drumminj
16th November 2004, 11:12 AM
That's a hoax that everyone seems to keep repeating. Very easy to verify whether it's true or not:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
J
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
J
Pages :
1
[2]
Annierobrigado
16th November 2004, 11:15 AM
Actually, the only reason I'm having this conversation is to attract annie's attention so she'll remember us someday in NZ and will buy us a pint. :cheers
-Dan
yes yes, dan, of course! after all we will have our own barbecues when we get to NZ, right? the others have had theirs already, so it'll be our turn soon. umm... you will man the barbecue, okay? you and j? then you can discuss to your heart's content while making sure the chops and burgers and seafood are turned and not charred!
:cheers
annie
-Dan
yes yes, dan, of course! after all we will have our own barbecues when we get to NZ, right? the others have had theirs already, so it'll be our turn soon. umm... you will man the barbecue, okay? you and j? then you can discuss to your heart's content while making sure the chops and burgers and seafood are turned and not charred!
:cheers
annie
Annierobrigado
16th November 2004, 11:34 AM
hello yanks!
has anyone of you seen that website where americans apologized to the world for electing bush again? it was a second-page article in our major news daily here and we found it quite amusing and disheartening at the same time. it also said that for that website, there were 4 or more other websites that sprung up to say americans are NOT sorry for electing bush again. the website had a few million hits in its first few days of existence, and with the posts i've read in this forum about bush and politics, i'd really believe you guys are sorry for electing bush into office again.
we might have worries on that, but rest assured, the world is sympathetic. and we're still on edge as to what will happen in the next 4 years.
by the way, how true is the news item that the US bombed fajullah with men and boys in it? the news said all elderly, infirm, women and children were asked to leave fajullah, but boys who are old enough to carry firearms and the other able-bodied men were blocked from leaving the town/city. and then the us firepower began. is this true???
i shudder to think about it.
but i'll still buy you pints. :cheers
annie
has anyone of you seen that website where americans apologized to the world for electing bush again? it was a second-page article in our major news daily here and we found it quite amusing and disheartening at the same time. it also said that for that website, there were 4 or more other websites that sprung up to say americans are NOT sorry for electing bush again. the website had a few million hits in its first few days of existence, and with the posts i've read in this forum about bush and politics, i'd really believe you guys are sorry for electing bush into office again.
we might have worries on that, but rest assured, the world is sympathetic. and we're still on edge as to what will happen in the next 4 years.
by the way, how true is the news item that the US bombed fajullah with men and boys in it? the news said all elderly, infirm, women and children were asked to leave fajullah, but boys who are old enough to carry firearms and the other able-bodied men were blocked from leaving the town/city. and then the us firepower began. is this true???
i shudder to think about it.
but i'll still buy you pints. :cheers
annie
deebat
16th November 2004, 11:42 AM
I should have known that any graph that put New Jersey near the top of the IQ list must be a fake. :laugh Thanks for setting me straight on yet another misconception, J. ;)
Annie, I'll man the BBQ, but I can't say I'll be any good at it! It's been a long time since I've cooked any meat... although I get the impression that to be a good Kiwi, I should learn to get familiar with lamb chops again! :mrgreen:
-Dan
Annie, I'll man the BBQ, but I can't say I'll be any good at it! It's been a long time since I've cooked any meat... although I get the impression that to be a good Kiwi, I should learn to get familiar with lamb chops again! :mrgreen:
-Dan
Moorf
16th November 2004, 11:54 AM
On the way into Sumner (Chch) there is a bit of fence to which people attach placards saying "Happy 40th Dan" "Welcome to NZ Jones Family" etc etc... the day after the elections a placard went up which said "Shame on Americans for Voting in a War Criminal" ... well, the Kiwi's don't hold back!
It was there for a couple of days and then disappeared. :uhoh
It was there for a couple of days and then disappeared. :uhoh
drumminj
16th November 2004, 12:03 PM
And I believe we are talking about NZ- just indirectly. We are talking about what is driving us from the US, what kind of government is "best" and implicit in this discussion though not yet directly referred to is the kind of society/government we expect to find in NZ and how that will differ/improve on the US.
I guess that my conversation with J has become pretty long winded as of late but it is, at least, on topic. It also points to differences of opinion that many immigrants have about what kind of government we hope for in NZ.
If this is how my posts are being judged, I fear that people might get the wrong impression. Just because I'm against many "socialist" policies in the US doesn't mean that I'd be a miserable sap in NZ. In fact, some may wonder why I'd want to move to a place with socialized healthcare in the first place. The U.S. is founded on certain principles which are written down in a document. Based on those principles and the history of this nation, I feel certain things are good or bad for this country. These may not be indicative of what type of government I'm looking for in NZ, but probably can give some hints.
Re: Apologizing for electing Bush. I think that's just more of what is wrong with this country and what is destroying it. The system worked as it should. Bush won the electoral vote, and the popular vote. Just because you don't agree(and by "you" I don't mean to single anyone out. Proper grammar would be to use "one", but that just gets confusing) with someone's opinion doesn't make their opinion invalid. Bush is not 100% evil. Kerry is not 100% good. Sure, they both have their good and bad points. You may feel one is worse than the other. If someone considered all the issues and felt Bush was the candidate that the felt represented them best, then good on them. Same for anyone who considered all the issues and voted Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, or any other candidate. I may not agree, but what gives me the right to say that they are wrong, that my opinion is correct and they made a poor choice?
J
I guess that my conversation with J has become pretty long winded as of late but it is, at least, on topic. It also points to differences of opinion that many immigrants have about what kind of government we hope for in NZ.
If this is how my posts are being judged, I fear that people might get the wrong impression. Just because I'm against many "socialist" policies in the US doesn't mean that I'd be a miserable sap in NZ. In fact, some may wonder why I'd want to move to a place with socialized healthcare in the first place. The U.S. is founded on certain principles which are written down in a document. Based on those principles and the history of this nation, I feel certain things are good or bad for this country. These may not be indicative of what type of government I'm looking for in NZ, but probably can give some hints.
Re: Apologizing for electing Bush. I think that's just more of what is wrong with this country and what is destroying it. The system worked as it should. Bush won the electoral vote, and the popular vote. Just because you don't agree(and by "you" I don't mean to single anyone out. Proper grammar would be to use "one", but that just gets confusing) with someone's opinion doesn't make their opinion invalid. Bush is not 100% evil. Kerry is not 100% good. Sure, they both have their good and bad points. You may feel one is worse than the other. If someone considered all the issues and felt Bush was the candidate that the felt represented them best, then good on them. Same for anyone who considered all the issues and voted Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, or any other candidate. I may not agree, but what gives me the right to say that they are wrong, that my opinion is correct and they made a poor choice?
