Time for a new Political Debate

[jsanders]

Well Rich,
I just got in and I have to say it looks like the Americans have arrived. And by the looks of it, they gave you quite a thrashing.

 

[Rich]

Well Rich,
I just got in and I have to say it looks like the Americans have arrived. And by the looks of it, they gave you quite a thrashing.

You should have stayed out, looks like you've caught a head cold. You'll be telling me next that you're winning the war on terror in Iraq too

 

[ColinEssex]

Again, I find it amazing that you choose to believe Hollywood over real-life experiences.

Its not only Hollywood or TV shows. Its what we see on the BBC news.
I only refer to US TV shows because there are so many of them glorifying violence and the gun in the USA - I'm not stupid enough to think that US life is like the A Team or an Arnie Schwartz film - when I refer to them, I'm referring to the huge number of them (showing violence and killing as a daily norm), and the fact that film / TV makers think the rest of the world wants to see things like Clinty babe blow someones brains out with a magnum, or whatever.

A very small number of American posters have stated they own a gun, and to the best of my knowledge not one of them keep it for protection purposes.

I'm not going to embarrass any US posters but it was stated in the last US gun debate that certain a US poster keeps a loaded handgun on top a wardrobe for protection purposes. The debate as I recall was whether they would use it and when would they use it, and how it fitted in with their beliefs. That was one of the best discussions we've had in the 'cooler in recent years

Why do you refuse to give up your illusion that the entirety of America is populated by cowboys?

Because we see on US police reality shows any number of US public brandishing guns as well as the police wandering round like modern day Jesse James or Wyatt Earp. These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction. In one show the cop pulled over a car for speeding and got out the cop car to approach the driver, the first thing he did was to pull his gun out. He hadn't even approached the driver yet. . . .
What does that show the world?

But Cindy? You won't even listen to her?

Cindy always put forward a good argument - personally I think Cindy's discussion points are extremely well thought out, without the need to drone on and on confusing the issue.


Col

 

[The Stoat]

I am relatively certain that an early American explorer and map-maker (named Rhombus) who was fond of square dancing and in love with an Indian squaw named Parallelogram-hantas originally surveyed the area.

Regards,
Tim

I picked Colorado because it shape suggests that someone thought you can only have so much country before you need a border. Countries in Europe are organic in nature. Even the island nations -apart from Malta - have borders that have moved and shifted with the ebb and flow of history. This idea that we misunderstand the US can be understood by Colorado. It would seem no-one cared about it. It was just carved out without consideration for natural borders. An almost arbitary line drawn in the sand where people on one side, for example, were to be [come] from Wyoming and the other Colorado without thought, without reason. How can a country that is an aribitary square be a country i ask myself? How can the people within it's borders be any different from the people in the neighbouring squares? We fought over our borders. Killed men in their millions. Horrible as that is it shows that people cared about their identity as a nation. It means something to be English or French or Italian etc When we look at the US we see a country with it's organic shape and it's neighbours coverting glances. We could never imagine Colorado going to war with Mexico or Canada but we can see that could be the case for the US. There is complete contradiction in many of the posts here on the one hand you are rugged individualists on the other proud of the achievements of America. And even the individualists refer to themselves as American. That is perhaps the problem. You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities. Perhaps truly, you are not a country, but as a country you are viewed.

We have our problems as any nation does. We have people who live on benefits when they could be working but no-one pretends that is a right. We see those who can't work as in need of protection and those who can needing a kick up the bum. But i don't think we'd ever write them off. And that is where we part company. I cannot view America the US or the Commonwealth as the greatest country or conglomeration because it cannot grasp that all it's citizens should be great and that the country or the commonwealth or the state has failed if people are 4th generation unemployed and accepted as such.

TS

 

[ColinEssex]

You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities.

Could that be why most US citizens are having therapy of some kind?

(just for Kraj )

or so we are led to believe

Col

 

[pono1]

But i don't think we'd ever write them off...
TS

As you know, two or three Scrooges who happen to be American don't necessarily reflect an entire country. And the "I work-they should work" posture is as old as the hills, a sweeping generalization that is mostly meaningless.

