Happy Fourth, Folks!

"Frode Berg"

wrote:I was just trying to be funny.

Well, ya got me!! My wife sez the same thing from time to time!! Oh well,
some day I'll learn!!
Thx,
VL

Frode Berg wrote:


PS: Feel free to flame me about "someone who learns about other countries
from cartoons".
Should be an interesting discussion.....

Well yeah. If you're going to learn about us from cartoons at least
watch King of the Hill.

My responses below:

I spent literally DAYS waiting in large, suffocating
(because smoking is allowed in public, or at least allowed to government
employees), uncomfortable waiting rooms waiting to get one piece of
paper or
another stamped by some "official".

many things changed dramatically in many parts of Europe. Well, I can
only speak for Austria. But in many areas, smoking was prohibited, esp.
in government buildings.

I think this is going in the "right" direction, and I hope that soon
Europeans will enjoy the clean indoor public air that Americans have been
enjoying for the last fifteen years. Last time I was there, there actually
were "no smoking" signs in the public buildings, but apparently the
officialls took that to mean that no one but them could smoke. When I
pointed out the no smoking sign on the wall right by the official's ear, I
just got a laugh and the comment "this isn't America." A talk with this
person's supervisor (and it was really difficult to figure out who was in
charge) yielded the same result.


bureaucracy is a serious problem, but they make many efforts to move up
to online-services etc. - the system is only as good as the people
behind it.


This is good, but I think the "official" mentality is much more pervasive in
Europe than in the US, and is likely to remain this way for a good long
while. It's like the FAA was running EVERYTHING :-)


What really turned me off from the ideal of "free higher education" is
the
state of the universities in Germany. There is absolutely no comparison

but you stand right. it is free (or with a small annual fee now), so you
don't have to take care. bad habit.

The "it's free, so stop complaining" attitude is 100% expected, and nothing
can be done about it. It just comes with the territory when you give
something away for "free", and has to be accepted by a society that
idealizes free higher education (or free anything else, for that matter).
When you get something for free, you have no ownership, and ownership is
what keeps things nice. On the whole, take a look at a random sampling of
renter planes and then owned planes. Guess which ones will be nicer?
That's the difference between socialized education/medicine/whatever and
(for the most part) the American system.



Unfortunately, the same things that plague the German free education
system
....
seems that the German electorate and parliment are absolutely unwilling
to
do anything about it.

they are trying, but many lobbies try to prevent it. doctors and
pharmacy industry will do everything to prevent changes. Joe Everywhere
has no chance to stand up and point out his needs.

I have found that Germans are on the whole very resistant to change, and
very risk averse. This probably explains the attitudes that have created
the current system, and why they can't change it. Hopefully they'll do it
before it becomes a real crisis.


The other thing that bothers me about the socialist ways of European

whenever we hear socialism we tend to interpret it as a "not-any-more
communist situation". So in most european ears socialism is associated
with the former DDR or Russia.


Socialist is the best word to describe the German, and most European
systems, IMHO. You're right though, it does have that "former soviet
influenced" conotative baggage with it, and that is not what I mean by it.
I'm using it in the way that many German political parties use it, a la
Social Democrats.


This is really a thing that one can't learn. Europeans can't learn the
US system and vice-versa, because it is a feeling you have to be grown
up with. For Germany it was a tough decision to send German UN
(!)-troops abroad. Because it ment sending German soldiers abroad.
Within Europe. 50 years ago, German troops where also there, .... - hope
you see my point.


Good points. I think this is about the time that the dialog needs to
intensify and that Germany needs to start getting over the trauma of its
past. Likewise, the US should probably be a little more sensitive to the
European mindset. I've always thought that diplomacy is lacking in the
current US administration, and that is one of the things hampering
relations. However, both sides need to be more understanding of the other.