J
Annierobrigado
16th November 2004, 01:20 PM
j,
your system always works well, because america made it work. it is what we envy you most of the time.
i think those who didn't vote for bush are apologizing because they felt he shouldnt be up there again, because of many issues. those who voted for him are happy with their choice. it's what makes america america, not necessarily destroying it. but what do i know? all i know is half of the americans didnt want bush, and half did, and the former regret the outcome of the system.
maybe americans need to be responsible not only for themselves but for others too, because like it or not, 3/4 of the world is really hinged on what happens to america. so if americans are going to screw up america, they're not only screwing up themselves, they're gonna affect many other non-americans as well. it's a reality we have to live with everyday of our lives. you may not agree with that but that's what comes from being "big brother".
again, let's have our barbecue!
dan, don't worry, if you don't eat meat, we can have veggies or tofu burgers or seafood! (does that count as meat to you?) i can imagine barbecuing with a backdrop of blue waters and green mountains. postcard like, huh?
annie
your system always works well, because america made it work. it is what we envy you most of the time.
i think those who didn't vote for bush are apologizing because they felt he shouldnt be up there again, because of many issues. those who voted for him are happy with their choice. it's what makes america america, not necessarily destroying it. but what do i know? all i know is half of the americans didnt want bush, and half did, and the former regret the outcome of the system.
maybe americans need to be responsible not only for themselves but for others too, because like it or not, 3/4 of the world is really hinged on what happens to america. so if americans are going to screw up america, they're not only screwing up themselves, they're gonna affect many other non-americans as well. it's a reality we have to live with everyday of our lives. you may not agree with that but that's what comes from being "big brother".
again, let's have our barbecue!
dan, don't worry, if you don't eat meat, we can have veggies or tofu burgers or seafood! (does that count as meat to you?) i can imagine barbecuing with a backdrop of blue waters and green mountains. postcard like, huh?
annie
xanctus
16th November 2004, 03:01 PM
Xanctus, I know you're joking but why would we close the chapter since this thread is about US politics?
And I believe we are talking about NZ- just indirectly. We are talking about what is driving us from the US, what kind of government is "best" and implicit in this discussion though not yet directly referred to is the kind of society/government we expect to find in NZ and how that will differ/improve on the US.
Well, I actually don't mind reading it...I was joking about closing chapter( as you know) after all I didn't literally say bad things about what you guys are talking about so you guys can go ahead hehehehehehe :laugh
And I believe we are talking about NZ- just indirectly. We are talking about what is driving us from the US, what kind of government is "best" and implicit in this discussion though not yet directly referred to is the kind of society/government we expect to find in NZ and how that will differ/improve on the US.
Well, I actually don't mind reading it...I was joking about closing chapter( as you know) after all I didn't literally say bad things about what you guys are talking about so you guys can go ahead hehehehehehe :laugh
cpgrant
16th November 2004, 03:02 PM
The IQ chart is bogus and it amazes me that any of the media would carry the story without doing some basic fact-checking. A big clue is the range of IQs. 85 is an impossibly low *average* IQ for a grouping of several million people. Similarly, 113 is an impossibly high average for a large group...
Interestingly though, I think that the list closely resembles the states in order of per capita income. Whatever that means when correlated to the election, I haven't a clue.
Interestingly though, I think that the list closely resembles the states in order of per capita income. Whatever that means when correlated to the election, I haven't a clue.
kamus
16th November 2004, 03:41 PM
Re: Apologizing for electing Bush. I think that's just more of what is wrong with this country and what is destroying it....
If someone considered all the issues and felt Bush was the candidate that the(y) felt represented them best, then good on them. Same for anyone who considered all the issues and voted Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, or any other candidate. I may not agree, but what gives me the right to say that they are wrong, that my opinion is correct and they made a poor choice?
J
Well J, your opinion may well be "wrong" but you have certainly have the right to express it as I do.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, two documents that the Bush administration has shown little respect for, gives you that right- it's called free speech. To say that Americans who exercise that right by apologising for the election are part of what's wrong with the US sounds a bit suspect to me.
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
And I'm sorry that I just can't quite put Kerry on the virtually equal terms with Bush as you seem so comfortable doing. Believe me, I thought Kerry was/is a miserably poor choice as a candidate and I was depressed when he won the nomination, but there's no way that he could equal Bush if the outrageous actions the latter has committed while in office are any barometer.
Corporate conflicts of interest, no bid contracts to Halliburton, manipulation of the "free" press, distorting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq, no WMD, no ties to Al Quaeda, shredding of the Kyoto treaty, failure to back the World Court in order to keep US servicemen immune from war crimes prosecution, the Valerie Plame incident, the stunning lack of transperancy in government, political dirty tricks, likely voter fraud, the abrogation of civil rights as exemplified by the loss of due process in Guantanamo Bay and the excesses of the Patriot Act, a religious fundamentalist fueled agenda, cozying up to the Saudis, widespread condemnation from top diplomats and former senior advisors e.g. Richard Clarke and Paul O' Neil, the dismissal of the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and the subsequent Abu Ghraib scandal, a very dubious personal record involving nepotism, failure to report for duty, a history of arrests and drunkeness, and a disastrous performance as a businessman, a pitiful economic record, environmentalist policies that further the rape of the planet and poison our children, giveaways to the Pharmacutical Industry, the Timber Industry, Utilities, and the rich et al. alienation of our allies, the calamitious failure to secure the peace not to mention "hearts and minds" in Iraq, failure to pursue Bin Laden in favour of prosecuting a more "convenient" war, do I have to go on? I hear you saying "no, please stop"!
The sad thing is, that it's so easy to go on and on and freaking on. Yet America was more preoccupied with preventing gay marriage, eager for economically unmotivated tax cuts and buying into the swaggering "cowboy" image that gave the false impression that GWB was the right guy to fight the war on terror (when a very strong case can be made that his stupefyingly inept policies have made the threat of terrorism much worse) than actually looking at any of these other issues listed above in any depth (except through FOX news perhaps)!
Yes, he was elected "democratically" (maybe- who can trust elections here anymore?) and that just shows that democracy is capable of spectacular failures sometimes. But just because 51% of Americans are incapable of separating truth from propaganda doesn't make it the "right" decision. Hitler, Mussolini, and many other monstrous figures from history enjoyed popular support at certain points in their careers. Is it going over the line to compare Bush to them? Unfortunately, I don't think so. You can point out a difference all day long to every similarity I can cite so that exercise in futility won't get us anywhere, but I do believe the one commonality they share is that all these figures- Bush no less, were/are absolutely corrupt- (and maybe that "bent on world domination" thing).
And because this is a democracy and I do still, at least temporarily, enjoy the freedom of speech, I'm not going to shut up about it and I'm not going to roll over nicely and play dead just because of this election. The right to air my views and my anger and the freedom to attempt to influence others and hopefully change their minds is one of the things that's still right about this country, as divisive an attitude as it may be, and one of things that gives us a chance to get it right in four years time.
But of course, that's just my opinion and you are free to dismiss/ignore/despise it/ whatever.
Just to throw an exceedingly rare NZ reference in here, I don't believe that the Kiwis would have ever elected a leader like George Bush in a million years. All you Bush supporting Kiwis feel free to start posting and prove me wrong!
And BTW, I and 49% of America are deeply sorry!
If someone considered all the issues and felt Bush was the candidate that the(y) felt represented them best, then good on them. Same for anyone who considered all the issues and voted Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, or any other candidate. I may not agree, but what gives me the right to say that they are wrong, that my opinion is correct and they made a poor choice?
