I missed the meaning of Sofia's post, too, completely. What the heck was that about criticizing other countries?
Completely mystified. But that will be cured by the wine and cheese, Mamaj -- hold on... I'll be right over!!
mamaj-
Mine was a quirky statement, not really worth our time, but I will explain my reasoning.
First of all, I don't think criticism of your own country is a negative. I believe it is necessary and conducive to forced improvements on occasion. As Tartarin and I agreed elsewhere, this perfecting process was built into the US founding documents, and has worked marvellously so far.
The conversation between Tartarin and I centered on the disparity of criticism; me, feeling the US administration is held to an unfair standard.
Tartarin wrote:
" My understanding of social behavior (including countries in their social circle -- the rest of the world) is that one should always be self-critical before climbing on one's high horse and criticizing others. And then, in a democracy, it's intensely important that citizens be fully informed, questioning, and willing to second-guess their politicians 24/7. Those who don't may be infatuated with America, but they don't love it. "
Sofia wrote:
"PS-- Questioning only the actions and motives of the party
you don't like not only means you don't love your country, nor are you infatuated with it--You're pimping it."
Tartarin posits that those who don't question their government don't really love their government. I say those who vigorously criticise their own government because of which political party is currently ruling-- are selling out the country on a wider scale for personal partisan goals. If the country as a whole is headed down such a scurrilous path, the voices of criticism would be universal, not just the far left. Voicing opposition to demand improvement is one thing. Voicing opposition to damage the opposing political party is selling out the country, IMV.
If the voices from the left had criticised Clinton's Bosnian bombing, or took equal offense at Chirac's demeaning statement to the EEs, or took great issue with Byrd or Democrats who deserved bi-partisan criticism, I wouldn't have an argument.
I'm not under the impression that the world will change, but it is my opinion. I think wrong should be criticised, no matter who the offender or what political affiliation they represent. And, I think critics should test their motivations.
Sofia
The left is completely against Chirac - he is a conservative!
mama,
I boycott Portuguese wine, mainly because it tastes like wood.
France and Germany have been losers since WWII ended. Now, they are wannabe winners? Which would any country want to be?
But, they climbed into bed with the monster Saddam. Now, France and Germany are a little worried about those brave rising EE countries.
One could wish only that these two loser countries would stop using the US (with bogus claims of something fishy about Bush-and-oil) to keep the eyes off their own sins.
Tex-Star
Honestly, living here in Germany and being born after WWII, I really think, we only won after 1945.
However, I might be stupid, but what are "EE countries"?
Well, Mr. Hinteler, this means that American occupation is not a synonym of the absolute evil. EE, by the way, IMO is an acronym for Eastern Europe.
steissd
I was born in the British Zone.
Well, FRG (prior to unification of Germany) was formed from the U.S. , British and French occupational zones; but, IMO, the policies of the occupants regarding future of the country and denazification were more or less uniform.
"Tartarin posits that those who don't question their government don't really love their government." Not really, Sofia. I said that those who don't question their government [on a regular basis, as I had said earlier] don't love America -- being an American obliges one to scrutinize one's government, whether it's one you voted for or not. There was considerable criticism of Clinton from the left, just as there is considerable criticism of Bush from the right. There's a big difference though. Bush is the result of a kind of putsch which has been in the offing for years (the way Clinton was treated by the right was part of that; the way the Democratic legislators have been treated by their confreres is another part of the story; the way Tom De Lay manages things is another part of the story). The putsch managers are a very, very different sort from (even!) Terry McAuliffe or anything we've got on the left. Too bad! say some. Thank god! say I and others. And with many others, I thank god for Byrd and those who have stood up against this steam-rolling.
Sofia - sorry, it's still hazy to me. And I still don't understand your reference to pimp.
Craven, then you've never had some of the Portuguese wines I've had. I would stand some of their wines against many others. Many of them are only now beginning to be imported here. I drink vinho verde when I find it (not the Mateus which has been sold here for years), and I quite often buy just plain red table wine. There are good wines from all over, and I have to confess that I am not the fussiest wine drinker in the world. But I long ago gave up expensive French food covered in sauce, and the fancy presentations of experiments with food that should never have been made. For me, most Portuguese wine is good honest wine. But then. chacun a son gout
One thing I've learned, Maple, is that very few long range forecasts go the way they're predicted. That's because so many things happen that are unforeseen - like 9/11.
Predicting copper markets in 5 and 10 year forecasts (something I used to work on) used to have an average life of perhaps a year, because of all the variables. Still, we were paid good money to prepare these forecasts, because of what people wanted to think would happen.
Who thought there would be a European Union ten years ago? Who thought the Japanese economy would go the way it did? For that matter, who thought a healthy budget surplus here would turn into a whopping deficit three years later?
Things are seldom what they seem.
This study was done, btw, for the EU commision.
That article linked by Maple was very discouraging. I know it is only a theory or prognostication, but it does state as fact declining birth rates. Does anyone know what is up with the birth rate statistic?
Also a point of concern for me is the coupling of economic decline with the growing Muslim population. I don't draw any conclusion, but I think this is a trend to study.
That is a trend that has been going on for quite awhile now. Happens in most developed countries that the birthrate is declining. The poor ethnic communities have their birtrates escalating though - e.g. Gypsies. It is common all over the world, nothing specific to Europe. The only specific thing is the proportion of the developed countries per continent, I suppose.
Thak you for responding, dagmaraka.
Sofia wrote:Also a point of concern for me is the coupling of economic decline with the growing Muslim population. I don't draw any conclusion, but I think this is a trend to study.
This has to be seen, IMHO, country by country.
Most of the about 3% of the German Muslim population are Turkish.
Turkey's entry to the EU is pushed forward by the USA.
I don't know about the Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox or any other religion's coupling to the economic decline.
However, the most persons without job in Germany are in our eastern states. There, about 80% are without religion.
I really wonder, if this shows any significants.
