Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Again I have moved beyond arguing the article itself...I interpreted it differently then everyone else. Nor did I try to insinuate that you were not intellegent...I was merely pointing out that that calling someone simple-minded because they put a flag on their car makes no sense. You don't love the logo, fine. But just because they want to put a sticker of a flag on their car does not make them "simple-minded". But the gauntlet has been throw and I am not one to quit, so...

First off the author is not censuring anyone. He states that, "What is wrong with America, in the eyes of the intelligentsia? The same things that are right with America in the eyes of others.  If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom." They have just as much right to say what they want as the "simple-minded" people who put stickers on their cars. He is not saying that they shouldn't be able to question why people put flags on their cars, he is saying that by putting the flag on the car (which they do not agree with) that we "insult(s) the very presumptions that enable the anointed to think of themselves as special, as one-up on the rest of us."

bm

Given the intellectual bankruptcy of many arguments within the article it is understandable that you wish to move on.

Given the intellectual bankruptcy of many arguments within the article it is understandable that you wish to write off the carping of the arguments as merely "different interpretation".



Never did I have the impression that you had done so.



You were? Show me where.

See, you never said any such thing, your retort remained in the exclusive realm of vapid sarcasm. I am quite certain of this because if you had I would have responded with the following:

Upon what do you base the claim that it makes no sense? We can explore this, and perhaps I can illustrate to you why it makes sense to me.



Do note that I have never asserted that putting a flag on a car makes one simple minded, just that I think it advertises it. There is a big difference between cause and effect that I urge you to look into.

But truth to tell, intellectual rigour demands that I amend my statement for more accuracy, even if it was expressed as an opinion ("I think...").

Here is the revision:

"I think that putting a flag on a car is an advertisement of one's simple-minded approach to patriotism in most cases."

The differences:

1) They may not be simple-minded on the whole and this is now addressed.

2) They may not even be simple minded about the particular issue, I merely assert that most are, and correct against an absolute.

Now if you think it makes "no sense", then by all means elucidate, and we can take it from there.




Bullshit. You are advertising your ignorance of the definition of the word. I will explain subsequently.



You are confusing censor with censure.

Their distain for the perceived jingoism is censure, they censure it but have no ability to censor it.

Similarly, the author's criticism of the effigy he created is also censure, not censorship.

Now where the author takes leave from reality is to equate their censure with a hatred of freedom while not indicting his own censure.

If they were forcing people to cease their flag use it would be an imposition on freedom. If they merely give their diapproval they are on the same level as the author, who is quite generous with his diapproval of their diapproval.

So when the author excretes his spectacular brainfart in his attempt to denigrate those diametrically opposed to his politics he commits the falsehood of calling their disapproval a hatred of freedom when it is, in fact, simply a different opinion and he's liberal with his own criticisms and opinions.

It gets old seeing this idiotic level of debate in politics, the incessant attempt to characterize the opponents instead of addressing their arguments.

I think many people with diametrically opposed politics to mine are great patriots and want what they think is best for the country.

I recognize that they might simply have different ideas on what is good for the country.

To simply try to write off their ideas as hatred is simple-minded thinking and I reaffirm that you should be ashamed to associate yourself with that level of political debate*.

* Note that this is censure, I don't "hate your freedom" to engage in such sophmoric levels of debate.

Keep a stiff upper lip JPiM, we all have to go through the Craven trials before we are fully accepted here on A2K. You're doing good.

Pffftt! McG's trying to pretend he's accepted again!

I have better advice:

Who cares who accepts who. I sure don't.

I don't hate America.

However I know that America spends more on its military forces (call it "defense" if you want) than the next twenty countries combined.
A lot of its surplus and long-date stock gets sold into word markets. Which is helpful for the many small wars which are always going on, all over the world.

Meantime, over a million people are displaced in central Africa, without food, shelter, or clean water. The only people who are doing anything are the charitable organisations. This causes unimaginable health problems.
The biggest health problems in America are related to the growing obesity of the population.

We live in a very strange word.

Naw, McTag, it's the freedom that pisses people off.

So what are those countries that haven't spent money on defense doing about it?

I am indeed.

I know you're being flippant, but how much defending do you think you need? The mightiest nation in the world seems paradoxically also to be the most paranoid (okay, one of the, we can think of others) and fearful.

What about overconsumption of fossil fuels, natural resources? I haven't got the figures, but they are published quite often. Americans expend several times per capita more than other nations, and hugely more than undeveloped nations.
Exploitation of other countries? Carbon dioxide emissions? Environmental pollution? Ignoring international calls for restraint? Refusal to ratify global environment agreements? Belligerence? Arrogance? Jingoism? Xenophobia?