I had many conversations
with Germans about this topic, and it seems to me that they just don't
understand the American position that it is important to maintain a
strong
army to keep peace in the world.


see above. you have to be raised with this situation. I have visited the
Titan II missile museum near Tucson, AZ, 2 or 3 times. They display a
intercontinental ballistic missile. A guy about the age of 70 explained
everything. In the command room he explained a launch with words like
"if we receive the lawful order of the president of the United
States..." and explained the power of destruction, it only needs 3 of
those well placed over the US to destroy the whole US and they had about
50 of those, etc. etc ... well ... I felt uncomfortable and understood
within a second the cold war, Cuba crisis, etc ... it was normal
business for the guy. He was raised within a climate that allowed this.
OTOH, we are raised in another climate that allowed other viewpoints.


Again, very good point.

An army may not be needed right now, but
you never know when you're going to need it.


See? Just like I tried to explain above.


yup.

The last position you want to
be in is to NEED an army and not have one. These things are expensive,
and
Germans (and indeed many other countries) have been benefiting from the
United States bearing the brunt of these costs for a long time. This is
a
product of history and I'm not complaining that the U.S. has done this,
nor
am I looking for any sort of profuse gratitude. Simply an
acknowledgement,
that is all.


yes.
OTOH, many Germans complain about the US airplanes training at the bases
within Germany. I can't say anything to this issue, because we don't
have any foreign bases here.


This is always a point of friction, since military jets are LOUD. If
Germans grow up thinking that military stuff is for someone else and that
they don't need it, then I could see how they could be annoyed by it.
Intrestingly, the same sort of sentiments have been brewing in South Korea,
with proud Korean nationalists shouting for the Americans to go home. When
Rumsfeld hinted that the US would be happy to accommodate and pull out, they
shut up, all of a sudden realizing the consequenses of removing the US from
the Korean equation. The North isn't getting any friendlier...

looking for jobs, artificial early retirement programs, generous
disability
status, and impossibly long student status. These are numbers that I
got
from the economic research I did while studying there, and are accepted
by
many economists versed in the German economy.


but true, the official rate is higher and the method of calculating the
official rate is strange.


Strange to say the least...

Since the education system is controlled from the top - i.e. the
education
ministry decides each year how many slots will be available for computer
science each year-, there are always much greater disparities in Germany
between labor supply and demand. Since the curriculum is typically
taught
in an academic setting very far removed from industry (a problem
everywhere,
but particularly acute in Germany), new graduates have to be retrained
at

many things changed dramatically within the last years.


This would be very positive, and I hope this can truly change. However,
knowing what I know about the system and the motives of those in charge of
the universities, something tells me that it will be a VERY slow process.

great cost. Finally, AFAIK, you have to take whatever person the union
gives you, and unlike the US style unions, you really have little choice

the Unions have more power than they deserve, IMHO. But right now they
have big troubles because they lost a fight with employers.


That's what I hear. It took a hell of a long time for them to get to this,
though. They really got to the edge, pushing industry to the brink.

I said I was carless, but I did rent cars. Conclusion; the Autobahn is
AWESOME! No other road compares. You are Driver in Command, and
whatever

almost everybody I speaks to in the US loves the Autobahn and wants to
take a car out there and drive th hell out of it. :-))


Did that with an Audi A4 and loved it! :-)

you and your machine can handle that day goes. When the traffic is
high,
it's like everywhere else. If you wake up early, it's faster than a
Cessna
172 :-)

It is not unlikely to drive 200 km/h (or faster) - in Germany. In
Austria we have a limit at 130 km/h.


The Audi would go 200km/h straight and level, and 210km/h downhill. Took
forever getting there, but it's really not bad for a 1.6 liter engine! I
got to go on the Nurburgring as well, and did 3 laps with the Audi, and then
got a lap with a Porsche GT3. We hit 280km/h :-)


I admire the way that Germany has proactively been protecting people's
privacy. I don't admire the historical events that have led to
necessitating those strong protections, but I'm glad to see that Germans
are
very cognizant of the importance of privacy and limitations on
government
surveilance.


This changed a lot. Surveillance is a big issue on many privacy
concerned lists and groups. government is able to put up many
restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism and for higher securtiy
... :-/(

It's at least debated more over in Europe. Citizens everywhere should be on
the alert!


