Subject:
|
Re: A Brave New World
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 15:40:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> Cool.
>
> While utterly disagreeing with me, you inadvertantly proved a point that I
> really had no idea how to make...
>
> ...foreigners ought to stay out of other nation's buisness unless they
> happen to be experts.
Hmm. We all send 'peace keeping' forces around the world, but they usually
have some degree of domestic interest involved. I was impressed with
Clinton's involvement in the middle east, and his involvement in Northern
Ireland (though not to ignore the sterling work of Sir David Trimble), but
not so impressed with the support of Iraq, then it's sudden hammering when
it invaded a friendly supplier of oil, then the equally sudden pull back
(though clearly, the whole UN was involved). I think that could have been
handled better - and it seems the US government just can't let Cuba alone
either. It must really get some people's backs up that Communism is happily
trundling along just off shore. I don't know your opinion on this, so don't
take it as an attack. But, I fear now that Bush will not fare so well as
Clinton on global matters.
I don't think you can avoid interfering though, when we all rely so heavily
on international trade. The irony is that most traders don't give a
monkey's about the political situation - they'll trade with anyone if it
makes a profit. It's manipulations by governments that bring about the
arguments. I think interfering with another country is acceptable though if
its welcomed by the population of that other country. But anyway.
> I whole-heartedly agree that I have no idea what is happening in Europe and
> I was most certainly out of place by insinuating what I did. However it
> really does seem as though Europe pushes the boudaries of science. What I
> did not know is that Europes scientific achievements are being banned there
> and proliferated here, in the U.S..
It's not so much banned, as very quick to be regulated and controlled. We
seem to be able to get the regulations in place before the exploitation
really kicks in. Maybe our government is [...under public pressure to
be...] more moralistic, or maybe our commercial institutions are just slow
to spot new opportunities. Probably a bit of both.
If you think I'm trying to interfere, I'm not. I'd just like to understand
why the US is the way it is, particularly since we all started out from the
same point in history. Despite writing down your right to overturn dodgy
governments and replace them with new ones (clearly stemming from having
just done so to the British rulers over there), you don't appear to have
done it nearly enough for your own satisfaction*. The British, on the other
hand, have never needed a bit of paper to tell them how to refine the
government, and doubtless ever will. But, simply the size of your country
and distribution of the population must require a huge difference in
approach to governance.
I would like to view the trickle of US culture we get here on a more
informed basis. Though, all things considered, you can keep the daytime
sit-coms (they get shown through the night here, or on the cheaper
cable/satellite channels), and your exploitative hidden-camera
'documentaries'. Does anyone actually watch 'The Nanny' over there? I just
hope the networks are subjecting you to more repeats of 'Are You Being
Served?' than you can handle. If you want real ground-breaking TV, I hope
you watched 'Walking with Dinosaurs' - and I bet you've never heard of Chris
Morris. What about Ali-G? Brave New World indeed.
Jason J Railton
*Please do not take this as incitement to riot. I gather the FB-Aye
consider investigating such matters as far too serious to get involved with
trivia like international jurisdiction.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) It does. I find it amusing when people react that way. (...) I think it depends on what you mean by 'well.' Our conservatives have become much more concerned with the domestic agenda than in the recent past. Bush mirrors that concern. I think (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) uh...that's not what I meant. Though reading my post again, I see how you were mislead (unless of course you knew what I really and decided to simply play with me a bit). Let's see...actually, never mind. I was sort of trying to make a point (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) Well I agree that we ought not to single out Cuba for special treatment (perhaps Nike should try to set up some factories there so that they can get the same deal China does???) but I'm not so sure I'm convinced that things are "happily (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Brave New World
|
| Cool. While utterly disagreeing with me, you inadvertantly proved a point that I really had no idea how to make... ...foreigners ought to stay out of other nation's buisness unless they happen to be experts. I whole-heartedly agree that I have no (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
