Anti-American?

Sleepy

This is a term that has been thrown at anyone who dares question the motives or actions of George W. Bush's administration for the last year or so and has become tantamount to calling someone a bástard. Well, I've had enough of it. I'm proud to be-Anti American.

Why? Well let's take a look at this: what does America stand for nowadays?

democracy?
Hardly, when you consider that it's an oligopolistic country who specialises in creating puppet governments in foreign countries and prop up dictators to suit their interests.

Freedom?
Well, there's the whole issue of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the homophobic nature of Bush's election campaign etc.

Hope?
Hard to credit given that the Bush maintained power by preaching fear of terrorists, "queers" and "unseen forces". Harder to credit when you see attempts to get Creationism taught as science. Harder still to credit in a country where such a large portion of the population can't afford medical care.

Glory?
Unsanctioned invasions (don't dare try to call them a "war on terror"); illegal detentions; a completely unknown tally of civilian dead; an election where over 10,000 attorneys stood by the ballot areas, both parties campaigned from largely negative platforms and a result that makes people want to leave the land they were born in.

No. America doesn't stand for any of these things any more. It stands for greed; corruption; death; destruction; arrogance (well, maybe it always stood for that - though it used to be in a nicer way); low taxes for the rich whilst the poor can't afford to get sick; guns; homophobia; creationism; fear and slack-jawed ignorance.

Yes, I'm anti all those things so feel free to call me Anti-American, I take it as a compliment.

Nick_oliveri

Well were either with them or against them. I know where i stand. High on my rooftop hoping that the greed, corruption, violence, stupidity and scare mongering of some wont reflect on us all when we die. Guess that makes me a terrorist.

bus77

You really shouldn't talk about the King like that.

Sleepy

What's Elvis got to do with this?

Hobbes

I don't think Bushes and his administration actions are reflective of all Republicans and certainly not reflective of all Americans.

But your right. Its like spouting anti-semite or claiming all muslims are terrorists.

Sleepy

Hobbes, I agree, his actions and stupidity aren't representative of all Americans but following last week, it can be safely said that his administration is representative of the majority of the electorate.

chewy

since you brought the subject up, again i say, anti-american could mean anti-capitalist, or having serious doubts about capitalism (my category, it hard to be "non-capitalist"), it is this captilist system (by which i mean money ruling over democracy) which america is the beacon of and that results in such actions such as the attack on falluhja, by (although i think far left is just as bad and can act out of idealogy over reason and compassion)... when proud rights wingers get riled up they shout you "pinko commie"...a left over from the McCarthy era, ie if you are communist then you are anti-american, (not iniitially anti-capitalist) , and then I guess there also a majority of people who don't see capitalism as inherently bad but just wished people were nicer to each other... but England is capitalist so is Ireland and Egypt and Spain and the artic etc its not just America...

although someone ( a ardent socialist, I presume) did point out something the other day suggesting that while he wished for the American army to stop using Shannon, that if America were to invade Venuzuala more directly they would be happy to have another hypothetical army use Shannon to defend Venuzuala, now thats as close to anti-american as you get.

you can say your proud to be anti-american but i think its a red-herring

chewy

51% is a majority but only a bare majority,

could one analyse it further to moralsitic people, narrowminded, uneducated, selfish?

dahamsta

Sleepy wrote:

the homophobic nature of Bush's election campaign etc.

I was surprised I didn't hear more noise about this. What's the ratio of homosexuals to hetros these days*, one in ten? Did they not make much noise, or did we just not hear about it? Whatever about Dems, I know if I was gay and the leader of my chosen political party started spouting the bigoted garbage Bush comes out with I'd be on top of my house with a loudhailer.

adam

*Not the most sensitive way of putting it, but you know what I mean.

chewy

slightly OT but a good question, i typed stuff into google and got www.gay365.com that actually has a good lsit of new stories in news section... http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110304GayRxn.htm try this small overview

11 states banned gay marriage, or didnt' let it pass? 4 did i think is that right?

another electoral map this time re marriage exclusions http://www.aclu.org/getequal/whatsnext2.htm

mike65

dahamsta wrote:

I was surprised I didn't hear more noise about this. What's the ratio of homosexuals to hetros these days*, one in ten?

adam

*Not the most sensitive way of putting it, but you know what I mean.

