Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:04 am
Well, I realize there is a lot of awful connected with Jewish people, but since you are, as you say, not practicing, I'd think any reasonably mild-mannered country would be OK. There's a lot more to a country than its religion.

Did you ever find ten that would do? Mine were based on where I've visited and enjoyed myself, and what I like.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:16 am
On another totally unrelated note, the word gazette comes from Venice, as well. The government of the Republic would print a single sheet broadside with all the latest government news. Being the Venetian Republic (cha-ching) it was not free. It cost one gazetta, the smallest piece of specie.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:26 am
I'm not sure about the "Jew star", jespah.
The "Magen Dawid" (which is the old original form of it) was first officially used by a Jewish militia at the end of 30 years war in Prague, chosen by themselves to be distinguished from others.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:39 am
I'd want and expect that all the countries I might choose to have excellent newspapers and free access to international news. I ought to look at my chosen ones again and see if they meet these expectations.

1. Religious freedom to practice or not practice being Jewish, Catholic, pagan or other.

2. Excellent 4th Estate.

3. Habitable climate and land.

4. Access to varied shorelines.

5. Interesting & friendly people.

6. Reasonable Economy and Transportation.

7. Non-Invasive Government.

8. Good Justice System.

9. Encompassing National Park and Public Right of Ways System.

10. Professional Medical Care.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:39 am
[Just adding in brackets that in early modern times 'foreigners' were called "strangers" in England and Ireland = all (other) Europeans. (Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton, eds. From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America, 1550-1750. Brighton/Portland, 2001)]
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:40 am
Hmm a list of 10 countries.

Well, I'd mainly want to be where family is. That means the US, Israel (eek, too violent) or, of all places, Sweden. Stockholm looks pretty cool. Oh yeah, I have family by marriage in Italy. They're in Siena, which looks pleasant.

Canada, definitely, same with Oz and NZ.

Looks like my list of 10 is only 6 long; 7 if Israel can solve that pesky violence problem.

Oh yeah, I also have relations in Mexico. So make that 7 countries, or 8 if, well, if pigs fly. Confused
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 11:41 am
Pigs in ol' Mehico can fly? Imagine that, one would be positively nostalgic for mere pidgeons . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:14 pm
or even pig-eons
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:15 pm
eons of pigs . . . god, a lifetime is enough ! ! !

(we better watch out, the Off-Topic Police may get us)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:19 pm
Okay -- you've all really forged ahead! I'm getting a lot of information out of this and thank, piffka for your list.

Jespah - note that England is not on the top ten list of countries nor do they have a city represented. Gautam would be aware of how other religions are accepted there.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:20 pm
I don't know if this point has been made, but just about anywhere in the world is pretty good provided you are loaded. And some places you can't live unless you are loaded, like Bermuda and Jersey.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:24 pm
Without claiming any expertise, i think it is fair to describe England as being as religiously tolerant as the US. There are no longer any religious "tests," either politically or in higher education, and there are no debilities for any specific religion. If England didn't make the top ten list, i'm frankly mystified. I'd not want to live there, but i can't think other European nations can claim to be any better of a human habitat. The English have made truly remarkable strides in cleaning up their environment. If they are faulted for the quality of their environment, it is important to keep in mind how far they've had to come in improving that situation. I'm no fan of the English, and yet a sense of fairness induces me to say that they have struggled mightily with a deluge of "economic refugees" from the Commonwealth to provide a decent place for all of their citizens to live.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:25 pm
Jersey has become that exclusive, huh, Boss? Why i remember when it was just a little backwater, providing refuge to Charles, Prince of Wales, protecting him from the evil forces of Parliament. Ooops, givin' away my age . . .
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:26 pm
...it must be the cuisine (or, rather, the lack of).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 12:51 pm
Cuisine? Why we have McDonalds Kentucky FC Burger King Starbucks, and various pre packaged morsels of fat and sugar just like er well, er anywhere else these days.

To be serious for a moment, the Empire has given us food from around the world. In any British town or city there is an amazing variety of Indian Bangladeshi Chinese Thai etc (I know these are not all Brit Empire) restaurants.

Setanta, Ponce Charles is for sale, wanna buy it?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 01:00 pm
and Greek Italian French Spanish.

Turkish Japanese Mongolian Chadian (for people on a diet) Mexican Icelandic

Well of course I exaggerate a little, you would not find them all in a small place, but statistically the favourite British food is no longer fish 'n chips but chicken tikka masala. (Which has nothing to do with India, it was invented in Wolverhampton)
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 01:00 pm
I agree that the food in England does seem to have improved. We had several excellent meals, in both London and the bush (such "bush" as England has) when we were there last year. Mind you, this was at a price, but that may be partly, but not entirely, due to the weakness of the Aussie dollar! I found increased variety, and just better cooking than previously. We are spoilt in Oz, where you can eat well, reasonably cheaply.

I thought England would be a good place to live, but ...the weather!! I do like to see the sun occasionally, and long for clear blue skies.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 01:02 pm
In the case of England, and London specifically, it must be the cost of living. When I was there, it was a delightful city. I had lots of fun.....except for the shopping. I couldn't buy anything because everything would be so much cheaper when I got home. And it was. So, I suppose Steve has a point. If you've got lots of moola, there are many very attractive places to live.
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 01:04 pm
Mind you, the lack of sun is not only an English feature - we spent September travelling in England, France and Sweden and the sun seldom bothered with an appearance. Blue skies....what???

Next time I'm going to carry a picture of a blue sky with me. Sheesh!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2002 01:08 pm
Its true we don't have many Aussie restaurants. The average Aussie seems to be a bit too tough and leathery after exposure to all that thermonuclear radiation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/08/2024 at 01:40:52