tv // lbd // shoulder touch

I'm such a little shit-disturber

Good post to maybe skip past if you're not into international politics and/or are a Brit. No offense, I just couldn't pass this up ;)

I tend to steal things from Lee's blog a lot, being the font of useful information that he is. I don't always agree with him, but his blog opened up a whole new internet world to me. So hopefully he doesn't mind my snagging things from time to time. It's all about sharing the love, conservative brothers and sisters ;)

Anyway, the latest bit from Lee was actually from one of his readers, a Brit sharing his thoughts about our President and the UK's reaction to him. Since this is someone else's (not Lee's) work, I'm going to post the link instead. Becc and Allie especially, take a gander at this. I think it's quite, if I may say so, brilliant. ;)

A Letter from Blighty.

Here's an interesting... counterpoint of a sort. Sorta.

(In other news, I'm that close to 20,000 :D)
  • Current Mood: impressed impressed
In the schools of England we're now encouraging the children to accept other people's opinions off hand rather than stand up and argue what you believe in. We're losing the ability to think for ourselves.

And, sadly, the same thing happens in American schools, where tolerance is the greatest good, even to the exclusion of the ability to reason for yourself. Where disagreeing with something is automatically judging it, unless the person you are disagreeing with happens to be conservative; and then, of course, you are right to judge them, because they are narrow-minded meanies.

So, yeah, I'm glad I read that letter. I've mostly been avoiding the topic because I dislike randomly offending people, but thanks for the heads-up. The Guardian article was also interesting, especially because I've always heard what a liberal paper it is.

And, I saw the post that said you hit 20,000! Yay for you. I hope you did get a good night's sleep as a reward, and that you make it to the mystical 33,000 by Saturday!

The Guardian article was also interesting, especially because I've always heard what a liberal paper it is.

It's probably worth mentioning that the Guardian, being left wing, supports the government. Another view (not necessarily mine... I don't want to get into an argument with anyone) is expressed in this article inthe Times.

Thanks
Thanks for that link, too. Sometimes it's hard as one who sits here in America to really understand what people in other countries are thinking. It's been a little disheartening to see so much Anti-Bush stuff on my friends list, but it is interesting to consider that it isn't necessarily anti-American.
Re: Thanks
I heard the new poll quoted in the Times mentioned on Morning Edition on NPR this morning. I think, as was described on the radio yesterday morning, one of the big issues is that George W. Bush is a Texas Republican populist, and that tends not to play very well on the world stage.

I pretty much agree with that assessment. It's not the US that is disliked, so much as President Bush personally. Part of this is his image, part of this is the fact that he simply doesn't seem to be well spoken - something you'd think is unusual for a person that has an MBA from Harvard, and has spent many years in politics.

It's also related to the policies that the Bush Administration pursues - particularly Foreign Policy. Remember that many people in Europe were frustrated with the Bush Administration well before the Iraq war. This was over things like the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which the US had agreed to, and President Bush then refused to sign.

I'm sure it's also related to the US' initial refusal to use the UN in the rebuilding efforts in Iraq, only to now be pushing the UN for greater involvement, apparently because things aren't working out the way that the Bush Administration would have liked. It's kind of like "I don't want to know about the UN unless I can make use of it" type deal. The UN is very important to most Europeans, primarily because of all the war and destruction wrought there over the last 300 years - destruction on a scale that has never really affected the US.

To top it all off, the fact that fully half of London's Metropolitain Police Force, some 14,000 officers, will be used in protecting President Bush during his visit seems simply inconcievable. Can you imagine the uproar if half of New York City's police department was called away from every other task and assigned to protect of a foreign head of state for three days? (I use NYC as an example as the population of NYC within city limits is 8 million, while that of London is 7.1 million.) You'd never hear of it. And yet that is happening in London. It's no wonder that people want to protest.

And on a personal note, the thing that disgusts me more than anything else is the amount of money that President Bush has raised, and will raise, for his campaign fund. Can anyone legitimately explain why over $250 million is needed? I mean, Bush complained about the fund raising of Clinton, and then turned around and raised twice as much himself. That alone makes him a hypocrite, as it's a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do".

Anyway, I'm not attempting to rail against the US here, so I apologise if it came out that way. All I really wanted to say is that the objections are more about President Bush than the US in general, which remains very popular globally, and provide some possible reasons for that unpopularity.
Re: Thanks
Okay. . . I had seriously considered just not responding to this, because my reply is going to reveal my inner rightwing-extremist-fundamentalist.

Stand back a moment, while I turn into a big green monster.

I'm going to try to stick to one issue here, and that is comparing Bush to Clinton, because if Bush hadn't been elected, Gore's actions would have likely been more of the same.

part of this is the fact that he simply doesn't seem to be well spoken

I would rather listen to someone who says what he truly believes than someone who sounds good spouting whatever his pollsters have come up with for the week.