J
Well J, your opinion may well be "wrong" but you have certainly have the right to express it as I do.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, two documents that the Bush administration has shown little respect for, gives you that right- it's called free speech. To say that Americans who exercise that right by apologising for the election are part of what's wrong with the US sounds a bit suspect to me.
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
And I'm sorry that I just can't quite put Kerry on the virtually equal terms with Bush as you seem so comfortable doing. Believe me, I thought Kerry was/is a miserably poor choice as a candidate and I was depressed when he won the nomination, but there's no way that he could equal Bush if the outrageous actions the latter has committed while in office are any barometer.
Corporate conflicts of interest, no bid contracts to Halliburton, manipulation of the "free" press, distorting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq, no WMD, no ties to Al Quaeda, shredding of the Kyoto treaty, failure to back the World Court in order to keep US servicemen immune from war crimes prosecution, the Valerie Plame incident, the stunning lack of transperancy in government, political dirty tricks, likely voter fraud, the abrogation of civil rights as exemplified by the loss of due process in Guantanamo Bay and the excesses of the Patriot Act, a religious fundamentalist fueled agenda, cozying up to the Saudis, widespread condemnation from top diplomats and former senior advisors e.g. Richard Clarke and Paul O' Neil, the dismissal of the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and the subsequent Abu Ghraib scandal, a very dubious personal record involving nepotism, failure to report for duty, a history of arrests and drunkeness, and a disastrous performance as a businessman, a pitiful economic record, environmentalist policies that further the rape of the planet and poison our children, giveaways to the Pharmacutical Industry, the Timber Industry, Utilities, and the rich et al. alienation of our allies, the calamitious failure to secure the peace not to mention "hearts and minds" in Iraq, failure to pursue Bin Laden in favour of prosecuting a more "convenient" war, do I have to go on? I hear you saying "no, please stop"!
The sad thing is, that it's so easy to go on and on and freaking on. Yet America was more preoccupied with preventing gay marriage, eager for economically unmotivated tax cuts and buying into the swaggering "cowboy" image that gave the false impression that GWB was the right guy to fight the war on terror (when a very strong case can be made that his stupefyingly inept policies have made the threat of terrorism much worse) than actually looking at any of these other issues listed above in any depth (except through FOX news perhaps)!
Yes, he was elected "democratically" (maybe- who can trust elections here anymore?) and that just shows that democracy is capable of spectacular failures sometimes. But just because 51% of Americans are incapable of separating truth from propaganda doesn't make it the "right" decision. Hitler, Mussolini, and many other monstrous figures from history enjoyed popular support at certain points in their careers. Is it going over the line to compare Bush to them? Unfortunately, I don't think so. You can point out a difference all day long to every similarity I can cite so that exercise in futility won't get us anywhere, but I do believe the one commonality they share is that all these figures- Bush no less, were/are absolutely corrupt- (and maybe that "bent on world domination" thing).
And because this is a democracy and I do still, at least temporarily, enjoy the freedom of speech, I'm not going to shut up about it and I'm not going to roll over nicely and play dead just because of this election. The right to air my views and my anger and the freedom to attempt to influence others and hopefully change their minds is one of the things that's still right about this country, as divisive an attitude as it may be, and one of things that gives us a chance to get it right in four years time.
But of course, that's just my opinion and you are free to dismiss/ignore/despise it/ whatever.
Just to throw an exceedingly rare NZ reference in here, I don't believe that the Kiwis would have ever elected a leader like George Bush in a million years. All you Bush supporting Kiwis feel free to start posting and prove me wrong!
And BTW, I and 49% of America are deeply sorry!
kamus
16th November 2004, 03:51 PM
The IQ chart is bogus and it amazes me that any of the media would carry the story without doing some basic fact-checking. A big clue is the range of IQs. 85 is an impossibly low *average* IQ for a grouping of several million people. Similarly, 113 is an impossibly high average for a large group...
Interestingly though, I think that the list closely resembles the states in order of per capita income. Whatever that means when correlated to the election, I haven't a clue.
I would also guess that educational standards might be another of several correlations one could find with a little research.
Another interesting, if potentially inflammatory, correlation is the red state/slave state map that's been circulating. You can see one version here (http://americanblogparty.blogs.com/abp/2004/11/red_states_vs_s.html) There isn't 100% parity, but it's enough to give one pause...
Interestingly though, I think that the list closely resembles the states in order of per capita income. Whatever that means when correlated to the election, I haven't a clue.
I would also guess that educational standards might be another of several correlations one could find with a little research.
Another interesting, if potentially inflammatory, correlation is the red state/slave state map that's been circulating. You can see one version here (http://americanblogparty.blogs.com/abp/2004/11/red_states_vs_s.html) There isn't 100% parity, but it's enough to give one pause...
leslie
16th November 2004, 04:23 PM
one of the bonuses of being in nz is that its easier not to be toxically linked to the usa - a choice many countries have made. at the end of the day the strength of the tie is up to us, isn't it? its a mighty big world out there... so much to do and so little time.
the ultimate bush protest would be DO SOMETHING, a week long campaign where people did one nice thing per day for a complete stranger. now THAT would rock...
the ultimate bush protest would be DO SOMETHING, a week long campaign where people did one nice thing per day for a complete stranger. now THAT would rock...
Annierobrigado
16th November 2004, 07:34 PM
I agree with leslie. If we can't fight the big ones up there, at least we can do something on our own turf. A kind word, a helping hand, a nice smile, anything to show something good to another person, and it doesnt necessarily have to be just one week... it could go on forever and ever, couldn't it? in all countries, many people already do these things as part of their nature or personality. they may be called pollyanna or something, but it sure brightens the day of the person on the receiving end. a hollywood movie was made on something like this - pay it forward - and all mankind wish that more and more people would join in this. then we would truly know what world peace means.
this is the message that christmas brings, and i hope it will last even into the new year.
:cheers
annie
this is the message that christmas brings, and i hope it will last even into the new year.
:cheers
annie
leslie
16th November 2004, 07:57 PM
the beauty of a week is that it just might change the way a few people think and the way they live. the problem with !@£$%^&*'s is that a single person surrounds himself with another ring of !@£$%^&*'s and they radiate their !@£$%^&*ness until it grows and grows and smothers us all.
joy is offering your seat to someone on the bus.
only a person who has never known a moments generosity would vote for a bush. clearly thats a lot of seats so best get started...
joy is offering your seat to someone on the bus.
only a person who has never known a moments generosity would vote for a bush. clearly thats a lot of seats so best get started...
captainxmas
16th November 2004, 10:34 PM
Personally I think tipping for good service is essential. :yes
kamus
17th November 2004, 12:46 AM
Annie and Leslie
I don't think your idea is pollyannish at all. Optimistic sure, but it's a good idea and if everyone did it we would have a better world.
Thanks
I don't think your idea is pollyannish at all. Optimistic sure, but it's a good idea and if everyone did it we would have a better world.