How can a country that is an aribitary square be a country i ask myself?

Lol -- I like that sentence just for itself... God knows what deals were struck to set the borders of Colorado and Wyoming. I think the de-centralized structure of the U.S. government is exaggerated here (though I won't pretend to have read every post). We have, over time, become more and more centralized (our civil war was the watershed) with many overarching mandates coming to the states from the federal government. Outside of this forum, Americans usually only talk about "state's rights" when they are oppposed to a law that came down from high. They are generally quiet about it otherwise. There are no frontier guards at states' borders (whether they meet at a right angle or otherwise).

And, no, clearly we don't have as rich a history as the U.K. In grammar school, when "studying" history pre-1776, your history becomes our history: Our school books are almost always slanted in favor of the British side of things until 1776 when the French suddenly become good people. Of course it is just an infantile brag to say America is the "greatest country" (whatever that means).

Regards,
Tim

 

[FoFa]

Impression gained from interviews given by American liberals, are there any figures available to change that opinion?

So once again not a viable source for your information. Your response would be like me saying the extrem right says that aint so. As opposed to my personal observations as I stated.

 

[FoFa]

I agree there's no easy answer, I just wonder if more couldn't be done especially by central government

See there is the rub, central government already does TOO MUCH. Government is not mommy and daddy, some times you just have to take responsability yourself.

 

[FoFa]

But it would surely make the job of law enforcement easier if the number of guns in circulation was drastically reduced

By lawabiding people or by criminals?
And if the guns were gone, who would watch the Canadians?

 

[FoFa]

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

Interesting when it is in YOUR post, all of a sudden those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play. Liek I say, statistics is the uninformed stressing point made by bad information.

 

[FoFa]

Because we see on US police reality shows any number of US public brandishing guns as well as the police wandering round like modern day Jesse James or Wyatt Earp. These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction. In one show the cop pulled over a car for speeding and got out the cop car to approach the driver, the first thing he did was to pull his gun out. He hadn't even approached the driver yet. . . .

It show ONE person, and if you watch all those real life cop shows, how many do you see, 10's not even a 100 I bet, as opposed to the population of the US, once again, where is the graph of gun tot'n hoodlums on COP shoes vs the population of the US?
Oh BTW I watch those upon occansion and saw some UK folks running from the cops, running over stuff with their car etc. Oh and Brandishing a knife. A cooking Knife. SO is the UK going to ban knives and cars next? Might be a good move by the central gov. to protect it's people....

 

[Bat17]

those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play

alowing for population difference would probably bring the UK figure up to around the 300 mark v US's 12,000

Peter

 

[The Stoat]

As you know, two or three Scrooges who happen to be American don't necessarily reflect an entire country. And the "I work-they should work" posture is as old as the hills, a sweeping generalization that is mostly meaningless.



Lol -- I like that sentence just for itself... God knows what deals were struck to set the borders of Colorado and Wyoming. I think the de-centralized structure of the U.S. government is exaggerated here (though I won't pretend to have read every post). We have, over time, become more and more centralized (our civil war was the watershed) with many overarching mandates coming to the states from the federal government. Outside of this forum, Americans usually only talk about "state's rights" when they are oppposed to a law that came down from high. They are generally quiet about it otherwise. There are no frontier guards at states' borders (whether they meet at a right angle or otherwise).

And, no, clearly we don't have as rich a history as the U.K. In grammar school, when "studying" history pre-1776, your history becomes our history: Our school books are almost always slanted in favor of the British side of things until 1776 when the French suddenly become good people. Of course it is just an infantile brag to say America is the "greatest country" (whatever that means).

Regards,
Tim

Thank you. That was exactly what i was looking for, very eloquently put

And rich is a good word to describe the colour of blood which is what most of our history is soaked with.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I must be bored posting in here. Two points;

1. Download Google Earth. You can look at the Gun Crime Stastics in there. Not that statistics prove anything, but at least its better than basing your opinions on television.

