis...@hotmail.com...
> >>>>
>
>
> > Polls are interesting to me. They may not be completely accurate, but
they
> > do show when a significant amount of people feel something.
> >
> > > But in the US, most people are powerless,
> > > and their representatives doesn't follow them, but the
> > > military-economical lobby, or whatever it is called, or even known.
> >
> > Nah, not really. I mean, the politicians depend on the voters for their
> > jobs. The voters aren't powerless. What makes some people FEEL powerless
> is
> > that lots of other Americans disagree with them about what's important.
>
> We are powerless.
Obviously, I disagree with you.
> The average voter has no attention span and no memory.
This is basically true but doesn't affect what I said.
> Elections are popularity contests.
Maybe, but this doesn't affect what I said.
> We get to choose between a few selected
> candidates who are indebted to moneyed interests.
Hmmm. I don't think that this necessarily means that they pay their debts
with policy, when they believe that policy to be wrong. I beleive that there
are LOTS of deals made, which water down good policy, but I don't believe
that MOST lawmakers are actively rejecting what they believe is good policy
in order to help out people who gave them money.
> This country is too big
> with too much entrenched wealth and special agendas for a voting
electorate
> to
> make any difference.
>
Obviously, I disagree.
> >
> > Lots of possible voters are lazy or greedy, or simply apathetic, so
those
> > who care may feel powerless to change anything. But they're not any more
> > powerless than voters in other democracies.
>
> I disagree. As voters in a "superpower" we are much more powerless. The
> few
> thousand persons who run this country are so far removed from the rest of
us
> that
> they are virtually invisible.
Obviously, I disagree. And it sounds like you're talking about population,
not being a super power. What does being a super power have to do with the
politicians being removed from the populace?
> The information released by the media is
> controlled.
But alternative media is widely available, as you surely know. What does
this have to do with whether the people are powerless?
> Our politicians are owned by those who make them wealthy with campaign
> contributions. Why do you think campaign reform is never addressed by the
> professional politicians? They get to keep it all when they quit.
> >
It's hard to get elected without the dough. That doesn't mean that the
politicians are owned.
<snip>
> Anyone who has ever been called on the phone for an "opinion" by a company
> who provides polling information is familiar with how the questions are
> structured
> to push the respondant into a desired response. These companies do not
> sample public opinion, they manufacture the opinion that their client
> needs.
> Then it is disseminated in the mass media as "news" as part of an overall
> manipulation
> of public consciousness.
>
That's interesting, since the poll in question showed that a majority of
Americans do NOT want the US to act unilaterally. Who was this poll being
manufactured for? Certainly not Bush.
>
> >
> > You make a mistake to think and say differently.
>
> In my opinion you are being naive.
>
I expect that. Cynics assume that everyone else is naive.
P
chang
This is terrible to say this. Superpowers are a fact of global economic
life. What matters is how a country handles its power. You are implying that
Europeans (in fact anyone not from the US) might be driven in their views by
feelings like envy or jealousy. I am an European, and I am appaled to see
how a fragile is democracy. How it can be broken down from within by a group
of people who use their governing position to manipulate the opinion thru
the media, in the name of national security. But yes, the Americans I know
are against an intervention in Irak, and yes, America is far from a
monolothic society. And Bush is far from a joke. We take him very seriously:
after all, that is his finger that lingers over the red button!
Alain
Prigator
>Lots of possible voters are lazy or greedy, or simply apathetic, so those
>who care may feel powerless to change anything.
>I agree that most Americans support their system. The thing is, it's WITHIN
>the American system to feel that the administration isn't doing a good job,
>or that the US shouldn't act unilaterally in Iraq.
Well said. Those who care and feel powerless are the ones who most loudly
demand a change in policy, and they are the ones most likely to post on usenet.
The more radical opponents write more emotional, longer posts. Those who
approve of the "in" administration do not write 3000 word rants to say that.
Pointing with pride is a silent gesture. Pointing with alarm can get very
shrill.
Doug Chandler
Gistak
"chang" <ch...@skynet.be> wrote:
No, I never implied anything of the sort. This thread is about an
international and well-recognized poll. I even gave the URL to poll, so you
can check it out for yourself (if you go find it).
I mentioned that this poll showed that Europeans are more likely than
Americans to say that there shouldn't be any superpowers. I am implying
NOTHING at all. I am stating a FACT.
And I never said anything about anyone outside the U.S. EXCEPT Europeans.