Thanks
drumminj
17th November 2004, 02:00 AM
Dave -
I think you are twisting my argument/the discussion here. I am not saying that it is wrong for liberals to express their opinion...
Let me start, first, by saying that I did not vote for GWB. I am not defending my choice here.
As I said, I'm not saying that it is wrong for anyone to express their opinion. I don't think that act is a symptom of what is wrong with the US today. I do think the attitude it conveys is a problem, though. And this attitude is demonstrated very well with this quote:
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
You may disagree with the opinions of 51% of Americans and the decisions they made. Your opinion may be better-researched. But ultimately, it is something formed based on the knowledge you possess, your morals, the priorities in your life, and the experiences you've had. None of those things make your opinion more valid than anyone else's. This isn't science. There is no factually "correct" answer, or person to vote for. To apologize for how others voted, and condemn them as you do, is to somehow try to claim some kind of intellectual or moral superiority (in my opinion), for which there is no basis. It shows a blatant lack of respect for people who disagree with you. What if I said "I apologize for all of Dave's rantings in this forum. He just isn't, well...not quite right in the head. He's mislead and uninformed and exercising bad judgement". Do I have any basis for doing so? Do you think that's disrespectful both to your opinioins, as well as you as a person?
Sure, Bush has made a lot of decisions that people disagree with. I don't dispute much of what you said. But I'm sure I can come up with an equally disgusting list of decisions Kerry has made as Senator of Massachussets. At what point do we cross the threshold and we must also apologize for everyone who voted for Kerry because he's a terrible option as well? You know, Kerry voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are many different issues on which to choose which presidential candidate to vote for, not just international relations. Unfortunately, we have a two-party system, and must take a whole lot of bad with the little bit of good we want. Perhaps someone voted for Bush because they're tired of seeing the money taken from their check for "forced savings" (aka Social Security) but will never see that money, so they think privatizing it is a good idea. Someone who voted for Bush because that is the most important issue to them exercised "poor judgement" in your eyes? Did I exercise poor judgement by voting for Badnarik because he most closely aligned with my priorities and beliefs of what is best for this country, simply because I didn't vote in such a way that would help get Bush out of office?
What if the Democratic candidate was Carrot Top. Would you still believe that anyone who voted for Bush exercised "bad judgement" and did something objectively bad/wrong? You yourself say that Kerry wasn't a very strong candidate. Perhaps even given all of Bush's faults, they felt Kerry was worse for this country. What your comment implies, and what many Americans are saying, is that these people are simply WRONG, regardless of what they based their decision on and how informed it was.
Does that not indicate some "superiority" the people passing judgement are claiming? You're welcome to say you disagree. You're welcome to say you would've chosen differently. But to say that somehow your opinion is valid and theirs isn't, well...
If the democrats want to apologize for something, don't you think they should apologize for not putting forward a better candidate? One that, given all of Bush's faults, bad decisions, and lies, didn't seem like Carrot Top to a large portion of the population?
Bottom line, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion. I'm sure you know that I see many of the same issues you do. I do, however, disagree with your chastising of a large chunk of the populace that you know nothing about, claiming to be better than they are.
J
I think you are twisting my argument/the discussion here. I am not saying that it is wrong for liberals to express their opinion...
Let me start, first, by saying that I did not vote for GWB. I am not defending my choice here.
As I said, I'm not saying that it is wrong for anyone to express their opinion. I don't think that act is a symptom of what is wrong with the US today. I do think the attitude it conveys is a problem, though. And this attitude is demonstrated very well with this quote:
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
You may disagree with the opinions of 51% of Americans and the decisions they made. Your opinion may be better-researched. But ultimately, it is something formed based on the knowledge you possess, your morals, the priorities in your life, and the experiences you've had. None of those things make your opinion more valid than anyone else's. This isn't science. There is no factually "correct" answer, or person to vote for. To apologize for how others voted, and condemn them as you do, is to somehow try to claim some kind of intellectual or moral superiority (in my opinion), for which there is no basis. It shows a blatant lack of respect for people who disagree with you. What if I said "I apologize for all of Dave's rantings in this forum. He just isn't, well...not quite right in the head. He's mislead and uninformed and exercising bad judgement". Do I have any basis for doing so? Do you think that's disrespectful both to your opinioins, as well as you as a person?
Sure, Bush has made a lot of decisions that people disagree with. I don't dispute much of what you said. But I'm sure I can come up with an equally disgusting list of decisions Kerry has made as Senator of Massachussets. At what point do we cross the threshold and we must also apologize for everyone who voted for Kerry because he's a terrible option as well? You know, Kerry voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.
There are many different issues on which to choose which presidential candidate to vote for, not just international relations. Unfortunately, we have a two-party system, and must take a whole lot of bad with the little bit of good we want. Perhaps someone voted for Bush because they're tired of seeing the money taken from their check for "forced savings" (aka Social Security) but will never see that money, so they think privatizing it is a good idea. Someone who voted for Bush because that is the most important issue to them exercised "poor judgement" in your eyes? Did I exercise poor judgement by voting for Badnarik because he most closely aligned with my priorities and beliefs of what is best for this country, simply because I didn't vote in such a way that would help get Bush out of office?
What if the Democratic candidate was Carrot Top. Would you still believe that anyone who voted for Bush exercised "bad judgement" and did something objectively bad/wrong? You yourself say that Kerry wasn't a very strong candidate. Perhaps even given all of Bush's faults, they felt Kerry was worse for this country. What your comment implies, and what many Americans are saying, is that these people are simply WRONG, regardless of what they based their decision on and how informed it was.
Does that not indicate some "superiority" the people passing judgement are claiming? You're welcome to say you disagree. You're welcome to say you would've chosen differently. But to say that somehow your opinion is valid and theirs isn't, well...
If the democrats want to apologize for something, don't you think they should apologize for not putting forward a better candidate? One that, given all of Bush's faults, bad decisions, and lies, didn't seem like Carrot Top to a large portion of the population?
Bottom line, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion. I'm sure you know that I see many of the same issues you do. I do, however, disagree with your chastising of a large chunk of the populace that you know nothing about, claiming to be better than they are.
J
drumminj
17th November 2004, 02:21 AM
I apologize for this thread turning into a back-and-forth between Dave and I. Not sure when it took that turn. I would like it to not be that way as 1) I'm ridiculously outclassed and 2) I'm sure it isn't as much fun as it could be for everyone else.
Let me try throwing another topic out here:
There was a lot of talk of Americans moving to Oz, NZ, Canada, if Bush won. The news showed there were a lot of inquiries to the immigration departments of these countries. Do you think many will follow through? Or will they be scared off with the confusing application process and daunting wait-times?
This isn't to say I'm trying to have my say and then end the conversation - I'd like to see responses to my post above. Just trying to shift things away from the one-on-one, as we can have the same conversation via private messages.
J
Let me try throwing another topic out here:
There was a lot of talk of Americans moving to Oz, NZ, Canada, if Bush won. The news showed there were a lot of inquiries to the immigration departments of these countries. Do you think many will follow through? Or will they be scared off with the confusing application process and daunting wait-times?