Then there is the food. Especially the bakeries. There was a lot of

For me, buying bread in the US was always a pain in the ... - you know.
I have to check out, well, german bakeries next time.


yup. It was reverse culture shock for me coming back.

pleasure in picking up some fresh rolls and maybe a pastry on the way to
work. Good wine and cheese are really easy to come by, and pretty cheap
too.

I have seen a change in advantage for Europe in terms of cost of living
within the last 6 or so years.

This is influenced, among other things, by the Wal Mart effect. Wal Mart
keeps inflation really low in the United States by keeping its suppliers
(mostly in China and elsewhere abroad) under tight price pressures. Aldi in
Germany does the same. Apparently that has had an effect on European
economies.


There are little bars and restaurants everywhere to go to lunch at,
and generally there was life on the street that constrasts with the
American
style zoning that isolates "working" and "shopping" areas from "living"
areas. I like the European approach more, but then again I grew up with
that sort of lifestyle in Israel. I think there's a trend here to allow
more blended zoning here in the US now too.


I was once in a steak-house in Phoenix. There was a family of about 10
coming after us and leaving the restaurant before us. Come in, order,
eat, pay, leave. We tend more to stay a little bit, have a coffee, chat
a bit, ...

It's definitely a slower pace of life in Europe. Good? Bad? Just
different? Depends on your values.


Then there is the Bier. Enough said :-)


and coffee. 'nuff said. :-)
you'll probably need a prescription in the US to drink that coffee :-)


Many people here have become quite the coffee connoisseurs, including my
wife. It's one thing that Europeans and Americans have begun to agree on.


There are a bunch more things I could touch on, but this has become a
long
enough core dump... Suffice to say that there are great and not so
great
things about both countries and both continents. I prefer to stick to
this
side of the pond, but I love visiting all of my European friends every
once
in a while.


you have put it very well. thanks. I hope I was able to point out my
viewpoint well enough ... well, my english gets worse every day ...


It's nice to see that we were able to discuss this so civilly. Usenet is so
much nicer when people can simply appreciate other people's viewpoints and
keep things on an intellectual level. We all learn a lot more that way.
Oh, and your English - it's just fine. You elaborated your points well.

Cheers,
Aviv

Hehe, OK, thanks I'll check it out!

Seriously, I really like the US, and love to visit your country.

Take care,

Frode

PS: Can't really think of any cartoons to learn about
Norwegians....hmm....maybe someday..


"Newps" skrev i melding
...


Frode Berg wrote:


PS: Feel free to flame me about "someone who learns about other
countries
from cartoons".
Should be an interesting discussion.....

Well yeah. If you're going to learn about us from cartoons at least
watch King of the Hill.

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...
My responses below:

I spent literally DAYS waiting in large, suffocating
(because smoking is allowed in public, or at least allowed to
government
employees), uncomfortable waiting rooms waiting to get one piece of
paper or
another stamped by some "official".

many things changed dramatically in many parts of Europe. Well, I can
only speak for Austria. But in many areas, smoking was prohibited, esp.
in government buildings.

I think this is going in the "right" direction, and I hope that soon
Europeans will enjoy the clean indoor public air that Americans have been
enjoying for the last fifteen years.

I wouldn't bank on it. Last time I was in La Rampa, a touristy but still
pretty good restaurant tucked under the Spanish Steps in Rome, there was an
entire page of the menu given over to the notice (not verbatim, but
something like): "To our British and American customers - we regret that by
Italian law we are not permitted to ban smoking in our restaurant".

You can sense the pressure they are under, and the resignation that things
aren't going to change.

Good points. I think this is about the time that the dialog needs to
intensify and that Germany needs to start getting over the trauma of its
past. Likewise, the US should probably be a little more sensitive to the
European mindset. I've always thought that diplomacy is lacking in the
current US administration, and that is one of the things hampering
relations. However, both sides need to be more understanding of the
other.