1 in 10 is pofter propaganda! I think its accepted that the % of "strict" gay/lesbians is about 4%, but then there are the weekends casuals/bi-curious/giddy schoolgirl lesbos/drunk rugby club night outers...heck its all of us! Mind you I'v seen figures as high as 20%

Pick a number, any number...If it were 20% then the gay lobby failed dismally.

Mike.

shotamoose

On the four points Sleepy mentioned ('democracy? freedom? hope? glory?') I would say that I vehemently disagree with the American government. Yes, the people in a democracy should really get the blame if they elect a bad government, but I really don't think that even the 51% of the 60% of the electorate that voted for Bush can get all the blame, since most probably didn't really know what they were voting for.

The same applies to an extent to all democracies, but the US is I think an extreme case. The American government is so powerful in so many different ways that a typical American voter has much further to go to make a genuinely fully informed decision. Their media basically lie to them all the time. Furthermore, a lot of what I dislike about America - the 'military-industrial complex', for example - seems impervious to merely political changes.

So I find it hard to blame ordinary voters for what is immediately beyond their control. As much as I hate the Bush government and dislike all American governments, I can't be genuinely 'anti-American'. It's a bizarre concept anyway - it's not like 'Americans' are even slightly homogenous.

Flukey

Those who criticise Bush or his foreign policy or that of any American administration are not anti-American. It is a simple term used to label us or dismiss their arguments as worthless, when they can't answer them. Those of us who did criticise the President or the policies are not anti-American. We are against his policies, nothing more, nothing less. Lots of people in America criticise his policies too; are they anti-American? Lots of us criticise policies of the Irish government; are we anti-Irish? Of course not. Lots of us have probably been in America and loved it. Many of us have friends and relations there. We watch and enjoy American TV programmes and movies. We listen to their music and hold some musicians, like the aformentioned Elvis, in very high esteem. We use inventions created by Americans. We don't agree with their foreign policy, but that does not make us anti-American.

Even on their foreign policy, America has had many positive influences. It has done many good things in the world and some of its interventions have been positive. It has the ability to be a force for good in those and other situations. So it is really only some of their foreign policy we disagree with. I disagree with some of their foreign policy but I am not anti-American or any of the other labels thrown at us like pro-Saddam, anti-democratic, pro-terrorist, anti-freedom etc. It is much easier to label us than to deal with the issues we raise. So Sleepy, I doubt you are anti-American, even if you say you are proud to be. You can be against some of their foreign policies and proud of that.

sceptre

mike65 wrote:

1 in 10 is pofter propaganda!

More "based on an inadequate research study by Alfred Kinsey" (don't bother reading the report, wait for the movie[1]) but either way an accepted 10% is a little unreliable.

[1]I'm serious, there really is a movie

bonkey

shotamoose wrote:

I really don't think that even the 51% of the 60% of the electorate that voted for Bush can get all the blame, since most probably didn't really know what they were voting for.

You don't hold them to task for not really knowing who they were voting for? For being so flippant with their vote in the election of The Most Powerful Man in the World [tm] that they felt they didn't need to be better informed?

Curious.

At the risk of going off-topic...do you believe ignorance should also be an excuse when it comes to breaking the law?

jc

shotamoose

bonkey wrote:

You don't hold them to task for not really knowing who they were voting for? For being so flippant with their vote in the election of The Most Powerful Man in the World [tm] that they felt they didn't need to be better informed?

Put it this way: I can't give them 100% of the blame since I don't think 100% of them could have been 100% fully informed.

...do you believe ignorance should also be an excuse when it comes to breaking the law?

May be wrong, but I think ignorance already is taken into account in some ways. Diminished responsibility, etc.

Besides, it's two different concepts: what you can't do, and what you might do. The second, which covers voting, is full of hypotheticals, and perfect knowledge is impossible.

ixoy

mike65 wrote:

1 in 10 is pofter propaganda! I think its accepted that the % of "strict" gay/lesbians is about 4%, but then there are the weekends casuals/bi-curious/giddy schoolgirl lesbos/drunk rugby club night outers...heck its all of us! Mind you I'v seen figures as high as 20%

Hullo. I've seen various figures bandied around too. From my POV the higher the figure, the better - more choice for meeee! The one I see most is 10% which broadly fits some trends, such as those I knew from school and suchlike but hey if more men want to buck the trend and push the figure up to 20%, I'm all for it.