This isn't to say I'm trying to have my say and then end the conversation - I'd like to see responses to my post above. Just trying to shift things away from the one-on-one, as we can have the same conversation via private messages.
J
deebat
17th November 2004, 06:38 AM
I must admit that I feel embarrassment whenever the U.S. election comes up in conversation with my non-American coworkers. I don't believe it's a superiority thing at all; I'm simply embarrassed because the topic puts me in a position in which I'm supposed to explain, usually to an audience of furrowed brows, how 59 million people voted in a certain way -- a way with which I fundamentally disagree and simply can't understand. I suppose it's possible that Bush supporters are equally embarrassed and/or flabbergasted that 49% of the vote went to Kerry.
As much as Dave's posts coincide with my beliefs, I have to admit that J is right when he says that there is no one factually "correct" answer. Americans who voted for Bush see things as correct in their red-colored glasses; Americans who voted for Kerry see things as correct in their blue-colored glasses. (What color glasses do Bednarik supporters wear, J? :P )
To me, the most dangerous trend I see in the US is a new division between "red" thinking and "blue" thinking (I know that there are many hues and shades out there, but forgive me if I keep this brief). In the past, it was a lot easier for me to understand how a great number of people could vote for Republicans; there was a supposed focus on the individual, on fiscal discipline and on "small government," among other things. Now, though, a Republican vote indicates to me something entirely different, either a political/economic view I don't understand or an emotional undercurrent I'm afraid to openly consider. Maybe my development as a political animal has become stunted over the years, but it sure seems easier to grasp why someone would have voted for Reagan in 1980 than GWB in 2000 or 2004 (especially 2004).
In the end, then, I guess my embarrassment stems from my inability before the election to better understand the people who supported George Bush -- and do the appropriate things to change their minds before they voted.
This isn't to say I'm trying to have my say and then end the conversation - I'd like to see responses to my post above. Just trying to shift things away from the one-on-one, as we can have the same conversation via private messages.
J, I hope you and Dave continue to post on this topic. The one-on-one stuff doesn't bother me. I'm dropping out of the long posts because I'd rather discuss things that are more specific to NZ (not that I've done a very good job of it here :uhoh )...
... which is a good segue for thanking you, J, for relighting the flame underneath my original question at the beginning of this thread! I wonder if there's any way to track the pace at which Americans are inquiring -- and following up on -- emigration. If anyone sees any newsy sites about this topic, I'd be grateful if you could post them here.
Thanks,
Dan
As much as Dave's posts coincide with my beliefs, I have to admit that J is right when he says that there is no one factually "correct" answer. Americans who voted for Bush see things as correct in their red-colored glasses; Americans who voted for Kerry see things as correct in their blue-colored glasses. (What color glasses do Bednarik supporters wear, J? :P )
To me, the most dangerous trend I see in the US is a new division between "red" thinking and "blue" thinking (I know that there are many hues and shades out there, but forgive me if I keep this brief). In the past, it was a lot easier for me to understand how a great number of people could vote for Republicans; there was a supposed focus on the individual, on fiscal discipline and on "small government," among other things. Now, though, a Republican vote indicates to me something entirely different, either a political/economic view I don't understand or an emotional undercurrent I'm afraid to openly consider. Maybe my development as a political animal has become stunted over the years, but it sure seems easier to grasp why someone would have voted for Reagan in 1980 than GWB in 2000 or 2004 (especially 2004).
In the end, then, I guess my embarrassment stems from my inability before the election to better understand the people who supported George Bush -- and do the appropriate things to change their minds before they voted.
This isn't to say I'm trying to have my say and then end the conversation - I'd like to see responses to my post above. Just trying to shift things away from the one-on-one, as we can have the same conversation via private messages.
J, I hope you and Dave continue to post on this topic. The one-on-one stuff doesn't bother me. I'm dropping out of the long posts because I'd rather discuss things that are more specific to NZ (not that I've done a very good job of it here :uhoh )...
... which is a good segue for thanking you, J, for relighting the flame underneath my original question at the beginning of this thread! I wonder if there's any way to track the pace at which Americans are inquiring -- and following up on -- emigration. If anyone sees any newsy sites about this topic, I'd be grateful if you could post them here.
Thanks,
Dan
kamus
17th November 2004, 06:42 AM
... I am not saying that it is wrong for liberals to express their opinion...
Then why do you say that Americans apologising for the election is part of what's wrong with the US? They are just expressing their opinion!
]
As I said, I'm not saying that it is wrong for anyone to express their opinion. I don't think that act is a symptom of what is wrong with the US today. I do think the attitude it conveys is a problem, though. And this attitude is demonstrated very well with this quote:
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
I don't follow your argument. This is my clearly stated opinion here- that's what opinions are-they are judgements. Here is the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: Opinion:A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing
And what is the difference between an "attitude" and and opinion? When you say that Americans apologising for the election are part of what's wrong with the US, are you not making a judgement- are you not adopting a tone of "moral superiority" yourself? Your argument is both circular and logically inconsistent.
By your own criteria, you are making an arrogant statement by noting (your opinion) that Americans apologising for the election (their opinion) is part of what's wrong with the US today because it conveys an "attitude" (a state of mind reflecting their opinion).
You may disagree with the opinions of 51% of Americans and the decisions they made. Your opinion may be better-researched. But ultimately, it is something formed based on the knowledge you possess, your morals, the priorities in your life, and the experiences you've had. None of those things make your opinion more valid than anyone else's. This isn't science. There is no factually "correct" answer, or person to vote for.
Where did I say my opinion is more valid than someone else's? I stated my opinion and backed it up with facts and instances. People are free to come to their own conclusions.
So you don't believe that one person's opinion can be more valid than another? Politics is part of what I do for a living, doesn't that give me a edge over someone who neither knows nor cares about it? Maybe it does or doesn't, but there is such a thing as objective truth and history can show which of two prior opinions came out closer. I don't just say "Bush is an ass", I cite concrete reasons as to why he is an ass- people are free to refute my citations.
If I'm of the opinion that Hitler was a dangerous madman and another says that he was good for the German economy are both opinions of equal weight? Doesn't one come closer to the objective truth? There is such a thing as Occam's razor and a principle known as "preponderance of evidence" and a host of well informed people, diplomats, legal scholars, newspaper editors, world leaders, Kofi Annan among them to suggest that the policies of the Bush administration are dangerously wrong headed. I do not stand alone here. I'm merely stating an opinion and citing evidence to support it. Where is the "moral superiority" in doing that? Sure, I happen to think I'm "right"- I would be a fool not to believe in what I'm talking about.
Innocent civilians have died as a result of Bush's actions- international laws have been broken- Constitutional principles have been trampled. Because he has not been brought forth before a court of law is more a function of who controls power in Washington than a reflection of his innocence in these matters. Clinton was impeached for lying about having oral sex- was his "crime" greater than Bush lying about the war? Was Geoffrey Dahmer innocent until the moment of his conviction by the jury? The evidence is out there. Sure it's my opinion and that and a dime'll get me a cup of coffee- but how you and that 51% of America can continue to dismiss a rising international and domestic chorus as mere "opinion" unworthy of further attention is astonishing to me and to much of the rest of the world too, apparently.