Beware how you pitch your arguments. Some say that the current
administration doesn't understand how to be diplomatic, or is clumsy at it.
I think the fact is that they understand diplomacy very well, and have
positively repudiated it as not being in the US's interests. I think (if you
believe in diplomacy) you should address your complaints at American
Exceptionalism, not incompetence.

-- David Brooks

"Frode Berg" wrote in message
...
Hehe, OK, thanks I'll check it out!

Seriously, I really like the US, and love to visit your country.

Take care,

Frode

PS: Can't really think of any cartoons to learn about
Norwegians....hmm....maybe someday..

No need for cartoons - just listen to Garrison Keillor to understand all you
need to know about Norwegians.

(for the conservatives among us, Keillor is... oh, never mind).

-- David Brooks

My comments below:

snipped a lot here

The Germans are very confused about this. For years and years we told them
they couldn't have anything resembling an army of real power. They agreed,
in fact embraced the idea that they would never have to go to war again
(who wouldn't?). Now all of a sudden we demand that they send troops
overseas on our initiative and are upset when they don't.


Yes, I think you and Martin are right. People have been growing up on
either side of the pond with very different values with respect to the
military. However, I think it's about time for Germans to begin to become
more responsible for their own defense and using some military power where
necessary around the world keeping the peace, so that the US doesn't have to
do everything by itself. IMHO, it will be in the interest of everyone to
share this burden.

snip

I said I was carless, but I did rent cars. Conclusion; the Autobahn is
AWESOME! No other road compares. You are Driver in Command, and
whatever
you and your machine can handle that day goes. When the traffic is
high,
it's like everywhere else. If you wake up early, it's faster than a
Cessna 172 :-)

It is a real pleasure to drive in Europe in general compared to the US.
Drivers actually pay attention to what they are doing and what is going on
around them. On this last visit I drove from Germany through Belgium into
France and back. Not once was I stuck behind a slower vehicle in the fast
lane for more than a moment (while they passed someone).

But for me the real fun is not the Autobahn, it's the highways between
towns. Roads that are (mostly) billiard table smooth that wind through
scenic country and passing is (usually) easy. The curves are challenging
and the speeds are high enough to really give a thrill to anyone who
enjoys
driving.

Yes, driving in general is a blast in Europe. In my opinion, after driving
all over the place, Germany has the best roads and the best drivers.
Germans displayed lane discipline no one else did. Crossing over into
France, I felt less safe at slower speeds because of the way people were
weaving in and out of lanes. I found it amazing that the German freeway
system beat, hands down, the French toll system. I agree with Jay Honeck
that tollways are just a bad idea that stifle movement and commerce.


snip

Then there is the Bier. Enough said :-)

Ummmmmm...Bier!

There are a bunch more things I could touch on, but this has become a
long
enough core dump... Suffice to say that there are great and not so
great
things about both countries and both continents. I prefer to stick to
this side of the pond, but I love visiting all of my European friends
every once in a while.

Cheers,
Aviv

Thanks, nice post.

You are absolutely right that there is good and bad on both sides. I think
Americans could do a much better job seeing the good sides, collectively
we
tend to dismiss anything foreign as inferior.


Yup. Unfortunately.

But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better
understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we see
ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it.
Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that
conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other
countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are
naturally suspicious of our motives.


The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and
benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations, does
what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those
unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and
means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else
simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the
U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our actions
are interpreted that way. Everyone in the world has an opinion about what
the U.S. should do and not do, and they get upset when the U.S. does or does
not do what they want. That's life, and I don't see how the U.S. could
possibly concoct a foreign policy that pleases everyone.

I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is somehow
exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has pulled
more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain
about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they may
have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations"
weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they be
better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American
corporation'? The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations
have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards of
living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich
neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff.

This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration
as
a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest
of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look for
some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When they
don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be
trusted
absolutely.


Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While
some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi Arabia,
democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said, countries do
what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is influenced by
the political winds. To expect a country to be 100% consistent is asking a
lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but no one should expect
fascist style consistency.