There were many outspoken gay groups lambasting Bush for his anti-gay policies but I'm unaware of how much of an impact it had on the decision making of the electorate. One of the few offhand was the Sunday Times' political correspondant, Andrew Sullivan. It certainly seemed to help him, a strong Republican, want Kerry over Bush. Alas though the anti-gay evangelical nutjobs outnumber the gay population - something the likes of Karl Rove knew. You may be able to motivate one group but, at the same time, you're motivating the opposition too and they're bigger...

Sleepy

Flukey wrote:

Those who criticise Bush or his foreign policy or that of any American administration are not anti-American. It is a simple term used to label us or dismiss their arguments as worthless, when they can't answer them. Those of us who did criticise the President or the policies are not anti-American. We are against his policies, nothing more, nothing less. Lots of people in America criticise his policies too; are they anti-American? Lots of us criticise policies of the Irish government; are we anti-Irish? Of course not. Lots of us have probably been in America and loved it. Many of us have friends and relations there. We watch and enjoy American TV programmes and movies. We listen to their music and hold some musicians, like the aformentioned Elvis, in very high esteem. We use inventions created by Americans. We don't agree with their foreign policy, but that does not make us anti-American.

Even on their foreign policy, America has had many positive influences. It has done many good things in the world and some of its interventions have been positive. It has the ability to be a force for good in those and other situations. So it is really only some of their foreign policy we disagree with. I disagree with some of their foreign policy but I am not anti-American or any of the other labels thrown at us like pro-Saddam, anti-democratic, pro-terrorist, anti-freedom etc. It is much easier to label us than to deal with the issues we raise. So Sleepy, I doubt you are anti-American, even if you say you are proud to be. You can be against some of their foreign policies and proud of that.

My point exactly. Now can people stop using the damn word as an insult to anyone that disagrees with baby Bush and his tyrannical administration?

Lemming

Sleepy wrote:

My point exactly. Now can people stop using the damn word as an insult to anyone that disagrees with baby Bush and his tyrannical administration?

It's on par with the use of the word "liberal" in the US. A way to try and dismiss your opponent's ideas when you can't answer back.


To quote Bill Hicks:

Pseudo yee-hawr accent: "These liberals think people should eat!!"

Only Republicans could make human rights a partisan issue

Sleepy

I love the Bill Hicks quote in DeVore's sig these days:

Redneck in the Audience: "America, love it or leave it?!"
Bill Hicks: "and become a victim of our foreign policy?!"

bonkey

Lemming wrote:

It's on par with the use of the word "liberal" in the US. A way to try and dismiss your opponent's ideas when you can't answer back.

What gets me though, is that the meaning of liberal goes along the lines of :

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

It frightens me that this is used as an insult. It almost implies that close-mindedness, coupled with intolerance and miserliness are the qualities one should be trying to have.....

jc

jc

shotamoose

Weirdly, for many Americans 'liberal' now means someone who wants to force their morals onto everyone else. Which is odd, as to me liberal views on gay rights, abortion and the separation of church and state are about precisely the opposite. Many conservatives simply want the freedom to keep restricting the freedom of others ...

For years the US notion or perception of Freedom has been different to the rest of the world. The US believes in Freedom & Democracy the same way that N.Korea looks at Communism, a totally narrow-minded way. The alternative is that the rest of western power looks at Freedom and Democracy in a totally different way.

For the US, Freedom and the right to have freedom comes about only their way or the High way. Either you're with them or you're not. There are no Grey areas. Either you agree with all their policies, or you're the Enemy.

Lately I've been on a number of IRC channels split with democrats or Republicians. And I know i've had extreme views in the past, but these guys can be downright ignorant, unknowledgeable, and isolationalist in their views. And they seem to be growing in numbers.

Anti-Americanism? Damn straight. Same way as I'm anti-Korean. I don't like the isolationist, and aggressive attitudes either culture has at the moment. The US has become dangerous, as it counts itself as being separate to the rest of the world, without need to think about the consequences to their actions.

caulfield

I agree with a lot of what sleepy says but I think everyone should look a little closer to home. I am not talking about the so-called 'war on terror'.
Its more to do with our own society. Why can't a gay couple who are together for the last 23yrs not be able to file the same tax return?
Why does the Angelus appear every night at 6pm on Rte 1 (are we all catholics, is that not a little biased)
Why do FF and FG not support the war yet find it okay to allow war planes that may have bombed fallujah, refuel at Shannon.
Health Care? How many people can afford to pay 40 euro just to see a Doctor and that's before the prescription.