To apologize for how others voted, and condemn them as you do, is to somehow try to claim some kind of intellectual or moral superiority (in my opinion), for which there is no basis. It shows a blatant lack of respect for people who disagree with you. What if I said "I apologize for all of Dave's rantings in this forum. He just isn't, well...not quite right in the head. He's mislead and uninformed and exercising bad judgement". Do I have any basis for doing so? Do you think that's disrespectful both to your opinioins, as well as you as a person?
Well now you'reskirting dangerously close to an ad hominem attack on me and I'll try not to respond in kind. Again, I never claim "moral superiority".
Again this is my opinion, these forums are a platform for opinion I'm free to express it, I'm free not to respect people who I feel made a shallow decision fraught with dangerous consequences. Voters who's actions now pose a risk to my family's security, my civil liberties, my daughters' future and whose actions will likely cost innocent lives. You're free to disagree or call me a poopy head or an intellectual blowhard or whatever. You disrespect for me by condemning my opinions as being arrogant though.
At what point do we cross the threshold and we must also apologize for everyone who voted for Kerry because he's a terrible option as well?
You're free to apologise for Kerry if you want- I see that you still equate the two though I don't recall Kerry lying to get us into a war.
Perhaps someone voted for Bush because they're tired of seeing the money taken from their check for "forced savings" (aka Social Security) but will never see that money, so they think privatizing it is a good idea. Someone who voted for Bush because that is the most important issue to them exercised "poor judgement" in your eyes?
Yes, they exercised poor judgement- as voters, we have a responsibilty as members of a society to look beyond our own limited self interest and consider all the issues- again, just my opinion.
What if the Democratic candidate was Carrot Top. Would you still believe that anyone who voted for Bush exercised "bad judgement" and did something objectively bad/wrong? ... What your comment implies, and what many Americans are saying, is that these people are simply WRONG, regardless of what they based their decision on and how informed it was.
Yes. Carrot Top would be a far less dangerous president than Bush.
Seriously you are going round in circles here, J. It's my opinion that they were wrong to choose Bush, it seems to be your opinion that I'm somehow arrogant for expressing my opinion and have no right to say that they are wrong- we're getting nowhere fast.
Does that not indicate some "superiority" the people passing judgement are claiming? You're welcome to say you disagree. You're welcome to say you would've chosen differently. But to say that somehow your opinion is valid and theirs isn't, well...
And round and round we go....
Bottom line, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion. I'm sure you know that I see many of the same issues you do. I do, however, disagree with your chastising of a large chunk of the populace that you know nothing about, claiming to be better than they are.
Sheesh- well, I think I actually do know something about them- I travel all across the country talking to them about their political views. I'm a member of the Capitol Steps and yes, we may be a comedy troupe but by the very nature of our job, we do 600 shows per year in every state, we have to know our audiences- the US public- and we have have to be very well informed both demographically and politically- if we weren't we wouldn't have survived for 21 years.
And J, I never claimed to be 'better" than them, but I do claim to be better informed than the vast majority of them. I would be willing to submit to an objective test on this were one to be found. Still since it's just my opinion, I don't expect anyone to take anything I say without examining the issues for themselves- but really examining them and not just by watching FOX news, uncritically viewing the Swift Boat ads and swallowing whole the spin infested regurgitations of the GOP political machine.
I think we had better retire this line of attack and counterattack, please feel free to respond- I too, do not want to deprive you of the last word but this argument has become very tedious for me, the innocent folks who have to wade through these steaming piles of verbiage and, I suspect, for you as well.
I'm very sorry for everyone who has wasted time watching J and I bicker over something that probably boils to a simple mutual misunderstanding as so many of these things turn out to be. I'll try to post more substantively in the future.
Also J, I think you're hardly "outclassed", this little exchange notwithstanding. You hold your own pretty decently, I think we can all agree.
peace- really!
Dave
Then why do you say that Americans apologising for the election is part of what's wrong with the US? They are just expressing their opinion!
]
As I said, I'm not saying that it is wrong for anyone to express their opinion. I don't think that act is a symptom of what is wrong with the US today. I do think the attitude it conveys is a problem, though. And this attitude is demonstrated very well with this quote:
Let me exercise my constitutional right by saying that Bush's (re)election exposes catastrophically poor judgement by 51% of the US population and is something that 49% of Americans are justifiably embarrassed and outraged by.
I don't follow your argument. This is my clearly stated opinion here- that's what opinions are-they are judgements. Here is the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: Opinion:A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing
And what is the difference between an "attitude" and and opinion? When you say that Americans apologising for the election are part of what's wrong with the US, are you not making a judgement- are you not adopting a tone of "moral superiority" yourself? Your argument is both circular and logically inconsistent.
By your own criteria, you are making an arrogant statement by noting (your opinion) that Americans apologising for the election (their opinion) is part of what's wrong with the US today because it conveys an "attitude" (a state of mind reflecting their opinion).
You may disagree with the opinions of 51% of Americans and the decisions they made. Your opinion may be better-researched. But ultimately, it is something formed based on the knowledge you possess, your morals, the priorities in your life, and the experiences you've had. None of those things make your opinion more valid than anyone else's. This isn't science. There is no factually "correct" answer, or person to vote for.
Where did I say my opinion is more valid than someone else's? I stated my opinion and backed it up with facts and instances. People are free to come to their own conclusions.
So you don't believe that one person's opinion can be more valid than another? Politics is part of what I do for a living, doesn't that give me a edge over someone who neither knows nor cares about it? Maybe it does or doesn't, but there is such a thing as objective truth and history can show which of two prior opinions came out closer. I don't just say "Bush is an ass", I cite concrete reasons as to why he is an ass- people are free to refute my citations.
If I'm of the opinion that Hitler was a dangerous madman and another says that he was good for the German economy are both opinions of equal weight? Doesn't one come closer to the objective truth? There is such a thing as Occam's razor and a principle known as "preponderance of evidence" and a host of well informed people, diplomats, legal scholars, newspaper editors, world leaders, Kofi Annan among them to suggest that the policies of the Bush administration are dangerously wrong headed. I do not stand alone here. I'm merely stating an opinion and citing evidence to support it. Where is the "moral superiority" in doing that? Sure, I happen to think I'm "right"- I would be a fool not to believe in what I'm talking about.
Innocent civilians have died as a result of Bush's actions- international laws have been broken- Constitutional principles have been trampled. Because he has not been brought forth before a court of law is more a function of who controls power in Washington than a reflection of his innocence in these matters. Clinton was impeached for lying about having oral sex- was his "crime" greater than Bush lying about the war? Was Geoffrey Dahmer innocent until the moment of his conviction by the jury? The evidence is out there. Sure it's my opinion and that and a dime'll get me a cup of coffee- but how you and that 51% of America can continue to dismiss a rising international and domestic chorus as mere "opinion" unworthy of further attention is astonishing to me and to much of the rest of the world too, apparently.