Why would you think that I mean anyone else not from the US? I specifically
said Europeans, and I meant what I said.
Please don't tell me that I'm implying something so unrelated to what I
wrote. Jealousy? Envy? Who said anything about that? Oh, YOU did.
P
JP
An honest politician is one who stays bought.
I don't believe that they act in the best interests of
the citizens who elected them, the country they govern,
or the world we all inhabit.
I may be cynical but I wasn't born that way,
kind of happened after decades of watching,
listening, and most importantly remembering.
What was said, what was promised, what transpired
and the truth that leaked out many years later.
If you have faith in your government then good for you.
You can rest easy knowing that they are acting
with honor and integrity.
Obviously I disagree.
The smaller the government in scope, power and economy
the more influence a citizen can have. A mega government like
the US can only be affected by mega interest groups.
It is run by a cadre of professional politicians who are insulated
from the concerns of the citizens. They have their own retirement
plans, their own health care system, their own laws and are
accountable to no one. (yeah, the Corleone family got a lotta buffers.")
The Bush agenda will eventually be known. It may be sealed for 99 years
for purposes of national security but eventually we or our descendents will
know. The original claim that Iraq was an integral conspirator of 9/11 with
incontrovertible proof to follow has quietly evaporated, now it is weapons
of mass destruction and treaty violations. Maybe it really has to do with
Bush,
Cheney, oil and Enron. Maybe its a smoke and mirrors game to divert
attention away from the most corrupt regime in the region who could be
linked to 9/11, our good friends the Sauds. But 200,000,000 Americans
could rise up with one voice and still not have an effect. IMO
You think I'm a cynic. I think I'm a realist. Only way to know is to be
alive
twenty years from now and revisit the archives.
(Guy goes into a bar and orders a beer. Looks down the bar and sees
George W at a table in the corner having one with Colin Powell.
Can't believe his eyes. Makes his way to their table and stands there.
Bush finally notices him and looks up...."Yes? What can I do for you?"
The guy stammers out "Gee I can't believe I'm seeing you here, could
I just ask you what you guys are talking about?"
"Sure" says Bush, "I was just telling Colin here that to be successful in
Iraq we
are going to have to kill one million Iraqis and one blonde with big boobs."
The guy looks at him amazed. "Why do you have to kill a blonde with big
boobs?"
Bush turns to Powell. "See? I told you nobody cares about a million
Iraqis.")
Joseph
of what is already obvious to thinking americans. "W" is insane, and a
war monger (for personal private gain). IMNSHO
Joseph
Gistak
<vze2wx8p....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Old joke.
> An honest politician is one who stays bought.
>
That certainly is an old joke.
>
> I don't believe that they act in the best interests of
> the citizens who elected them, the country they govern,
> or the world we all inhabit.
That doesn't mean that we're powerless to get rid of them, which is my
point.
> I may be cynical but I wasn't born that way,
> kind of happened after decades of watching,
> listening, and most importantly remembering.
> What was said, what was promised, what transpired
> and the truth that leaked out many years later.
You were lied to. Doesn't mean that you were powerless to oust them.
> If you have faith in your government then good for you.
> You can rest easy knowing that they are acting
> with honor and integrity.
> Obviously I disagree.
>
My point was and is that if we don't like them, we can get rid of them.
> The smaller the government in scope, power and economy
> the more influence a citizen can have. A mega government like
> the US can only be affected by mega interest groups.
As I said, this has to do with population, not being a superpower. And I
think you mean that the smaller a DEMOCRATIC government is in scope. A small
dictatorship is different.
I snipped all the stuff about Bush because that doesn't have anything to do
with my argument. I personally don't trust Bush a teeny amount. I was never
talking about him or any other specific politician. But I can and will vote
against him, and I am not powerless.
P
chang
comment at face value, I find it to be a rather poor argument to show our
differences in world views. It seems natural to me that if you are part of a
superpower, you kind of want to keep the privileges attached, as the graph
you are referring to clearly shows on both US and European sides. I find it
far more interesting to observe that 33 % Americans would like to see the EU
become a superpower like the US against 52% who believe the US should remain
the only superpower.
Among other things that currently angers many Europeans is G.W.Bush's
willingness to ignore the UN resolutions if they do not comply with his
plans.
When I see how G.W.Bush is manipulating the opinion on emotional ground,
while accomplishing a strategic and economic agenda that dates back to his
father's tenure, I am far from thinking he is a joke. Pardon me the
reference, but if people had taken "Mein Kampf" seriously in 1925, the world
would be a better place today. Germans people were by no means worse than
say- French or Americans.