We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send
when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others. There
cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it ruins
our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught that until
all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that today.


You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that
there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights.
However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not
allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make
even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast
as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph for
human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently and
consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life. This
is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong
arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do
what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S. got
there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are,
what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO. Decisions
about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my point
is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic, since
there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind
anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that would
satisfy everyone.

We seem to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to
apply
a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate
ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men
are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly)
hold
so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US
passports.


Realpolitik aside, I do agree with you that the United States and its people
ought to strive for the ideal and keep pushing for a better world. I
believe that EVERY president of the United States has attempted to leave
this country and the world better off. They could all have done better, but
they are constrained by all sorts of parameters, including public opinion.
So, if public opinion can be swung in the direction favorable toward human
rights and disfavorable toward abuses of human rights, we'll be helping to
move things in the right direction and live in a better world.

Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of
confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to
build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry
is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue.


This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a
better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to be
made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and who
they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human rights.
It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term, a
whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get
from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady state,
so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep it on
the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you
alluded to before. How many other countries would invade an oil rich
country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal
oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by its
leader. I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was,
since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done, and
the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better life to
look forward to, eventually.

Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights
of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as
they would if it happened to them.


Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ. There
are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are downtrodden
and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant to
minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to give
some
perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low intensity.
So far in
the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have
been killed, spread over almost three years. The Rwanda conflict probably
killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered
there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not
Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it. Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes from
the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.

Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many. One
of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel
cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like
Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the
sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and Iran
are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At least
Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care of by the
U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The United States
would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm not
kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people forget
this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically surviving
on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army and air force.

That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the
current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly
leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both sides
and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not
loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing
exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This
hardly counts as "most of America's troubles."

Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always
good
to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and
is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take
incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time
to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults
and striving to correct them.


Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people are
free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a
country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is
number one.

-Aviv

Aviv Hod wrote:

Frank wrote:

Much snipped

But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better
understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we
see ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it.
Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that
conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other
countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are
naturally suspicious of our motives.


The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and
benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations,
does what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those
unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and
means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else
simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the
U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our
actions
are interpreted that way.

Perception is reality.... I think you are falling into the same trap I was
trying to illustrate (well kinda anyway). Coercing other people to do what
we want based on "our military and economic dominance" IS a definition of a
"bully".

And let me add here that I am not refering to protecting ourselves. I am
refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business
comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated
at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to
perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease,
but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to find
a way to justify our actions.


snip


I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is
somehow exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has
pulled
more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain
about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they
may
have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations"
weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they
be
better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American
corporation'?


You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American
corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an
"Amercian" corporation.


The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations
have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards
of
living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich
neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff.


Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that
apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be
prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to
address: It costs money to do the right thing.

Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards they
are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those
standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst
cause harm.



This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration
as
a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest
of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look
for some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When
they don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be
trusted
absolutely.

Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While
some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi
Arabia, democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said,
countries do what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is
influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100%
consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but
no one should expect fascist style consistency.

I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made
it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past
commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that since
they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in the
case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient.


We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send
when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others.
There cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it
ruins our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught
that until all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that
today.

You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that
there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights.
However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not
allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make
even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast
as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph
for human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently
and
consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights
people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life.


I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here.

I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I supported
the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people.

But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the source
of a lot of opposition.

I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do
think that war should always be a last resort because of this consideration
though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started.

No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe
this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you would
agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying".


This is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong
arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do
what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S.
got there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are,
what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO.
Decisions
about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my
point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic,
since
there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind
anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that
would satisfy everyone.


I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for
absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking
place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new heights
and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to
opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the
contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous".

So not everyone gets to make up their own mind (here or abroad) based on
good information. Somewhat tongue in cheek, I now say "You are _not_
entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own _informed_
opinion.".