Come to think of it, its hard to find a reason to love America. I may have to revise my opinion.

I love America because it is full of decent, honest people . . . and i despair that self-serving sons-of-bitches such as serve in the current administration routinely cozen those people, and trade upon their good nature to rob them as rapidly and frequently as they rob everyone else in the world.

Don't give up on us, McTag, our biggest fault as a people derives from political apathy or political stupidity. In that, i don't think we are unique, but the consequences are so very real--for us, and for any unfortunate who happens to be in the way.

I don't doubt it.

Maybe the USA is too big. Too big to be managed properly, too big for most of its citizens to be concerned about what happens outside the country. Too big for many of its citizens to be able to afford to travel outside.

Should it be broken up into four of five separate countries? Downsized?

When the criticism is all lies, it's hate. That's all the democrat party has to offer these days, hatred and lies.

The answer seems to me that unless the dem party can be either totally marginalized or eliminated, we're probably going to come to that.

Democracy is a good system for governing a fairly homogeneous group of people with shared ideals and values. It is not a good system for sharing power between two or more groups of people who basically hate eachother, have nothing in common, and don't even trust eachother to play by fair rules.

Thanks to Bush, the uniter.

C'mon guys, don't let's fall out on this thread. There's plenty other threads for party politics, or insults.

But.....I've heard that the "red" states are net recipients from the public purse, while the "blue" states are net contributors. So don't split up just yet, you need each other.

I think you have that exactly backwards. I like what Clinton had to say about division the other night. Division isn't our friend.
We have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies and to encourage competition. Competition by "divided" nations often manifests itself in tragedy. Now, rather than divide the admittedly aggressive people of this country into even more groups to even out the fight, wouldn't it be better to simply join forces and expand it until there was no one left outside of the fold? Life isn't a piece of cake for everyone here in the states, but even a bum's life is damn sight better than half of the people on this planet. There are heated rivalries throughout this great nation but when it really matters, we stand together as one. By expanding rather than dividing we would simply be inviting more and more people in until there was no one left outside looking in. United States of the World.

Now before you call me an imperialist, consider that I'm suggesting a system where the 5% of the world's population I currently share a nation with would lose the strangle hold they have on world policy issues even as our money spread to the four corners of the earth. I am confident that after exposure to our greedy culture, or lack thereof, for a single generation the other 95% would have learned to cherish the freedoms we take for granted and would vote to do nothing too drastic to the system. If I'm wrong about that; so what. The redistribution of wealth and authority would already have been accomplished. Doesn't United sound better than divided? :wink:

McT, there was a book written several years ago entitled The Nine Nations of North America, which posits that upon a basis of shared interests, there are nine large, identifiable political communities on this continent. I have not read the book, and so cannot comment on its value.

I would suggest that our "nuts and bolts" system needs some minor overhaul. The Roman Republic worked well, in a "screw the common man" sort of way, until they had spread out over almost the entire Italian penninsula, and had extended citizenship to all of the free inhabitants. It then became impossible to make the franchise work. In this world, however, an intelligent use of our communication resources can make community level politics successful. We have two enormous hurdles to overcome--apathy in the citizens, and the routine purchase of the political institutions by wealthy individual and corporate donors.

Well these are interesting thoughts, and I'm not a deep political thinker. "Redistribution of wealth" was a phrase Bill used, but it would seem that even within the US as it stands at the moment, more and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands, and the underclass is growing.
Are we approaching the Roman model, with patricians and slaves? Wal-Mart is in the news today, paying next to nothing in wages, and expanding fast.

Imperialism: it's here. This article says that the invasion of Iraq was to save the US Dollar in its pre-eminent position, and the argument is a persuasive one:

The real reasons Bush went to war

WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar

John Chapman
Wednesday July 28, 2004
The Guardian

There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.

(more)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1270414,00.html

I posted this on another thread, but it's a good read. It should certainly make you go hmmm....

I agree, I think that's the nub.
More questions, no answers today: do you think the US citizenry is being well served by the TV output it gets? TV is very important, it seems to me, to educate and inform, and to give a world view. It appears that this is an opportunity being lost, and that propaganda and partisan news-lite is being offered. Education must go with political franchise, for the vote of an unformed citizen is a dangerous thing. Fix? Legislation? Public service broadcasting?

Secondly, political institutions and politicians. What makes a person go into politics? To make the world a better place? To selflessly serve his fellow man? I am a cynic. I think politicians are in it for what they personally can get, in terms of power, influence, and wealth. So, I distrust them. So, I do not believe they will govern the country (any country) well, and have a real government for the people, unless it is made very difficult or impossible for them to be bought by industrial interests. I have no idea how this could be accomplished, but I think it is necessary. At present, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.