Remembering how G.Bush sr abruptly stopped the Golf war before capturing
Saddam, I personnally doubt that Bush junior will kill such a lucrative
business, that is, cultivating, exporting a feeling of insecurity in the
world.
In its "War against Terror" the Bush administration gives itself the
justification to control its own people thru new restrictive laws, to
control the world's energetic resources (Irak is the world's second largest
proven reserve [ more info:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqfull.html ]).
This feeling of insecurity also has tremendously boosted the international
arms market, 45.8% of which is captured by the US industry (representing
more than 5.5 billions USD for 2001 [
http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/articles/BAS-jf2003.pdf ] ). There is a
12-fold increase in terror-related aid after 9/11, reaching a figure of 1.87
billion USD under the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. This situation
has given the US very juicy but irresponsable deals with many countries poor
on human rights issues such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a country
with weapons of mass destruction, on the brink of war with its neighbor and
a regime that is notoriously unstable . It is no wonder that many
American-made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda
fighters and other terrorist groups.
"Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA535DFA.29E7%gis...@hotmail.com...
gistak
"chang" <ch...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e2e87d1$0$5657$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> I think I made my point clear.
Yes, your point was that when I posted a FACT about a poll, you thought that
I was implying something that I wasn't. Merely because I posted the results
of one question in a poll, you thought I must be implying something more
about Europeans, and ALL people outside the US. Not true at all.
> Nevertheless, if I accept to take your
> comment at face value, I find it to be a rather poor argument to show our
> differences in world views.
Who's trying to make such an argument? I don't know what the hell you're
talking about.
If you read this thread from the begninning, you'll see that I said that
this poll shows that Europeans and Americans are NOT as different as people
think they are. The whole point was to show the SIMILARITIES, not the
differences. You're reading an argument that I'm simply not making!
But they do have some differences of opinion, including the one that I
mentioned. This is a simple fact and I don't care whether you think it's
good or not.
> It seems natural to me that if you are part of a
> superpower, you kind of want to keep the privileges attached
Now YOU are making an assumption that I disagree with. I think that people
might think having a superpower is a good thing (or a bad thing) regardless
of whether they get any kind of "priveleges" from it. We know how they
responded. We do NOT know why.
> , as the graph
> you are referring to clearly shows on both US and European sides.
No, the poll shows what the responses were. YOU are assuming that you know
the motivation behind the responses. I am dealing with fact, you are dealing
with supposition. That's fine. I think that supposition is a fair thing to
do, and I don't blame you at all. But YOU were saying that *I* was the one
making implications when I wasn't.
P
JP
> >
>
> My point was and is that if we don't like them, we can get rid of them.
>
> > The smaller the government in scope, power and economy
> > the more influence a citizen can have. A mega government like
> > the US can only be affected by mega interest groups.
>
> As I said, this has to do with population, not being a superpower. And I
> think you mean that the smaller a DEMOCRATIC government is in scope. A
small
> dictatorship is different.
No, I believe that smaller is more accessible, dictatorship's included.
My concept of a citizen being able to influence does not necessarily mean
for freedom or good. Influence.
>
> I snipped all the stuff about Bush because that doesn't have anything to
do
> with my argument. I personally don't trust Bush a teeny amount. I was
never
> talking about him or any other specific politician. But I can and will
vote
> against him, and I am not powerless.
>
> P
>
Under FEMA the way it is written the president can shut down all
constitutional
freedoms immediately without any representative approval for as long as he
deems
necessary in the interests of "National Security." No proof is necessary.
Constitutions freedoms like speech, voting, right to own property, travel
freely.
Under GATT your municipality, county, or state can be sued for any
legislation
that restricts a foreign businesses ability to sell their product. Doesn't
comply with
noise, pollution, safety, purity, toxicity requirements? Tough. The
decision is
made in closed sessions by anonymous arbitrators in another country.
Any legislation is superceded by treaty.
If you are determined and make enough noise history shows that federal
agencies
can be used to dump so much crap in your life that you will go broke and
despondent
trying to extricate yourself. An IRS computer error can take six years from
your life.
I can and do vote. Every election since I was eighteen. But that is not
power.
I don't know what power you think you have but unless you are connected to
the
existing structure your voice is just part of the static. The music is
played by those
holding the instruments.