To apologize for how others voted, and condemn them as you do, is to somehow try to claim some kind of intellectual or moral superiority (in my opinion), for which there is no basis. It shows a blatant lack of respect for people who disagree with you. What if I said "I apologize for all of Dave's rantings in this forum. He just isn't, well...not quite right in the head. He's mislead and uninformed and exercising bad judgement". Do I have any basis for doing so? Do you think that's disrespectful both to your opinioins, as well as you as a person?
Well now you'reskirting dangerously close to an ad hominem attack on me and I'll try not to respond in kind. Again, I never claim "moral superiority".
Again this is my opinion, these forums are a platform for opinion I'm free to express it, I'm free not to respect people who I feel made a shallow decision fraught with dangerous consequences. Voters who's actions now pose a risk to my family's security, my civil liberties, my daughters' future and whose actions will likely cost innocent lives. You're free to disagree or call me a poopy head or an intellectual blowhard or whatever. You disrespect for me by condemning my opinions as being arrogant though.
At what point do we cross the threshold and we must also apologize for everyone who voted for Kerry because he's a terrible option as well?
You're free to apologise for Kerry if you want- I see that you still equate the two though I don't recall Kerry lying to get us into a war.
Perhaps someone voted for Bush because they're tired of seeing the money taken from their check for "forced savings" (aka Social Security) but will never see that money, so they think privatizing it is a good idea. Someone who voted for Bush because that is the most important issue to them exercised "poor judgement" in your eyes?
Yes, they exercised poor judgement- as voters, we have a responsibilty as members of a society to look beyond our own limited self interest and consider all the issues- again, just my opinion.
What if the Democratic candidate was Carrot Top. Would you still believe that anyone who voted for Bush exercised "bad judgement" and did something objectively bad/wrong? ... What your comment implies, and what many Americans are saying, is that these people are simply WRONG, regardless of what they based their decision on and how informed it was.
Yes. Carrot Top would be a far less dangerous president than Bush.
Seriously you are going round in circles here, J. It's my opinion that they were wrong to choose Bush, it seems to be your opinion that I'm somehow arrogant for expressing my opinion and have no right to say that they are wrong- we're getting nowhere fast.
Does that not indicate some "superiority" the people passing judgement are claiming? You're welcome to say you disagree. You're welcome to say you would've chosen differently. But to say that somehow your opinion is valid and theirs isn't, well...
And round and round we go....
Bottom line, I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion. I'm sure you know that I see many of the same issues you do. I do, however, disagree with your chastising of a large chunk of the populace that you know nothing about, claiming to be better than they are.
Sheesh- well, I think I actually do know something about them- I travel all across the country talking to them about their political views. I'm a member of the Capitol Steps and yes, we may be a comedy troupe but by the very nature of our job, we do 600 shows per year in every state, we have to know our audiences- the US public- and we have have to be very well informed both demographically and politically- if we weren't we wouldn't have survived for 21 years.
And J, I never claimed to be 'better" than them, but I do claim to be better informed than the vast majority of them. I would be willing to submit to an objective test on this were one to be found. Still since it's just my opinion, I don't expect anyone to take anything I say without examining the issues for themselves- but really examining them and not just by watching FOX news, uncritically viewing the Swift Boat ads and swallowing whole the spin infested regurgitations of the GOP political machine.
I think we had better retire this line of attack and counterattack, please feel free to respond- I too, do not want to deprive you of the last word but this argument has become very tedious for me, the innocent folks who have to wade through these steaming piles of verbiage and, I suspect, for you as well.
I'm very sorry for everyone who has wasted time watching J and I bicker over something that probably boils to a simple mutual misunderstanding as so many of these things turn out to be. I'll try to post more substantively in the future.
Also J, I think you're hardly "outclassed", this little exchange notwithstanding. You hold your own pretty decently, I think we can all agree.
peace- really!
Dave
cpgrant
17th November 2004, 01:53 PM
...Sure it's my opinion and that and a dime'll get me a cup of coffee...
Darn! Your opinions are worth a heck of lot more than mine. My local coffee shop demands a couple of bucks in addition to my opinion before they'll hand over a cuppa joe. :P
Darn! Your opinions are worth a heck of lot more than mine. My local coffee shop demands a couple of bucks in addition to my opinion before they'll hand over a cuppa joe. :P
Annierobrigado
18th November 2004, 12:17 PM
cpgrant
yes, starbucks here in manila charge USD2.00 for a tall coffee. The Coffee Beanery and Tea House also charges that amount or whereabouts. In Westin Philippine Plaza a cup of brewed coffee will cost Php 125 or about US$2.50 or 3.00. Seattle's Best, same amount. I think the dime for a cup of coffee refers to a sachet of Nescafe 3-in-one. :laugh
It's an offbeat topic but some people might find US politics tedious to follow without a cup of coffee. Good on ya, dave and J! :nice1 :nice1
keep cool men! (where are your wives or better halves?)
annie :laugh
yes, starbucks here in manila charge USD2.00 for a tall coffee. The Coffee Beanery and Tea House also charges that amount or whereabouts. In Westin Philippine Plaza a cup of brewed coffee will cost Php 125 or about US$2.50 or 3.00. Seattle's Best, same amount. I think the dime for a cup of coffee refers to a sachet of Nescafe 3-in-one. :laugh
It's an offbeat topic but some people might find US politics tedious to follow without a cup of coffee. Good on ya, dave and J! :nice1 :nice1
keep cool men! (where are your wives or better halves?)
annie :laugh
kamus
18th November 2004, 12:56 PM
...Sure it's my opinion and that and a dime'll get me a cup of coffee...
Darn! Your opinions are worth a heck of lot more than mine. My local coffee shop demands a couple of bucks in addition to my opinion before they'll hand over a cuppa joe. :P
Actually I normally get my coffee for free- my wife fines me $.10 every time she has to listen to another one of my stupid opinions :P
-Dave
Darn! Your opinions are worth a heck of lot more than mine. My local coffee shop demands a couple of bucks in addition to my opinion before they'll hand over a cuppa joe. :P
Actually I normally get my coffee for free- my wife fines me $.10 every time she has to listen to another one of my stupid opinions :P
-Dave
Raeven
19th November 2004, 01:06 AM
Dave and J,
Gripping exchanges, and I've enjoyed catching up with them all!! Ordinarily (as I'm sure you both know), I'd have much to contribute in the way of -- how did you put it, Dave? -- steaming piles of verbiage, but I've been busy moving to a dumber state than the one I currently occupy. (Kidding, kidding!!!) :laugh
Hope to add to your discourse soon!!
Huuugggsss to you both, Rae
Gripping exchanges, and I've enjoyed catching up with them all!! Ordinarily (as I'm sure you both know), I'd have much to contribute in the way of -- how did you put it, Dave? -- steaming piles of verbiage, but I've been busy moving to a dumber state than the one I currently occupy. (Kidding, kidding!!!) :laugh
Hope to add to your discourse soon!!
Huuugggsss to you both, Rae
Raeven
20th November 2004, 06:14 AM
Hi, bookish,
Oh, heavens no, to get any real news about what's happening in our country, we must look to international sources. I've read about this in European papers and web resources such as buzzflash, but not seen it covered by any US news source.
