Subject:
|
Re: A Brave New World
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:03:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
231 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> 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.
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 without using any Lugneters names, unfortuately I
can't seem to do so right now, so I'll just let it go. Oh, well, I tried...
> > 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.
Personaly, without any "higher" education under my belt, I think it has a
lot to do with our lack of "roots". Most every other person in world can
probably easily trace their personal heritage back several generations.
Most people can probably point to a flag and say, "that's my blood". I have
met very few people here in America that can say they are 100% native to
anything. Especially us caucasions, it's common for us to say that we are
"heinz 57". For instance, I have some German nationality, as well as Irish,
Dutch, Scotish, and purhaps others. My wife is African, Indian (can't
recall which Native American tribe at the moment) and I think also French.
This nation is only a couple hundred years old. We are made up of virtually
every nation on the globe, and I don't mean we just live together, I mean
our very blood is generally made up of two or more nationalities. This
makes it difficult to claim an allegiance other than the Constitution. For
us, it is the only thing we can point to for way of life, unless we include
religion, but that is somewhat frowned upon in the government...
of course, for my lack of education, I could simply be more ignorant than
even I suspected.
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