Ever run for any kind of elected office? It's an interesting experience.
Might change your mind about getting rid of those you don't like.
Nobody trusts Bush. I don't trust any of them. Who do you trust?
gistak
>
> "Gistak" <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BA540EE7.2A31%gis...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> >
> > My point was and is that if we don't like them, we can get rid of them.
> >
> > > The smaller the government in scope, power and economy
> > > the more influence a citizen can have. A mega government like
> > > the US can only be affected by mega interest groups.
> >
> > As I said, this has to do with population, not being a superpower. And I
> > think you mean that the smaller a DEMOCRATIC government is in scope. A
> small
> > dictatorship is different.
>
> No, I believe that smaller is more accessible, dictatorship's included.
> My concept of a citizen being able to influence does not necessarily mean
> for freedom or good. Influence.
>
Sure, mine too. But we're talking about the power of people OUTSIDE the
government, right? How much political power does the typical Cuban have? Not
much. I suggest that the typical American has more potential power (whether
he uses it or not) to affect the government than that Cuban.
> >
> > I snipped all the stuff about Bush because that doesn't have anything to
> do
> > with my argument. I personally don't trust Bush a teeny amount. I was
> never
> > talking about him or any other specific politician. But I can and will
> vote
> > against him, and I am not powerless.
> >
> > P
<snip>
> I can and do vote. Every election since I was eighteen. But that is not
> power.
Hmmm. But you think that the typical European working man has more power
than voting?
Voting gives you the power to remove someone from office. Fear of votes
motivates politicians to act or react.
<snip>
> Nobody trusts Bush.
But you're wrong. LOTS of people do.
> I don't trust any of them. Who do you trust?
>
I don't know what you mean. You want a list of people that I trust?
P
james
I am not sure why you believe this poll shows what you think it does.I
could devise a poll which would show more agreement than differences
between Americans and North Koreans.All you have to do is ask a lot of
platitudes and ignore any areas of difference.
A second point is that large differences in, the opinions of
respective countries 'elites' will not show up in a poll of the
population.
James
gistak
Did you read the questions in the poll?
If so, did you think that it asked a lot of platitudes and ignored any areas
of differences?
For instance, do you think that asking whether the US should invade Iraq
without UN support was a platitude? What about asking the respondants to
rate the US for its handling of the Arab-Israeli peace process? Is that a
platitude?
Otherwise, what exactly are you talking about?
> A second point is that large differences in, the opinions of
> respective countries 'elites' will not show up in a poll of the
> population.
>
So what? I'm not talking about the elite. I'm talking about the populace. In
fact, I'm specifically saying that policies do not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the populace.
P
Tracy Yucikas
>
> >
> > "Jerry Hollombe" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9306C6D5AD...@207.252.248.9...
> >> "Tracy Yucikas" <tyuc...@cts.com> wrote in
> >> news:b0a5m7$3...@chicago.us.mensa.org:
>
> >> > [who has gotten 'unable to connect to server' messages for a week or
> >> > two when aiming for MTM]
> >>
> >> Me too. I find rebooting and not running my e-mail client clears the
> >> problem, for no obvious reason.
> >>
> >
> > hmmm, guess I should have tried that tack ... although right now
> > I'm doing nothing different from "normal routine" and finding that
> > connection appears to work fine ... go figger
>
> and sometimes it doesn't. Rebooting and running other software, or not,
> doesn't seem to matter.
>
>
that's pretty much whhat I decided too .. and now is first time in eight
days
that mtm connected.
much as I love hack-phrases, it's a bit surreal
tracy
Tracy Yucikas
"JP" <vze2wx8p....@verizon.net> wrote
<Snip>
> Our politicians are owned by those who make them wealthy with campaign
> contributions. Why do you think campaign reform is never addressed by the
> professional politicians? They get to keep it all when they quit.
John McCain a notable exception ?
Nobody wants this Iraq
> thing to
> go the way it is going. There is an agenda behind it that has not been
> revealed,
> it will be years before the truth starts to leak out. And the seeds for
> future
> anti-American sentiment will have again been sown.
>
> Anyone who has ever been called on the phone for an "opinion" by a company
> who provides polling information is familiar with how the questions are
> structured
> to push the respondant into a desired response. These companies do not
> sample public opinion, they manufacture the opinion that their client
> needs.
> Then it is disseminated in the mass media as "news" as part of an overall
> manipulation
> of public consciousness.
>
some of these points sound true