We seem
to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to
apply
a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate
ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men
are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly)
hold
so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US
passports.


snip

Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of
confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to
build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry
is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue.

This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a
better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to
be
made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and
who they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human
rights.


So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of
concern?

Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis have
the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans
will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here and
armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will.


It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term,
a
whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get
from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady
state, so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep
it on the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you
alluded to before.


This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate
other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the
situations were reversed?


How many other countries would invade an oil rich
country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal
oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by
its
leader.


If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly.
We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we
endured.


I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was,
since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done,
and the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better
life to look forward to, eventually.

Agree 100%.


Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights
of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as
they would if it happened to them.


Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ.

I would differ along with you....

Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better.

What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is
*illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine
conflict.

And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last
20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of
suicide bombing.

But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied basic
human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was
writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them
in their cause.

There are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are
downtrodden
and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant
to minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to
give some
perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low
intensity. So far in
the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have
been killed, spread over almost three years.


I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the
suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over a
longer period than the last 3 years.


The Rwanda conflict probably
killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered
there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not
Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it.


Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever be
one of the most shameful episodes in our history.


Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes
from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.


I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out
this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I
tell it to do!)



Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many.
One of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel
cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like
Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the
sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and
Iran
are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At
least Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care
of by the U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The
United States
would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm
not
kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people
forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically
surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army
and air force.


What you say here is absolutly true. But the argument is no longer relavent.
No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world
in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that
eliminating Israel is not an option. If any of the countries you list were
to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force.

What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the point
where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our
policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed.


That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the
current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly
leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both
sides
and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not
loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing
exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This
hardly counts as "most of America's troubles."


Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we
should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just to
use the same yardstick everywhere.



Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always
good
to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and
is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take
incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time
to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults
and striving to correct them.


Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people
are
free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a
country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is
number one.

-Aviv


Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't
written this much for a long time.
--
Frank....H

(for the conservatives among us, Keillor is...

Fabulous!

Signed,

Conservative-but-love-NPR...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Comments interspersed:

And let me add here that I am not referring to protecting ourselves. I am
refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business
comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated
at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to
perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease,
but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to
find
a way to justify our actions.


It is my position that corporations, U.S. based or otherwise, operate under
the laws of the country in which they do business, and they should not be
expected to do anything nicer than what is legal. If there are abuses, then
it is the responsibility of the host government to enact and enforce laws
that ensure their populace's well being. I am looking at this from a macro
scale, meaning that as a CEO I would not tolerate any unethical business
practices, but my individual actions would change the situation little
because my competitors will more than likely be happy to carry through the
unethical but legal business practices that I shunned. Doing business with
a country that wants my business more than they want the same standards as
the workers get in my country is not bullying in my book. It's just
business. I mean, should Europeans shun business with U.S. firms because
most of our workers don't get the kind of pension guarantees and healthcare
as in their countries? I contend that each country must be held responsible
for its own rules, since who else is qualified to set these standards?

snip


You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American
corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an
"Amercian" corporation.


I didn't mean to dichotomize so surgically. Of course there are many shades
in between, and that proves my point even more. People who work for "greedy
American corporation" probably have a choice of working for domestic firms,
for themselves, for the competitor of the corporation, etc. My conclusion
is that they decided to work for GAC because that is what makes most sense
for them financially. Couple this conclusion with the reality that most
U.S. firms pay better and have better working conditions than the average
wage in the area, and the judgmental 'greedy' moniker fades a bit. It's
only greedy if you judge the wages/ conditions in first world terms.




Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that
apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be
prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to
address: It costs money to do the right thing.

Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards
they
are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those
standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst
cause harm.