I'm just putting it to you that, Yes, GWB has made the world that little bit unsafe and yes his war is illegal and his conservative values cannot be considered as equality. But before you shout me down.... I think if I were an American (I have lived there for several yrs), I would ask Ireland to take a closer look at our own society!

Flukey

Yes Klaz, some of that is true, but that is not representative of the country as a whole and it manifests itself mostly in the policies of the government. There are lots of Americans that have the same views as you and as I said, in relation to their culture and other things, there is much we like about America. There are lots of people in every country with ridiculous ill-informed views, so in many ways America is no different. The difference is their power and range of influence in different ways, not just political and military, but in things like media and TV. We have a lot more familiarity with American society than we have with others.

Even some of our opinions on other places are influenced by them. North Korea is far from perfect, but us not knowing much about it could also mean there are a lot of good things we don't know about, as the media will push the bad things. A lot of the ill-informed Americans think that Iraq is populated with terrorists and that the civilians are dancing on the streets celebrating their freedom, because that is what they are being told.

Ireland has suffered from negative media depictions around the world. There are still people out there who think it is overrun by terrorists, or has a major British presence suppressing the people all around the country and would be afraid to come here in case they might be killed. They may well be killed if they come here, but that is far more likely to be as a result of a traffic accident or drowning or falling or whatever. Still, even in countries like Britain there are people that believe the extreme view of Ireland, because apart from Northern Ireland, very little that happens here is reported outside the country. The smoking ban was one story that did make it out of the country this year, but not many stories do.

Flukey

caulfield wrote:

I agree with a lot of what sleepy says but I think everyone should look a little closer to home. I am not talking about the so-called 'war on terror'.
Its more to do with our own society. Why can't a gay couple who are together for the last 23yrs not be able to file the same tax return?
Why does the Angelus appear every night at 6pm on Rte 1 (are we all catholics, is that not a little biased)
Why do FF and FG not support the war yet find it okay to allow war planes that may have bombed fallujah, refuel at Shannon.
Health Care? How many people can afford to pay 40 euro just to see a Doctor and that's before the prescription.

I'm just putting it to you that, Yes, GWB has made the world that little bit unsafe and yes his war is illegal and his conservative values cannot be considered as equality. But before you shout me down.... I think if I were an American (I have lived there for several yrs), I would ask Ireland to take a closer look at our own society!

Our society is indeed far from perfect of course Caulfield. Let's look at some of the specific issued you raised though. The Angelus takes up just 2 minutes each day and does not appear on the majority of broadcasters in the country. There are lots of programmes on the different religions in the country and other groups in the country on the many broadcaster we have, so the "Angelus problem" is overstated. Why can't the gay couple be treated the same as married people? Simple, the view is that they are not married. There is a misconception that gays and lesbians can't get married here, which is not true. Many gay men have wives and many lesbians have husbands, so gays and lesbians can and do get married in Ireland and there is no law that says they can't. If those two women find husbands, they will be entitled to the same rights as any other married couples, so they are not seen as being discriminated against. Some other arrangement could be come to, but a woman and a woman can't be called a marriage any more than a dog can be called a cat or a deckchair called a toilet roll. What they need to do is come to some other arrangement that allows co-habiting couples to have different tax arrangements. As to Shannon, well that is all about money. It is big business and they don't want to turn it down and it is far enough removed from the situation for them to say it is not connected and they get round it that way. As to our health service, well that is a major problem and a lot needs to be done. The problem is management and the vested interests. Money is not as big a problem as is often said. It is more how it is being spent, than the amount. You could make major improvements to the health service without an extra cent put in, if it was managed better. You are right, we have things to sort out, but nevertheless that does not preclude us from making comments on other situations. Of course, following the same logic, America should never have gone near Iraq until they had a perfect society.

Yes Klaz, some of that is true, but that is not representative of the country as a whole and it manifests itself mostly in the policies of the government. There are lots of Americans that have the same views as you and as I said, in relation to their culture and other things, there is much we like about America. There are lots of people in every country with ridiculous ill-informed views, so in many ways America is no different. The difference is their power and range of influence in different ways, not just political and military, but in things like media and TV. We have a lot more familiarity with American society than we have with others.

Flukey, I agree with most of what you say. The problem is that Extremist groups in the US have more access to power and influence. Fringe groups in ireland can't really influence government policy, however, dedicated Religious groups in the States can influence laws quite well.