2. There has been a program on BBC 2 called "Making Slough Happy". It appears now that happiness is now being studied by scientists. Unsurprisingly they are finding that material wealth has nothing to do with it. To the Americans reading; do you feel that the constitution guaranteeing your pursuit of happiness is anything more than simply words? Has the American government looked into the "science" of happiness and done anything practical towards this end? I can't think that anyone would disagree that health (both mental and physical) is a huge contributor to happiness. Perhaps a National Health Service for all Americans would be a more pratical route to making people happy?

 

[jsanders]

I must be bored posting in here. Two points;

2. There has been a program on BBC 2 called "Making Slough Happy". It appears now that happiness is now being studied by scientists. Unsurprisingly they are finding that material wealth has nothing to do with it.

It’s a good thing because after the right gets done, we won’t have any more material wealth.

Maybe they’re looking out for our wellbeing after all.

 

[Kraj]

Wow. There've been quite a lot of interesting posts today. Let's begin...

Well if freedom and justice for all is written into the constitution then isn't it your governments job to enforce it?

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with comparing the structures of the United States with the European Union.

I corrected the previous post by adding "one of the", I guess you missed it

If you said, "I should have said one of the most", then that would make sense. What you actually said was, "I should have said Countries and one the most". So what were you trying to communicate by changing "nations" to "countries"?

jj said that the US doesn't have a central culture, neither do we, both have central government though.

I think the point jsanders is trying to communicate is that the social structures of countries with a large variety of incorporated cultures and high degree of variance based, in part, on geographical distances is much more challenging to manage than a small country with a generally homogenized culture. I think it is a valid point.

OK so let's look at it from another angle, so is Canada, what point was jj trying to make?

Actually that's not true. Canada is geographically large, yes, but the vast majority of the population inhabits a very small slice of the country, so the effect of geography is minimal. Nevertheless, Canada is a poor example to support your point of view since they have clear and controversial cultural lines drawn. Consider the fact that Quebec is clamoring for independence from the rest of Canada and you hardly have a foil to jsanders' argument.

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:[...]

I don't think anyone, at any point, has denied that gun violence is a large problem in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with the average citizen. You said nothing to deny that you think the entire population of America are gun-toting backaroos, but total gun crimes are not an indicator of that, nor would gun crimes per capita be. If you could show a majority of households owning guns, or a majority population percentage who've been arrested for some sort of gun crime, then you've have an argument. All you've shown so far is that criminals have access to guns.

BTW, the vast majority of gun homicides in the United States are gang members killing other gang members. This means even moreso that gun violence is being caused by career criminals and not the average citizen.

Why is the phrase when in Rome do as the Romans still ringing in my ears?

Because you use that to justify all your bad behavior.

What sheer hypocrisy, your current government doesn't even give suspects the benefit of a trial

And this has anything to do with anything I've said because?

But you already have some of the toughest penalties for gun crime and it isn't working, the only thing that will change it is a change in attitude toward gun ownership and their use

Agreed on the first part, not on the second. Like I said, I think the real solution is to stop illegal gun trafficing and keep guns out of criminals hands. The majority of people who legally own and regularly use guns in this country are responsible individuals. (Or at least they're not using their guns to commit a crime.)

Its not only Hollywood or TV shows. Its what we see on the BBC news.

Like I said, we've been over this a million times: what you see on TV is not representative of the average U.S. citizen, yet you insist on believing the television instead of the people who live here. Fine. Whatever. Keep it up. Jolly good show.

I'm not going to embarrass any US posters but it was stated in the last US gun debate that certain a US poster keeps a loaded handgun on top a wardrobe for protection purposes. The debate as I recall was whether they would use it and when would they use it, and how it fitted in with their beliefs. That was one of the best discussions we've had in the 'cooler in recent years

Apparently I missed that one. Fair enough. That doesn't really change my point, though. We now have one individual who owns a gun for protection, a couple who own them for hunting/recreation, and a large majority who don't own one at all. That's a pretty good representation of reality.

These are shows that show real life policing in the US - not Hollywood or fiction.

I guess you guys in the UK haven't gotten the memo yet: reality shows aren't reality. They're edited, they're scripted, and they're produced. The only difference is they aren't fictional. The show "Cops" does no more to represent the average day of the average police office than "Miami Vice".