This is Deja-vu, I tell you. I've been discussing this moral vs. legal
issue with my wife for the past few weeks. Again, I think that the only
thing that is able to make a difference is appropriate passage and
enforcement of laws. If there is a market opportunity that is legal but
morally dubious, you can expect at least two things, IMO. First, that many
people will evaluate the opportunity, and decide they're not willing to go
there on moral grounds. Bravo for them. Secondly, however, there will
ALWAYS be someone willing to go there. So all of the Good Guys that decided
not to go there are hurt by their competitor's lack of morals. Is that
moral? Is that desirable? Did it change anything for those on the butt end
of the deal? My conclusion is that if there is anything to blame, it's the
lack of legislation that created an uneven playing field for competitors
that want to do the right thing. In the meanwhile, nothing changes.


influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100%
consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but
no one should expect fascist style consistency.

I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made
it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past
commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that
since
they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in
the
case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient.


Agreed. I wish there was more respect on the part of the current
administrations for past commitments. However, this is the political
reality. I will take this (and a hell of a lot of other issues) in the next
election and vote for someone more diplomatically savvy.

consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights
people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life.


I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here.


You should take exception. I don't normally use absolutes. I should have
specified "all the human rights people that I've met here in Iowa City..."

I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I
supported
the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people.

But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the
source
of a lot of opposition.


Agreed 100%! I was actually for the war, but I did think the administration
put on a poor show. It made me more than a bit uncomfortable. Just not
more uncomfortable than the thought of Saddam pushing the envelope even more
and becoming more confident that he can get away with whatever he wants.
We've all seen what he's shown to be capable of when he thinks he can get
away with it... Since the U.N. didn't seem keen on enforcement, I supported
the war.

I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do
think that war should always be a last resort because of this
consideration
though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started.

No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe
this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you
would
agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying".


I always saw this current war as simply a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War,
and so had no problem with 'preemption' since I don't think it was really
preemption. IMHO, it's not bullying when one wrongdoing is punished, and
then the punishment escalates when the first punishment is not served.



point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic,
snip

I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for
absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking
place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new
heights
and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to
opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the
contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous".

snip

I am disturbed by the way all of this transpired as well. The current
administration has done some very scary things with respect to civil
liberties. I do everything I can to voice my opinion on those issues. I
have the office numbers of my congresscritters on speed dial. I talk to
people about the issues, and I carry a battered copy of the constitution
with me at all times. I've had it since 6th grade, and I'm quite smitten by
the document :-) Next election I'll be voting for the person who has the
most respect for it (it ain't Bush).

snip
So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of
concern?

Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis
have
the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans
will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here
and
armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will.


I'm so glad that you can see that I DO see the hypocrisy, that it makes me
uncomfortable, but that I only justify it temporarily based on some judgment
of the reality of the current situation. Your point that not enough
Americans see the connection between their civil liberties and others'
abroad is well taken. Indeed, it's my opinion that not enough Americans see
the connection between THEIR civil liberties and the laws and actions that
are taken by their government. It's scary how little people know about
their own constitution. This is where a battered old copy of the
Constitution comes in handy. :-)

snip
This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate
other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the
situations were reversed?


In this case I actually think it's for their expediency as well. Also, it's
a stretch to compare the two countries and situation so directly with
respect to guns, given the very recent history of Iraq. Would we tolerate
it if the situation were reversed? Interesting hypothetical. I don't know.
Probably not. But this would take into account that the baseline is way
different for each country, i.e. if you disarm Iraq, you're disarming the
group collectively known in the region as the Saddam Henchmen (since no one
else was allowed to carry), whereas in the U.S. you would be disarming the
populace at large. Of all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the
second is the one that can most drastically affect the others in times of
turmoil, and it is based on the idea that firepower should not be too
concentrated. In the case of Iraq, firepower is concentrated so that it is
necessary to do something about it in order to move forward.

This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by
its
leader.


If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly.
We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we
endured.

Time will tell. You may be right, but it will be a judgment call since not
all of the benefits (and costs) of the invasion have been tabulated, and
they may never be tabulated. How do you measure the relative worth of the
loss of trust with Germany versus the Syria's pullout from Lebanon and the
diminishment of Syria's Baath party's power? Read about Decree 408, recently
passed in Syria, he
( http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=519 )



Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ.

I would differ along with you....

Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better.