And believe me I believe Irish people to be just as ignorant at times as any nation out there. The problem lies with the level of education, & mis-information that exists among teh american people. Ireland can be bad, but between Fox news and other stations (who have admitted that they can lie), US media is crazy.

Flukey

Very true Klaz and some of them here are buying into the same rubbish many Americans have been fed about Iraq, resulting in the number of threads we have had on the subject in recent days.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but a woman and a woman can't be called a marriage any more than a dog can be called a cat or a deckchair called a toilet roll.

why?

Flukey

Because a marriage is joining a man and a woman. What we call a joining of a same sex couple is not the issue though. The issue is recognition of co-habiting relationships and giving them the same or similar tax entitlements to married couples, whether they be same sex or just two people living together. That is where the anomaly is. We all know people who are living together, some for many years, who don't get the benefit in taxation terms as married couples do, although they have similar situations, like children and a mortgage to pay etc. The revenue authorities don't give the recognition to that and that is where the problem lies.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chill

Flukey wrote:

Why can't the gay couple be treated the same as married people? Simple, the view is that they are not married.

Who's view is that ? and when was it measured ?

a woman and a woman can't be called a marriage any more than a dog can be called a cat or a deckchair called a toilet roll.

Why not ? Who says ?

Flukey

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. That is what everyone says. That is what the law says. That is what a dictionary says, aswell as the joining of elements. Marriage is accepted as being the joining of a man and a woman Divorce is not the same as separation. Single isn't the same as widowed. Joining a man and a woman is not the same as a joining a same-sex couple. We can have a same sex joining if we want, call it something, giving it a legal standing, define entitlements or whatever. There is no problem about that. As I said gays and lesbians are free to get married, so it is wrong to say they can't. With the possible exception of parents and children, and siblings, any man can marry any woman if they both agree. We distinguish other marital statuses, so why should a same-sex union be any different? If anything, labelling it the same as something else would be undermining it. It deserves recognition in its own right, which is what people want, so why are people so against giving it its own name and identity? It seems contradictory that people want specific recognition of same-sex unions, but don't want to give it its own identity. Anyway we are getting off topic, in fact doubly so. The issue this came from was around tax and the thread is about Anti-Americanism.

Sleepy

Flukey wrote:

whether they be same sex or just two people living together.

Are two people of the same sex who live together not just two people living together? I'm sorry, you're confusing me with your bigotry.

Flukey

Yes, two people living together are two people living together, whether they be friends, brothers, sisters, brother and sister, husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and the person they are responsible for, lovers, flatmates, cousins or whatever. Some of those have legal recognition, some don't. People are looking for more of those to have one, which I said I agree with. Where is there any bigotry?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

chill

Flukey wrote:

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman.

Says who ?

That is what everyone says.

Everyone ? Not me it isn't.

That is what the law says.

You mean the law that used to make women the 'property' of a man ? the law that used to give only men the vote ? that law ?

That is what a dictionary says..

The dictionary that has new words and changes to the meaning of old words in the thousands every year ? that dictionary ?

Marriage is accepted as being the joining of a man and a woman.

Accepted by whom ?

Joining a man and a woman is not the same as a joining a same-sex couple.

Why ?

We can have a same sex joining if we want, call it something, giving it a legal standing, define entitlements or whatever. There is no problem about that.

Exactly... and let's call it "Marriage" !!

As I said gays and lesbians are free to get married, so it is wrong to say they can't.

Except they cannot chose the person they marry...

It deserves recognition in its own right,

Now you're taking the p1ss....:)

It seems contradictory that people want specific recognition of same-sex unions, but don't want to give it its own identity.

Why is it contradictory ? They want the SAME rights and the SAME status and the SAME laws and the SAME taxes. Sounds to me like we should use the SAME word !

Anyway we are getting off topic, in fact doubly so. The issue this came from was around tax and the thread is about Anti-Americanism.

Agreed.....
:rolleyes:

claidheamh

Flukey wrote:

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. That is what everyone says. That is what the law says. That is what a dictionary says, aswell as the joining of elements.

Everyone eh?

In the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Purusha produces a wife from his own body, (thus each being only one sex). He copulates with himself producing humans.

Not familiar with the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad?

Hinduism- One of the "other" religions...

Therefore, tax law can be skewed as a direct result, by the imposition of a particular religious belief within a community.

bonkey

Can we get back on topic please.

As well as having nothing to do with the topic, the current direction would seem to be more a Humanities-relevant one rather than a Politics one.

jc