How sad is that?
Rae
Oh, heavens no, to get any real news about what's happening in our country, we must look to international sources. I've read about this in European papers and web resources such as buzzflash, but not seen it covered by any US news source.
How sad is that?
Rae
deebat
20th November 2004, 08:18 AM
I have been reading the possibility of some sort of voting fraud in Florida to tip the balance in GWBush's favour. Is this getting any coverage on US TV?
No.
The US media has a stunningly short span of attention -- as does the majority of the population. Just like in 2000, when the election trauma was over, nobody wanted to resurrect it, even if massive fraud was the issue. American Greg Palast had to be employed by the BBC to perform his investigation of the conspiracies in the 2000 election in Florida. No major US media firm wanted to spend any money to do investigative journalism. (And why would they want to? It's not profitable.)
On the other hand, if you love dreck about Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, have I got a country for you! :(
-Dan
No.
The US media has a stunningly short span of attention -- as does the majority of the population. Just like in 2000, when the election trauma was over, nobody wanted to resurrect it, even if massive fraud was the issue. American Greg Palast had to be employed by the BBC to perform his investigation of the conspiracies in the 2000 election in Florida. No major US media firm wanted to spend any money to do investigative journalism. (And why would they want to? It's not profitable.)
On the other hand, if you love dreck about Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, have I got a country for you! :(
-Dan
kamus
20th November 2004, 09:12 AM
I have been reading the possibility of some sort of voting fraud in Florida to tip the balance in GWBush's favour. Is this getting any coverage on US TV?
The US media has a stunningly short span of attention -- as does the majority of the population. Just like in 2000, when the election trauma was over, nobody wanted to resurrect it, even if massive fraud was the issue. American Greg Palast had to be employed by the BBC to perform his investigation of the conspiracies in the 2000 election in Florida. No major US media firm wanted to spend any money to do investigative journalism. (And why would they want to? It's not profitable.)
-Dan
I suspect there's a chill in the media too. The present admin/GOP seems to think nothing of exerting pressure on the media. Censorship seems to be rife now. Witness the supression of "Saving Private Ryan" and the pulled promo for "Desperate Housewives" (which showed a bare back) just in the last two days.
The voices questioning the elction are effectively ignored. You would think that the powers that be would be anxious to show that this election was totally legit.
(unless of course it wasn't)
The US media has a stunningly short span of attention -- as does the majority of the population. Just like in 2000, when the election trauma was over, nobody wanted to resurrect it, even if massive fraud was the issue. American Greg Palast had to be employed by the BBC to perform his investigation of the conspiracies in the 2000 election in Florida. No major US media firm wanted to spend any money to do investigative journalism. (And why would they want to? It's not profitable.)
-Dan
I suspect there's a chill in the media too. The present admin/GOP seems to think nothing of exerting pressure on the media. Censorship seems to be rife now. Witness the supression of "Saving Private Ryan" and the pulled promo for "Desperate Housewives" (which showed a bare back) just in the last two days.
The voices questioning the elction are effectively ignored. You would think that the powers that be would be anxious to show that this election was totally legit.
(unless of course it wasn't)
Juniper
23rd November 2004, 12:28 PM
i definitely fall under the category of people who started hitting immigration.nz around november 3rd. driving to work that day, i was stunned to hear my husband calmly proclaim that we should probably start looking into emmigration somewhere. as soon as i realized he was serious, and willing to leave his extensive family behind (which is what was so stunning), then the first place i thought of was new zealand.
it's one of my grandfather's favorite destinations, some other friends and family had rave reviews of their vacations, and sure, familiarity with the LOTR landscapes didn't hurt. when we arrived at work, we found that my husband's business partner was already on the same page (he being one of the friends who vacationed there ;) ). so, why not move the business too?
we used to joke about moving to canada if bush found a way to get a -third- (illegal) term, but as it turned out, two is too much to stomach. 51% of americans have a mindset that i will never understand, and/or there was some serious voting fraud. in any case, we are sick and tired of the prevailing mentality here. and canada is freakin cold :P
this isn't about leaving because of one election. it just happens to be a wake-up call. we want to live somewhere that reflects our own mindset more closely. life is too short to keep worrying about who's getting installed into the supreme court, what's happening to civil rights, when the bombs will fall, etc. etc.
to my mind, even if/when the power swings back to the "left," it will only be the lesser of two evils, and there will be so much damage control to do that it will still just be -fight fight fight- to make things relatively okay. we're not activists by nature, so why spend the best years of our lives developing ulcers? call us "quitters," whatever, but it's not worth it to stay.
the only thing that is holding us back is friends, family, and our undeniably great life in california (when we're not stressing about big brother).
by the way, how true is the news item that the US bombed fajullah with men and boys in it? the news said all elderly, infirm, women and children were asked to leave fajullah, but boys who are old enough to carry firearms and the other able-bodied men were blocked from leaving the town/city. and then the us firepower began. is this true???
sadly, i wouldn't know if this is true...i'm sure that's not the kind of thing that would ever make it onto the news here. far too subversive. that's why a lot of liberals read guardian.uk - how pathetic is that??
it was pretty shocking to see the documentary farenheit 911, which contained several grisly clips from iraq that simply aren't shown in the media.
more and more reasons to get out (while we still can...?)
it's one of my grandfather's favorite destinations, some other friends and family had rave reviews of their vacations, and sure, familiarity with the LOTR landscapes didn't hurt. when we arrived at work, we found that my husband's business partner was already on the same page (he being one of the friends who vacationed there ;) ). so, why not move the business too?
we used to joke about moving to canada if bush found a way to get a -third- (illegal) term, but as it turned out, two is too much to stomach. 51% of americans have a mindset that i will never understand, and/or there was some serious voting fraud. in any case, we are sick and tired of the prevailing mentality here. and canada is freakin cold :P
this isn't about leaving because of one election. it just happens to be a wake-up call. we want to live somewhere that reflects our own mindset more closely. life is too short to keep worrying about who's getting installed into the supreme court, what's happening to civil rights, when the bombs will fall, etc. etc.
to my mind, even if/when the power swings back to the "left," it will only be the lesser of two evils, and there will be so much damage control to do that it will still just be -fight fight fight- to make things relatively okay. we're not activists by nature, so why spend the best years of our lives developing ulcers? call us "quitters," whatever, but it's not worth it to stay.
the only thing that is holding us back is friends, family, and our undeniably great life in california (when we're not stressing about big brother).
by the way, how true is the news item that the US bombed fajullah with men and boys in it? the news said all elderly, infirm, women and children were asked to leave fajullah, but boys who are old enough to carry firearms and the other able-bodied men were blocked from leaving the town/city. and then the us firepower began. is this true???
sadly, i wouldn't know if this is true...i'm sure that's not the kind of thing that would ever make it onto the news here. far too subversive. that's why a lot of liberals read guardian.uk - how pathetic is that??
it was pretty shocking to see the documentary farenheit 911, which contained several grisly clips from iraq that simply aren't shown in the media.
more and more reasons to get out (while we still can...?)
© emigratenz.org. All Rights Reserved
vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.