What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is
*illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine
conflict.


Whew... I'm glad that this is the case. This clarification puts everything
in a whole new light. I was a bit thrown off by the original statement
because it seemed way out of character in an otherwise reasonable and
thoughtful post. I responded to it in the way I did because sometimes
people become very emotional when discussing the middle east, and all of a
sudden an enlightening political discussion becomes, well, less cerebral.

And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last
20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of
suicide bombing.

Good. I wish that more people would unequivocally condemn suicide bombings.
I've spoken to Amnesty International folks that are completely consistent
with respect to human rights but somehow refuse to condemn this most heinous
of human rights violations. It's just so strange how emotional people can
get about this conflict, and how often they throw their moral compass out
completely.


But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied
basic
human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was
writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them
in their cause.


The Palestinians are in a bad situation, no doubt. But I think that enough
people realize that this is a complex, multidimensional story that has
everyone involved suffering terribly, not just the Palestinians. At this
point, many people would like to help the Palestinian cause for statehood.
However, a large minority of Palestinians are not fighting for this cause.
They are fighting for the destruction of Israel first, and an Islamic
Palestinian state second. No red-blooded American I know supports this.
And in fact, the difference in the various Palestinian faction's causes is
the crux of the problem on the Palestinian side, and supercedes all others.
Abu Mazen needs to bring all of the factions and terror organs under control
if he hopes to lead his people to statehood. This is what's spelled out in
the roadmap, and nothing of the sort has happened so far. IMHO, more
red-blooded Americans should be demanding that the Palestinian Authority
dismantle the terrorist organizations that keep killing innocent Israelis
and in effect stopping Palestinian aspirations for statehood. The Bush
administration apparently is being slack with this stipulation of the road
map, and allowing the Hudna (tactical cease-fire) to substitute for it. It
soon will be evident how critical a mistake this is.


I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the
suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over
a
longer period than the last 3 years.


Agreed, but the last 3 years have been the most deadly. And all of this
after the rejection of a plan for a real Palestinian state. No matter what
you think of the 2000 Barak proposal, would the differences between that and
any future Palestinian state have been worth more than 3,000 lives?

Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever
be one of the most shameful episodes in our history.


I agree, but why are WE the only ones that feel shame? What about the U.N.?
Germany? France? The U. K.? Also, if we would have gone in, would we not
have caused the same sort of bad feelings as we got when we went into
Somalia or Kosovo? Philosophically speaking, how do we know when it's OK to
intervene?


Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes
from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.

I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out
this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I
tell it to do!)

OK, understood.


kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people
forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is
basically
surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army
and air force.


What you say here is absolutely true. But the argument is no longer
relevant.
No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world
in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that
eliminating Israel is not an option.

Israel surely doesn't feel that secure. Do Hamas and Islamic Jihad know
this? Does Iran know this? What about Hizbollah?

If any of the countries you list were
to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force.

Again, Israel doesn't feel that secure. A supersonic flight from Damascus
to downtown Tel Aviv would not last one tick of the Hobbs meter. Then it's
already too late. Wars over Israel are quick, and wouldn't allow 6 months
for a coalition to gear up like in the Gulf war. That assumes that someone
would be willing to fight for Israel, and many Israelis are no where near
convinced that they have enough friends in the world to rely on.

What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the
point
where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our
policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed.


The United States is putting pressure on both sides to come to an agreement
and orchestrating with others a plan to reach for a Palestinian state. I
don't see how that is not neutral. Just because the support comes with
pressure to stop operations of wholesale slaughter in pizza parlors and
hotels? Seems reasonable to me.

Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we
should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just
to
use the same yardstick everywhere.



The precise position of neutral is debatable, so let's jut agree to disagree
on this one.



Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't
written this much for a long time.

These topics always strike a nerve with me. So when I find a fine
interlocutor to discuss the issues dear to my heart, I spend the time to
compose my thoughts, even when I should be working on my thesis...
This has become way off topic for a flying forum, but it's been fun in any
case.

-Aviv