Cindy always put forward a good argument - personally I think Cindy's discussion points are extremely well thought out, without the need to drone on and on confusing the issue.

I agree. Yet despite her repeated assertions that television does not accurately protray real life America, you still insist that it does. Why won't you listen to her?

There is complete contradiction in many of the posts here on the one hand you are rugged individualists on the other proud of the achievements of America. And even the individualists refer to themselves as American. That is perhaps the problem. You seem to live in a schizophrenic place with conflicting ideals and conflicting demands on your allegiance and your responsibilities

Yeah, that pretty much nails it. There is a very heavy focus on the individual in America - individual rights, individual achievement, what's good for the individual is good for the whole, etc. That culture of individualism, however, is what creates our national identity. We are proud of our individualism and we are proud of how our government protects and supports our individualism. We are proud of what the indivduals who make up our nation have achieved. That much makes sense; the schizophrenia comes from the lairs, hypocrites, and psychoticly self-righteous. (I'm sure Rich will have nothing to comment about that sentence. )

To the Americans reading; do you feel that the constitution guaranteeing your pursuit of happiness is anything more than simply words?

Absolutely it is. Granted, "the pursuit of happiness" is far less concrete than life and liberty, but that's why it's usefull. The first two elements are very legal-ish and codifiable; you can concretely say whether or not someone has been deprived of life or liberty. The pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, an ideal that we can use as a guide in more ambiguous situations. Whether that is applied well is another story...

Has the American government looked into the "science" of happiness and done anything practical towards this end? I can't think that anyone would disagree that health (both mental and physical) is a huge contributor to happiness. Perhaps a National Health Service for all Americans would be a more pratical route to making people happy?

I'd agree, but that'll be one hell of a pill for Americans to swallow. When it comes to health care we want to have our cake and eat it too, we want the best care, newest technology and lastest advancements. We want them cheaply and we want them now. We used to have that, but the cheaply part is no longer sustainable and it's not an area most Americans can afford to give up. So one of the other elements is going to have to go, but there will be a lot of resistance to it.

 

[jsanders]

Kraj,
As my business grows, I want to hire young people of your caliber.
Joe

 

[Kraj]

Kraj,
As my business grows, I want to hire young people of your caliber.
Joe

Joe,
If I find any, I'll let you know

Seriously, thank you for the compliment

Greg

 

[reclusivemonkey]

Absolutely it is. Granted, "the pursuit of happiness" is far less concrete than life and liberty, but that's why it's usefull. The first two elements are very legal-ish and codifiable; you can concretely say whether or not someone has been deprived of life or liberty. The pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, and ideal that we can use as a guide in more ambiguous situations. Whether that is applied well is another story...

Kraj I understand what you are saying. Life and Libery; excellent, these are things that the government can do a lot to ensure for people. However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees. For example, what is happiness? How do you measure it? Can we define happiness as a universal concept, or does is vary so widly from person to person to make it undefinable? Is "happiness" in itself a goal we should truly aspire to? Is happiness not the polar opposite of sorrow (and therefore in order to be happy you must also experience sadness)? I personally enjoy being "melancholy" sometimes (for want of a better word) as it seems a perfectly natural reaction to the world. Whilst in theory I agree it seems to be a great thing to have, I still think its far too vague to have any real meaning. Now to guarantee people's right to happiness and then add certain measures to help with this would seem to be a better idea.

I'd agree, but that'll one hell of a pill for Americans to swallow. When it comes to health care we want to have our cake and eat it too, we want the best care, newest technology and lastest advancements. We want them cheaply and we want them now. We used to have that, but the cheaply part is no longer sustainable and it's not an area most Americans can afford to give up. So one of the other elements is going to have to go, but there will be a lot of resistance to it.

Sorry I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Are you saying you think that an Amercian national health model is unsustainable because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for it in taxes? Do you think a model of both private and public health care is possible?

 

[jsanders]

Kraj However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees.
.

They meant the government would not impede the pursuit of happiness. The way English tyranny and had been impeding theirs.