This was over things like the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which the US had agreed to, and President Bush then refused to sign.

It isn't Bush's job to make the whole world happy with him. It's more important to me that he is signing legislation that has passed the House and Senate in this country, for instance the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which Clinton vetoed numerous times while he was in office.

(And speaking of refusing to sign something, what about the congress refusing to even vote on Bush's appointed Judges? No other congress has abused that power to that extent.)

It's kind of like "I don't want to know about the UN unless I can make use of it" type deal.

The US is one of a handful of countries that has paid the most money to support the UN, and yet the UN has refused to support the US on many occasions. So, Bush wants Americans to command the American military. I think that he makes a lot more sense than Clinton, who not only let the Mid-East situation escalate to this level, but also put US troops under UN control.

I don't remember the exact name of the committee, but I do remember that within the last couple of years, the UN had some kind of committee on worldwide religious freedom. Instead of asking religiously free countries to participate, they asked mostly nations that have an established state religion, causing many to wonder if the UN is even in favor of religious freedom.

To top it all off, the fact that fully half of London's Metropolitain Police Force, some 14,000 officers, will be used in protecting President Bush during his visit seems simply inconcievable.

I'm not sure whose decision that was, but I'm sure it would not have been necessary if there hadn't been so many protests planned and publicized.

I mean, Bush complained about the fund raising of Clinton, and then turned around and raised twice as much himself. That alone makes him a hypocrite, as it's a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do".

Since I haven't heard those numbers before, I can't speak to that directly, but I can say that Bush is a politician. Politicians do have a tendency to raise funds and stuff like that. There is no perfect leader who will not make bad decisions or go against something that he has said to disagree with.

But personally, I'd rather his one real vice to be fund-raising, rather than womanizing, ignoring the constitutional separation of powers, promoting sin in public schools, and encouraging the murder of millions of babies a year.



*steps down off of soap box*


*returns to normal color*


*decides to take something for the headache*


*hugs* Rob. I don't understand you, but I still love you like my big brother.
Re: Thanks
I wasn't attempting to compare Bush to Clinton. I was attempting to give a viewpoint that most Americans don't see. That said . . .

I would rather listen to someone who says what he truly believes than someone who sounds good spouting whatever his pollsters have come up with for the week.

Agreed. So why is it that Bush says what Karl Rove comes up with each week? ;)

It isn't Bush's job to make the whole world happy with him.

I never said it was. However, taking a unilateralist stance on global issues not only isolates the US, it severely antagonises countries who are supposed to be allies.

what about the congress refusing to even vote on Bush's appointed Judges? No other congress has abused that power to that extent.

I'm sorry, but the Senate has approved all but four appointees to the Federal benches. That's right, only FOUR have not been approved out of 172 nominations. The Republicans never even let dozens of Clinton's appointees get out of committee. That's not to say that I agree with the tactics being used by either side, but in this case there is a significant log in the Republican's eyes that they need to remove before they start saying criticizing the Democrats over this issue. They all must have conveniently short memories.

The US is one of a handful of countries that has paid the most money to support the UN, and yet the UN has refused to support the US on many occasions.

So the fact that the US is the largest contributor to the UN means that they should rubber stamp everything the US wants to do? UN dues are calculated based on economic strength - the wealthiest countries pay the most. Each country has equal representation at the UN, and decisions are made based on consensus. Should the Senate support everything that the 2 California senators want to do simply because California is the largest single contributor to the US economy?

Instead of asking religiously free countries to participate, they asked mostly nations that have an established state religion, causing many to wonder if the UN is even in favor of religious freedom.

I'm not saying that the UN is not flawed in many ways. Yes, they do often make strange appointments and have unusual committees. They also seem at many points to be overly bureaucratic. However, they are a body that was set up to oversee international relations ( you can read the UN Charter here ), and simply ignoring the UN when it's convenient to do so in no way serves the United States.

I'm sure it would not have been necessary if there hadn't been so many protests planned and publicized.

Yes, there are a lot of protests organized. People are using their right to free speech to express their dissatisfaction with President Bush's policies. It still seems excessive, especially when the White House insisted that a large number of armed US guards, not just Secret Service agents, accompany President Bush everywhere - remember that the regular British policeman is unarmed.

Anyway, I've gone on enough spamming Alli's LJ. Sorry Alli. I guess we just agree to disagree on some things, one of which is that there's something about George Bush I don't like despite the fact that we're on the same side of the political spectrum. And FYI, I think I would have preferred McCain to Bush or Gore. At least he seems to stand on his principles. ;D
That's terrific, thanks :)

Bush speaks awkwardly, but acts powerfully. The European ideal is a politician who speaks beautifully and does nothing.

Too true, too true ;)